Objective Evaluation of Demonstrative Arguments

  • Emmanuel Trouche
  • Jing Shao
  • Hugo MercierEmail author


Many experiments suggest that participants are more critical of arguments that challenge their views or that come from untrustworthy sources. However, other results suggest that this might not be true of demonstrative arguments. A series of four experiments tested whether people are influenced by two factors when they evaluate demonstrative arguments: how confident they are in the answer being challenged by the argument, and how much they trust the source of the argument. Participants were not affected by their confidence in the answer challenged by the argument. By contrast, they were sometimes affected by their trust in the argument’s source. Analyses of reaction times and transfer problems suggest that source trustworthiness did not directly affect argument evaluation, but affected instead the number of times the participants considered the arguments. Our results thus suggest that people can evaluate demonstrative arguments objectively. In conclusion, we defend the hypothesis that people might also be able to evaluate non-demonstrative arguments objectively. These results support the predictions of the argumentative theory of reasoning.


Argument evaluation Demonstrative arguments Prior beliefs Trust Bias 

Supplementary material

10503_2018_9472_MOESM1_ESM.docx (271 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 271 kb)
10503_2018_9472_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (214 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 214 kb)


  1. Bialek, M., and G. Pennycook. 2017. The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods 50: 1953–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brem, S.K., and L.J. Rips. 2000. Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science 24: 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capaldi, C. 2017. Graduating from undergrads: Are Mechanical Turk workers more attentive than undergraduate participants? OSF. Retrieved from Accessed 9 Nov 2018.
  4. Choi, I., R.E. Nisbett, and A. Norenzayan. 1999. Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin 125 (1): 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corner, A., and U. Hahn. 2009. Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15 (3): 199–212.Google Scholar
  6. Corner, A., U. Hahn, and M. Oaksford. 2011. The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language 64 (2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, K., and E.E. Smith. 1996. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frederick, S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (4): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwald, A.G. 1968. Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In Psychological foundations of attitudes, ed. A.G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, and T.M. Ostrom, 147–170. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn, U., A.J.L. Harris, and A. Corner. 2009. Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic 29 (4): 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hahn, U., and J. Hornikx. 2016. A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese 193 (6): 1833–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114 (3): 704–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hahn, U., M. Oaksford, and H. Bayindir. 2005. How convinced should we be by negative evidence? In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, A.J., U. Hahn, J.K. Madsen, and A.S. Hsu. 2015. The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for a Bayesian network approach. Cognitive Science 40: 1496–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeken, H., E. Šorm, and P.J. Schellens. 2014. Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople’s criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Thinking & Reasoning 20 (1): 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoeken, H., R. Timmers, and P.J. Schellens. 2012. Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking & Reasoning 18 (3): 394–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hornikx, J. 2008. Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation 22 (4): 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hornikx, J., and U. Hahn. 2012. Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 18 (3): 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaczynski, P.A., and D.H. Gordon. 1996. Self-serving influences on adolescents’ evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 62: 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koriat, A., S. Lichtenstein, and B. Fischhoff. 1980. Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory and Cognition 6: 107–118.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D., and J. Lao. 1996. Effects of evidence on attitudes: Is polarization the norm? Psychological Science 7: 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108: 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laughlin, P.R. 2011. Group problem solving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laughlin, P.R., and A.L. Ellis. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22: 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levesque, H.J. 1986. Making believers out of computers. Artificial Intelligence 30 (1): 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mata, A., M.B. Ferreira, and S.J. Sherman. 2013. The metacognitive advantage of deliberative thinkers: A dual-process perspective on overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105 (3): 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercier, H. 2016a. Confirmation (or myside) bias. In Cognitive illusions, 2nd ed, ed. R. Pohl, 99–114. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mercier, H. 2016b. The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 (9): 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molden, D.C., and E.T. Higgins. 2005. Motivated thinking. In The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. K. Holyoak and R. Morrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Moshman, D., and M. Geil. 1998. Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking & Reasoning 4 (3): 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munro, G.D., P.H. Ditto, L.K. Lockhart, A. Fagerlin, M. Gready, and E. Peterson. 2002. Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 US presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 24 (1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nisbett, R.E. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…and why. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Norenzayan, A., E.E. Smith, B.J. Kim, and R.E. Nisbett. 2002. Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science 26 (5): 653–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oaksford, M., and U. Hahn. 2004. A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2): 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1979. Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petty, R.E., and D.T. Wegener. 1998. Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. D.T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 323–390. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Rips, L.J. 2001. Two kinds of reasoning. Psychological Science 12: 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taber, C.S., and M. Lodge. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tesser, A. 1978. Self-generated attitude change. In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, 289–338. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tormala, Z.L., and P. Briñol. 2015. Attitude change and persuasion. In The Cambridge handbook of consumer psychology, ed. M.I. Norton, D.D. Rucker, and C. Lamberton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Trouche, E., E. Sander, and H. Mercier. 2014. Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (5): 1958–1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, Laboratoire LangageCerveau et CognitionBronFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire Cognitions Humaine et ArtificielleEPHE & Université Paris 8ParisFrance
  3. 3.Université de Haute-AlsaceMulhouseFrance
  4. 4.Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’études cognitives, ENS, EHESSPSL University, CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations