Message Framing,Normative Advocacy and Persuasive Success

In a recent article in Argumentation, O’Keefe (Argumentation 21:151–163, 2007) observed that the well-known ‘framing effects’ in the social psychological literature on persuasion are akin to traditional fallacies of argumentation and reasoning and could be exploited for persuasive success in a way that conflicts with principles of responsible advocacy. Positively framed messages (“if you take aspirin, your heart will be more healthy”) differ in persuasive effect from negative frames (“if you do not take aspirin, your heart will be less healthy”), despite containing ‘equivalent’ content. This poses a potential problem, because people might be unduly (and unsuspectingly) influenced by mere presentational differences. By drawing on recent cognitive psychological work on framing effects in choice and decision making paradigms, however, we show that establishing whether two arguments are substantively equivalent—and hence, whether there is any normative requirement for them to be equally persuasive—is a difficult task. Even arguments that are logically equivalent may not be information equivalent. The normative implications of this for both speakers and listeners are discussed.     

Non-monotonicity and Informal Reasoning: Comment on Ferguson (2003)

In this paper, it is argued that Ferguson’s (2003, Argumentation 17, 335–346) recent proposal to reconcile monotonic logic with defeasibility has three counterintuitive consequences. First, the conclusions that can be derived from his new rule of inference are vacuous, a point that as already made against default logics when there are conflicting defaults. Second, his proposal requires a procedural “hack” to the break the symmetry between the disjuncts of the tautological conclusions to which his proposal leads. Third, Ferguson’s proposal amounts to arguing that all everyday inferences are sound by definition. It is concluded that the informal logic response to defeasibility, that an account of the context in which inferences are sound or unsound is required, still stands. It is also observed that another possible response is given by Bayesian probability theory (Oaksford and Chater, in press, Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; Hahn and Oaksford, in press, Synthese).     

Modulation of oculomotor capture by abrupt onsets during attentionally demanding visual search

The influence of abrupt onsets on attentionally demanding visual search (i.e., search for a letter target among heterogeneous letter distractors), as indexed by performance and eye movement measures, was investigated in a series of studies. In Experiments 1 and 2 we examined whether onsets would capture the eyes when the appearance of an onset predicted neither the location nor the identity of the target. Subjects did direct their eyes to the abrupt onsets on a disproportionate number of trials in these studies. Interestingly, however, onset capture was modulated by subjects' scan strategies. Furthermore, onsets captured the eyes less frequently than would have been predicted by paradigms showing attentional capture when no eye movements are required. Experiment 3 examined the question of whether onsets would capture the eyes in a situation in which they never served as the target. Capture was observed in this study. However, the magnitude of capture effects was substantially diminished as compared to previous behavioural studies in which the onset had a chance probability of serving as the target. These data are discussed in terms of the influence of top-down constraints on stimulus-driven attentional and oculomotor capture by abrupt onset stimuli.     

Collective fit increases team performances: extending regulatory fit from individuals to dyadic teams

People experience “regulatory fit” when they pursue a goal in a manner that suits their chronic regulatory orientation. This regulatory fit impacts performance positively. The present research extends performance gains due to fit from individuals to dyadic team performance. Study 1 manipulated team fit of 32 table football participants (i.e., promotion vs. prevention orientation and offense vs. defense positions). Team fit significantly predicted team success in an experimental tournament beyond team skill level. Study 2 replicated this result with data from a real‐life tournament including 66 highly experienced competitors. These findings broaden the concept of regulatory fit from individual to dyadic teams, and suggest collective fit as a possible important predictor for team success.