Argumentation Dec 2025 Open Access

Can People be Made More Rational? Testing Whether People’s Ability to Assess Arguments can be Enhanced

Henrik Friberg-Fernros ; Sebastian Lundmark University of Gothenburg ; Nora Theorin University of Gothenburg ; Jakob Ahlbom Stockholm University ; Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson

Abstract

Abstract Scholars have expressed widespread concern about voters’ ability to critically evaluate political messages, particularly in light of recent democratic outcomes such as the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum. This study investigates whether written instructions alone—without interpersonal interaction—can enhance individuals’ ability to assess the strength of arguments. Drawing on the argument scheme approach and its associated critical questions, we establish a standard of argument quality and a method for evaluating arguments. In an experimental study, we test whether instructions on using critical questions improve participants’ evaluations of political arguments, and whether repeated exposure strengthens this effect. The results show that participants who received repeated instructions distinguished more clearly between low- and high-quality arguments than those who received instructions only once or not at all, suggesting an improved ability to evaluate political arguments.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2025-12-06
DOI
10.1007/s10503-025-09683-y
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (47) · 2 in this index

  1. AAPOR (The American Association for Public Opinion Research). 2023. Standard definitions: Final dispositions …
  2. C Achen (2016)
    Democracy for realists
     ↗
  3. Blair, Anthony J. 2012. Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair, edite…
     ↗
  4. S Chambers (2021)
    Chambers, S. 2021. Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy: Is fake news destroying the pu…
    Political Studies  ↗
  5. J Correll (2022)
    Correll, J., C. Mellinger, and E.J. Pedersen. 2022. Flexible approaches for estimating partial eta squared in…
    Behavior Research Methods  ↗
Show all 47 →
  1. Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 1980. Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind …
  2. JN Druckman (2019)
    Druckman, J.N., and M.C. McGrath. 2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference for…
    Nature Climate Change  ↗
  3. Dutilh, N. 2022. C. Argument and Argumentation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), …
  4. JB Freeman (2021)
    Freeman, J.B. 2021. Walton on ethical argumentation. Journal of Applied Logics 2631 (1).
    Journal of Applied Logics
  5. RE Goodin (2018)
    An epistemic theory of democracy
     ↗
  6. RL Greene (2008)
    In Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference. Cognitive psychology of memory
     ↗
  7. U Hahn (2020)
    Hahn, U. 2020. Argument quality in real world argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24 (5): 363–374.
    Trends in Cognitive Sciences  ↗
  8. U Hahn (2016)
    Hahn, U., and J. Hornikx. 2016. A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Baye…
    Synthese  ↗
  9. AC Hastings (1962)
    A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation
  10. H Hoeken (2012)
    Hoeken, H., R. Timmers, and P.J. Schellens. 2012. Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a co…
    Thinking & Reasoning  ↗
  11. H Hoeken (2014)
    Hoeken, H., E. Šorm, and P.J. Schellens. 2014. Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople’s crit…
    Thinking & Reasoning  ↗
  12. H Hoeken (2020)
    Hoeken, H., J. Hornikx, and Y. Linders. 2020. The importance and use of normative criteria to manipulate argu…
    Journal of Advertising  ↗
  13. MJ Hornsey (2020)
    Hornsey, M.J. 2020. Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. …
    Current Directions in Psychological Science  ↗
  14. PN Johnson-Laird (1999)
    Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1999. Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1): 109–135.
    Annual Review of Psychology  ↗
  15. Kahan, D.M. 2015. The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 1: What politically motivated reasoning …
     ↗
  16. DM Kahan (2017)
    Kahan, D.M., E. Peters, E.C. Dawson, and P. Slovic. 2017. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government.…
    Behavioural Public Policy  ↗
  17. KY Ku (2010)
    Ku, K.Y., and I.T. Ho. 2010. Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learn…
    Metacognition and Learning  ↗
  18. ER Lai (2011)
    Lai, E.R. 2011. Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson’s Research Reports 6 (1): 40–41.
    Pearson’s Research Reports
  19. AA Larson (2009)
    Larson, A.A., M.A. Britt, and C.A. Kurby. 2009. Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. The Jou…
    The Journal of Experimental Education  ↗
  20. RR Lau (2008)
    Lau, R.R., D.J. Andersen, and D.P. Redlawsk. 2008. An exploration of correct voting in recent US presidential…
    American Journal of Political Science  ↗
  21. M Levendusky (2024)
    Levendusky, M. 2024. Can information persuade rather than polarize? A review of Alex Coppock’s Persuasion in …
    Political Science Quarterly  ↗
  22. S Lewandowsky (2016)
    Lewandowsky, S., and K. Oberauer. 2016. Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological S…
    Current Directions in Psychological Science  ↗
  23. Lin, H. 2024. Bayesian Epistemology, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N.…
  24. A Lovett (2022)
    Lovett, A. 2022. Voter motivation. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 22(3), 299–328.
    J Ethics & Soc Phil
  25. H Mercier (2011)
    Mercier, H. 2011. Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development 26 (3): 177–191.
    Cognitive Development  ↗
  26. H Münchow (2023)
    Münchow, H., S.P. Tiffin-Richards, L. Fleischmann, S. Pieschl, and T. Richter. 2023. Promoting students’ argu…
    Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft  ↗
  27. EM Nussbaum (2011)
    Nussbaum, E.M. 2011. Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for arg…
    Educational Psychologist  ↗
  28. ME Nussbaum (2019)
    Nussbaum, M.E., D. Slife I.J., N. Kardash, C.M. Turgut, and D. Vallett. 2019. Using critical questions to eva…
    Reading and Writing  ↗
  29. EM Nussbaum (2023)
    Nussbaum, E.M., I.J. Dove, and L.G. Putney. 2023. Bridging dialogic pedagogy and argumentation theory through…
    Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal  ↗
  30. DE Over (2024)
    Human reasoning
     ↗
  31. G Pennycook (2019)
    Pennycook, G., and D.G. Rand. 2019. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explaine…
    Cognition  ↗
  32. F Peter (2023)
    The grounds of political legitimacy
     ↗
  33. Schellens et al. (2017)
    Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-S…
    Argumentation
  34. MW Someren (1994)
    The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes
  35. I Somin (2016)
    Democracy and political ignorance: Why smaller government is smarter
  36. Y Song (2013)
    Song, Y., and R.P. Ferretti. 2013. Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising proce…
    Reading and Writing  ↗
  37. UC Berkeley Research. 2024. Economy, Sexism and Conspiracies Fueled Trump’s Reelection (https://vcresearch.be…
  38. S von der Mühlen (2019)
    von der Mühlen, S., T. Richter, S. Schmid, and K. Berthold. 2019. How to improve argumentation comprehension …
    Instructional Science  ↗
  39. D Walton (2006)
    Walton, D. 2006. Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinio…
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  40. D Walton (2008)
    Argumentation schemes
     ↗
  41. DR Wissinger (2016)
    Wissinger, D.R., and S. De La Paz. 2016. Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written h…
    Journal of Educational Psychology  ↗
  42. Yu et al. (2020)
    Schemes, Critical Questions, and Complete Argument Evaluation
    Argumentation
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →