Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning

Copeland, David E.; Gunawan, Kris; Bies-Hernandez, Nicole J.

doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0029-0

Cited by 10 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, if investigating how syllogistic reasoning ability relates to factors that are extraneous to the syllogistic content, the use of neutral content allows researchers to control for potential belief biases that distort accuracy performance. This is the type of syllogistic reasoning task design that was used in my thesis following the method of Copeland et al (2011).…”

Section: Belief-bias Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These questions involved only basic aspects of the descriptions and it encouraged participants to pay close attention to the source information. Copeland et al (2011) employed "necessary" syllogisms to be considered correct and "possible strong" syllogisms to be considered incorrect (see Evans et al, 1999). Recall that possible strong syllogisms are similar to possible weak syllogisms because they have at least one representation indicating that the syllogism holds true and an alternative representation indicating that it does not hold true.…”

Section: Relating Syllogistic Reasoning To Source Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The expertise of a source of information, in particular, is one of the most well-studied source characteristics in social psychology paradigms. Copeland, Gunawan, and Bies-Hernandez (2011) recently combined these two primarily distinct research areas. These researchers determined that source credibility effects were quite similar to belief-bias effects because both involved the influence of people's prior beliefs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Individual Differences Influence the Degree of Source Expertise Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning

Boucher¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar to Copeland, Gunawan, and Bies-Hernandez (2011), the present study investigated the influence of source expertise characteristics on people's susceptibility to bias in syllogistic reasoning. Each syllogistic conclusion was presented by one of two sources: an expert or a nonexpert. In the present experiment, the medium of presenting the source information was also altered to include visual images of the sources. Furthermore, individual differences measures were included in order to investigate whether working memory capacity and certain thinking styles (i.e., reflective or actively open-minded thinking) are related to the source expertise bias.

show abstract

Section: Belief-bias Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relating Syllogistic Reasoning To Source Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual Differences Influence the Degree of Source Expertise Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning

Boucher¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, high credibility sources are typically more persuasive than low credibility sources (see Copeland, Gunawan, & Bies‐Hernandez, ; Hovland & Weiss, ; Kelman & Hovland, ). Highly credible sources influence participants’ perceptions across various measures, such as ratings of confidence in one's own thoughts and ideas on an issue (Tormala, Briñol, & Petty, ), attitudes toward a product advertisement (Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, ), and the believability of a claim made by another source (Foy, LoCasto, Briner, & Dyar, ).…”

Section: Source Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision‐making in civil litigation: Effects of attorney credibility, evidence strength, and juror cognitive processing

Wood

DeVault

Miller

et al. 2019

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined the relationship between juror cognitive processing (measured by need for cognition [NFC]), attorney credibility, evidence strength, and civil litigation verdicts (liability, likelihood of causation, and compensatory damages). Participants (N = 446) viewed a videotaped mock civil trial in which the credibility of the attorneys and the strength of the plaintiff's evidence were manipulated. Plaintiff attorney credibility, defense attorney credibility, and strength of evidence interacted with one another for liability verdicts. In the strong evidence condition, the likelihood of a liable verdict was higher for a credible plaintiff attorney than a non‐credible plaintiff attorney when facing a non‐credible defense attorney. In the ambiguous evidence condition, the likelihood of a liable verdict was higher for a credible plaintiff attorney than a non‐credible plaintiff attorney when facing a credible defense attorney. Plaintiff attorney credibility, however, was found to be more influential on jurors’ decision‐making than case evidence for likelihood of causation and compensatory damage award decisions. Participants’ NFC also interacted with plaintiff attorney credibility. High NFC jurors were more influenced by a credible plaintiff attorney than low NFC jurors. Although these findings are counter to common findings in the NFC literature, they conform to a body of literature that supports the notion that jurors view attorney credibility as a piece of case evidence and not a peripheral cue as is often assumed. Thus, the findings indicate that attorneys do matter to the outcomes of cases. Policy and practice implications for attorneys and the courts are discussed.

show abstract

Fighting “bad science” in the information age: The effects of an intervention to stimulate evaluation and critique of false scientific claims

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With developments in technology (e.g., “Web 2.0” sites that allow users to author and create media content) and the removal of publication barriers, the quality of science information online now varies vastly. These changes in the review of published science information, along with increased facility of information distribution, have resulted in the spread of misinformation about science. As such, the role of evaluation when reading scientific claims has become a pressing issue when educating students. While recent studies have examined educational strategies for supporting evaluation of sources and plausibility of claims, there is little extant work on supporting students in critiquing the claims for flawed scientific reasoning. This study tested the efficacy of a structured reading support intervention for evaluation and critique on cultivating a critical awareness of flawed scientific claims in an online setting. We developed and validated a questionnaire to measure epistemic vigilance, implemented a large‐scale (N = 1081) Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of an original reading activity that elicits evaluation and critique of scientific claims, and measured whether the intervention increased epistemic vigilance of misinformation. Our RCT results suggested a moderate effect in students who complied with the treatment intervention. Furthermore, analyses of heterogeneous effects suggested that the intervention effects were driven by 11th‐grade students and students who self‐reported a moderate trust in science and medicine. Our findings point to the need for additional opportunities and instruction for students on critiquing scientific claims and the nature of specific errors in scientific reasoning.

show abstract

Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Individual Differences Influence the Degree of Source Expertise Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning

Individual Differences Influence the Degree of Source Expertise Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning

Decision‐making in civil litigation: Effects of attorney credibility, evidence strength, and juror cognitive processing

Fighting “bad science” in the information age: The effects of an intervention to stimulate evaluation and critique of false scientific claims

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About