Abstract
The content of argumentative essays is determined by multiple factors, but belief influences are understudied compared to topic knowledge and argument schema. We investigate how beliefs influence the inclusion of basic components in argumentative writing. A pre-screening survey identified believers and disbelievers in gun control effectiveness. In a subsequent laboratory session, subjects (N = 324) read a one-sided text that was either consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Subjects then reported their beliefs and wrote a 250-word argumentative essay explaining them. These essays were coded for the presence or absence of a claim, the number of reasons supporting the claim, the presence of a counterargument, text content, and other factors. 682 supplementary subjects provided approximately 10 ratings for each essay on several factors, including position, clarity, and consideration of both sides. Subjects who read a belief consistent text wrote essays that were more likely to contain a claim, more reasons, and text content. Subjects who read a belief inconsistent text were more likely to include an evaluative statement about the text and to consider both sides of the issue. Individual differences in belief change were related to the likelihood of stating a claim, the number of reasons, and likelihood of mentioning text content. Results suggest that beliefs influence the basic components of argumentation that are included in argumentative essays. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374395
Andiliou, A., Ramsay, C. M., Murphy, K., P., & Fast, J. (2012). Weighing opposing positions: Examining the effects of intratextual persuasive messages on students’ knowledge and beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.10.001
Anglin, S. M. (2019). Do beliefs yield to evidence? Examining belief perseverance vs. change in response to congruent empirical findings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.02.004
Anmarkrud, Ø., McCrudden, M. T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: Online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science, 41(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9263-8
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007
Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
Bolz, M. J. (2022). Composing historical essays: Case studies of students’ reasoning. (Dissertation No. AAI28722759) [Doctoral dissertation: University of Illinois, Chicago].
Braasch, J. L. G., Haverkamp, Y. E., Latini, N., Shaw, S., Arshad, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2022). Belief bias when adolescents read to comprehend multiple conflicting texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 35, 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10262-w
Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 52–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701739207
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The causal attitude network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039802
Dandotkar, S., Magliano, J. P., & Britt, M. A. (2016). Effect logical relatedness and semantic overlap on argument evaluation. Discourse Processes, 53(7), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1087295
Diakidoy, I. A. N., Christodoulou, S. A., Floros, G., Iordanou, K., & Kargopoulos, P. V. (2015). Forming a belief: The contribution of comprehension to the evaluation and persuasive impact of argumentative text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12074
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
Ellis, L. M. (2015). A critique of the ubiquity of the toulmin model in argumentative writing instruction in the U.S.A. In van F. H. Emmeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 201–213). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. National Council of Teachers of English.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kobayashi, K. (2010). Strategic use of multiple texts for the evaluation of arguments. Reading Psychology, 31(2), 121–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710902754192
Kobayashi, K. (2014). Students’ consideration of source information during the reading of multiple texts and its effect on intertextual conflict resolution. Instructional Science, 42(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9276-3
Kobayashi, K. (2018). Effects of conflicting scientific arguments on belief change: Argument evaluation and expert consensus perception as mediators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12499
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Lenth, R. (2022). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.8.2, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
Lüdecke, D. (2018). Ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from Regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, *3*(26)), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
Mason, A. E., Braasch, J. L. G., Greenberg, D., Kessler, E. D., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2023). Comprehending multiple controversial texts about childhood vaccinations: Topic beliefs and integration instructions. Reading Psychology, 44(4), 436–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952
McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379
McCrudden, M. T., Barnes, A., McTigue, E. M., Welch, C., & MacDonald, E. (2017). The effect of perspective-taking on reasoning about strong and weak belief-relevant arguments. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1234411
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00041-5
National Assessment Governing Board. (2017). Writing framework for the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
Prati, A., & Senik, C. (2022). Feeling good is feeling better. Psychological Science, 33(11), 1828–1841. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221096158
Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.341
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Safer, M. A., & Keuler, D. J. (2002). Individual differences in misremembering pre-psychotherapy distress: Personality and memory distortion. Emotion, 2(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.2.162
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638
Sharot, T., Rollwage, M., Sunstein, C. R., & Fleming, S. M. (2023). Why and when beliefs change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 142–151.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2021). The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1498–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12432
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Strien, J. L. H., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2014). Dealing with conflicting information from multiple nonlinear texts: Effects of prior attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.021
van Strien, J. L. H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057
Villarroel, C., Garcia-Mila, M., Felton, M., & Miralda-Banda, A. (2019). Effect of argumentative goals in the quality of argumentative dialogue and written argumentation. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 42(1), 37–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1550162
Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90013-X
Vuletich, H. A., & Payne, B. K. (2019). Stability and change in implicit bias. Psychological Science, 30(6), 854–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844270
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., Takahashi, K., Vaughan, D., Wilke, C., Woo, K., & Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
Wolfe, C. R. (2012). Individual differences in the myside bias in reasoning and written argumentation. Written Communication, 29(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312457909
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701527674
Wolfe, M. B., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Beliefs and discourse processing (2nd ed., pp. 295–314). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Wolfe, M. B., & Kurby, C. A. (2017). Belief in the claim of an argument increases perceived argument soundness. Discourse Processes, 54(8), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137446
Wolfe, M. B., & Williams, T. J. (2017). Effects of text content and beliefs on informal argument evaluation. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319654
Wolfe, M. B., & Williams, T. J. (2018). Poor metacognitive awareness of belief change. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(9), 1898–1910. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1363792
Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019
Wolfe, M. B., Tanner, S. M., & Taylor, A. R. (2013). Processing and representation of arguments in one-sided texts about disputed topics. Discourse Processes, 50(7), 457–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.828480
Wolfe, M. B., Williams, T. J., Denison, A. J., & Hart, L. W. (under review). Verifying past beliefs influences belief change.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
This work was supported by the Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarship at Grand Valley State University. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hart, L.W., Wolfe, M.B., Williams, T.J. et al. Beliefs influence argumentative essay writing. Instr Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09663-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09663-x