Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons

Erwin Bettinghaus, Gerald Miller, Thomas Steinfatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Investigated the conditions that facilitate judgment of an argument's validity. 120 high- and low-dogmatic Ss were matched by group for reasoning ability and randomized to positive- and negative-source conditions. Each S judged the logical validity of 16 syllogisms which were counterbalanced on the basis of a pretest. 2 hypotheses were tested: (a) when syllogisms are attributed to positive and negative sources, low dogmatics will make a significantly greater number of accurate judgments of validity than will high dogmatics; and (b) high dogmatics will make more accurate judgments of validity under conditions of positive sources and valid syllogisms and under conditions of negative sources and invalid syllogisms. Conversely, low dogmatics will be more accurate under conditions of positive sources and invalid syllogisms and under conditions of negative sources and valid syllogisms. A 4-factor analysis of variance supported both hypotheses. Results are discussed as consistent with M. Rokeach's dogmatism theory, and the effect of certain syllogistic forms on the judgmental ability of high- and low-dogmatic Ss is considered. (20 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)238-244
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of personality and social psychology
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 1970

Keywords

  • dogmatism
  • logical validity judgments of syllogisms, source evaluation &

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this