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 journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

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
Pages (from-to)238-244
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Personality and Social Psychology
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 1970
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

dogmatics
Aptitude
human being
evaluation
Statistical Factor Analysis
Analysis of Variance
Research Design
dogmatism
ability
analysis of variance
factor analysis

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons. / Bettinghaus, Erwin; Miller, Gerald; Steinfatt, Thomas.

In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2, 01.10.1970, p. 238-244.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bettinghaus, Erwin ; Miller, Gerald ; Steinfatt, Thomas. / Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1970 ; Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 238-244.
@article{a4d42faebe23474fa8ec6d0d209e61e1,
title = "Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons",
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).",
keywords = "dogmatism, logical validity judgments of syllogisms, source evaluation &",
author = "Erwin Bettinghaus and Gerald Miller and Thomas Steinfatt",
year = "1970",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/h0029864",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "238--244",
journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-3514",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons

AU - Bettinghaus, Erwin

AU - Miller, Gerald

AU - Steinfatt, Thomas

PY - 1970/10/1

Y1 - 1970/10/1

N2 - 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).

AB - 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).

KW - dogmatism

KW - logical validity judgments of syllogisms, source evaluation &

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0014855762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0014855762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/h0029864

DO - 10.1037/h0029864

M3 - Article

C2 - 5479129

AN - SCOPUS:0014855762

VL - 16

SP - 238

EP - 244

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 2

ER -