oa Voor rede vatbaar: hoe goed zijn mensen in het redeneren met argumenten?

References

1. Breton, P.(2003). L’argumentation dans la communication (3e editie). Paris: La Découverte.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Carpenter, C. J.(2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality x processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41, 501-534.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Castelain, T., Bernard, S., & Mercier, H.(2018). Evidence that two-year-old children are sensitive to information presented in arguments. Infancy, 23, 124-135.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Corner, A., & Hahn, U.(2013). Normative theories of argumentation: Are some norms better than others?Synthese, 190, 3579-3610.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Eemeren, F. H. van(2010). Strategic maneuvring in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T.(2011). Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 233-290.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Garssen, B.J.(1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hahn, U., & Harris, A. J. L.(2014). What does it mean to be biased: rationality and motivated reasoning. In B.Ross (Red.) The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 41-102). London, UK: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J.(2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833-1873.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M.(2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704-732.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Hastings, A. C.(1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ongepubliceerd proefschrift, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Heijne, B.(2020). Mens/onmens. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., & Linders, Y.(2020). The importance and use of normative criteria to manipulate argument quality. Journal of Advertising, 49, 195-201.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hoeken, H., & Vugt, M. van(2014). Het bevooroordeelde gebruik van argumentatiespecifieke criteria. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 36, 87-105.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hofstede, G.(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hofstede, G.(1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hofstede, G.(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2e ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Red.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hornikx, J.(2011). Epistemic authority of professors and researchers: Differential perceptions by students from two cultural-educational systems. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 169-183.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hornikx, J.(2013). Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit: het ad populum-argument onder de loep. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 35, 128-143.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hornikx, J.(2020). Voor rede vatbaar. Inaugurele rede, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hornikx, J. (in voorbereiding).The psychological reality of argumentation schemes.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hornikx, J., & Best, J. de(2011). Persuasive evidence in India: An investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 246-257.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hornikx, J., & Haar, M. ter(2013). Evidence quality and persuasiveness: Germans are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 483-501.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H.(2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443-463.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Jansen, H.(2019). De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing41, 143-157.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Jansen, H.(2020). “The people want it, we’ll do it” Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9, 342-367.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kienpointner, M.(1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kunda, Z.(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Lloyd, G. E. R.(2013). Reasoning and culture in a historical perspective. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 437-457.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Mercier, H.(2011). On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 85-113.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Mercier, H.(2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 689-700.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.(2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.(2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J.(2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know?Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763-784.
    [Google Scholar]
38. O’Keefe, D. J.(2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2e editie). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
39. O’Keefe, D. J.(2007). Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research. Argumentation, 21, 151-163.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Planel, C.(1997). National cultural values and their role in learning: A comparative ethnographic study of state primary schooling in England and France. Comparative Education, 33, 349-373.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Schellens, P. J.(1985). Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, P. E.(2006). When credibility attacks: the reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Walton, D. N.(1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA:Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Walton, D. N.(1999). Appeal to popular opinion.University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.(2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Weerman, A., Hoeken, H., & Hornikx, J.(2016). Een kritische analyse van de manipulatie van argumentkwaliteit in reclameonderzoek. In D.Van de Mieroop, L.Buysse, R.Coesemans, & P.Gillaerts (Red.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 309-321). Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Zenker, F. (Red.) (2013). Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]