oa Welke rol kan communicatie spelen bij het oplossen van grote maatschappelijke problemen?

References

1. Andrei, P. (2019). Effective communication. The patterns of easy influence. Amazon Digital Services.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Blair, J. A. (2015). What is informal logic? In F. H.van Eemeren & B.Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 27-42). Springer.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
   [Google Scholar]
4. Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laser photo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 877-889. https://doi/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.877
   [Google Scholar]
5. Hahn, U., & Harris, A. (2014). What does it mean to be biased: Motivated reasoning and rationality. In B. H.Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 41-102). Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Heck, W. (2022, 5juli). ‘Vijf jaar voor poging tot moord’. NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/07/04/om-eist-vijf-jaar-cel-en-tbs-voor-poging-tot-moord-op-groningse-journalist-a4135485
   [Google Scholar]
7. Hoeken, H. (2019). Wat leert onderzoek over overtuigende teksten over het ontwerpen van overtuigender teksten? Een overzicht van meta-analytische studies. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 105-128.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Hoeken, H., Fikkers, K., Eerland, A., Holleman, B., van Berkum, J., & Pander Maat, H. (2022). The Perceived Convincingness Model: why and under what conditions processing fluency and emotions are valid indicators of a message’s perceived convincingness. Communication Theory, 32(4), 488-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac019
   [Google Scholar]
9. Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., & Hustinx, L. (2012). Overtuigende teksten. Onderzoek en ontwerp (2e Ed.). Coutinho.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hogan, K. (2013). Invisible influence. The power to persuade anyone, anytime, anywhere. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
11. James, W. D. (1890). The principles of psychology. Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Jarvstad, A., & Hahn, U. (2011). Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Science, 35(4), 682-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01170.x
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., Braman, D., Evans, D., & Rachlinsky, J. J. (2012). “They saw a protest”: Cognitive illiberalism and the speech-conduct distinction. Stanford Law Review, 64(4), 851-906.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kock, N. (2012). Media naturalness theory: Human evolution and behaviour towards electronic communication technologies. In S. C.Robers (Ed.), Applied evolutionary psychology (pp. 381-398). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Lawson, R. (2006). The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work. Memory & Cognition, 34(8), 1667-1675.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Levy, N. (2022). Bad beliefs. Why they happen to good people. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Manktelow, K. I. (2004). Reasoning and rationality: The pure and the practical. In K. I.Manktelow & M. C.Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 157-177). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Mercier, H. (2020). Not born yesterday. The science of who we trust and what we believe. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. 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
    [Google Scholar]
21. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments from consequences: A review and integration. In C.Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook36 (pp. 109-135). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
23. O’Keefe, D. J., & Hoeken, H. (2021). Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and can’t be counted on—Not even when moderating conditions are specified. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-16. [664160]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664160
    [Google Scholar]
24. Pander Maat, H., Kleijn, S., & Frissen, S. (2023). LiNT: een leesbaarheidsformule en een leesbaarheidsinstrument. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 45(1), 2-39.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Pinker, S. (2021). Rationality. What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters. Allen Lane.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Purvis, R. S., Moore, R., Willis, D. E., Kraleti, S. S., Gurel-Headley, M. P., CarlLee, S., & McElfish, P. A. (2023). Key conversations and trusted information among hesitant adopters of the COVID-19 vaccine. Journal of Health Communication, 28(9), 595-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2244458
    [Google Scholar]
28. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 231-243. https://doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004
    [Google Scholar]
29. Schellens, P. J., & Jong, M. D. T. (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18, 295-323. https://doi:10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046707.68172.35
    [Google Scholar]
30. Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The knowledge illusion. The myth of individual thought and the power of collective wisdom. MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Sloman, S. A., & Rabb, N. (2016). Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1451-1460. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616662271
    [Google Scholar]
32. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
    [Google Scholar]
33. Stanovich, K. (2021). The bias that divides us. The science and politics of myside thinking. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Trouche, E., Shao, J., & Mercier, H. (2019). Objective evaluation of demonstrative arguments. Argumentation, 33(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9472-z
    [Google Scholar]
37. UNICEF (2023). The State of the World’s Children 2023: For every child, vaccination, UNICEF Innocenti – Global Office of Research and Foresight. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-worlds-children-2023
    [Google Scholar]
38. Van Berkum, J. (2018). Language comprehension, emotion, and sociality – Aren’t we missing something? In S.Rueschemeyer & G.Gaskell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 644-669). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Van Doorn, M. (2023). Waarom we beter denken dan we denken. Noordhoek.
    [Google Scholar]