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

17Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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). © 1970 American Psychological Association.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bettinghaus, E., Miller, G., & Steinfatt, T. (1970). Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029864

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free