Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals tend to reason in biased ways, specifically by searching for evidence that supports their prior beliefs and by ignoring counterevidence.
“Argument-counterargument integration is a complex process since individuals tend to reason in biased ways, specifically by searching for evidence that supports their prior beliefs and by ignoring counterevidence (Nickerson, 1998;Villarroel et al., 2016).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Villarroel et al., 2016
Deliberative dialogues help students produce two-sided essays that integrate arguments and counterarguments, reducing confirmation bias, compared with persuasive dialogues.
“Deliberative dialogues, compared to persuasive dialogues, also help students to elaborate two-sided essays i.e. texts, which involve argument-counterargument integration, mitigating the effects of confirmation-bias (Felton et al., 2009;Villarroel et al., 2016).”
From Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education (2021) · cites this paper as Villarroel et al., 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M.
- Affiliations
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- San Jose State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Villarroel, Constanza
- Venue
- International Journal of Educational Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 79
- Pages
- 167-179
- ISSN
- 0883-0355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2497051470
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Keywords
- confirmation bias, disconfirming evidence, argumentative writing, persuasion, consensus building, evidence evaluation, argumentative essay, young adults
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
