The Skills of Argument
Abstract
The Skills of Argument presents a comprehensive empirical study of informal reasoning as argument, involving subjects across the life span. Subjects ranging in age from adolescence to late adulthood were asked to describe their views on social problems that people have occasion to think and talk about in everyday life, such as crime and unemployment. In addition to providing supporting evidence for their theories, subjects were asked to contemplate alternative theories and counterarguments and to evaluate new evidence on the topics. This is the first major study of informal reasoning across the life span. Highlighting the importance of argumentive reasoning in everyday thought, the book offers a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and studying thinking as argument. The findings address issues of major importance to cognitive and developmental psychologists, as well as educators concerned with improving the quality of people's thinking. The work is also relevant to philosophers, political scientists, and linguists interested in informal reasoning and argumentive discourse.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-4477 · Cited by 374 · see citing works
Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning.
Galotti, K. M. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.331 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Conditions of Knowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology and Education
Scheffler, I. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations.
Hutchby, I., Drew, P., & Grimshaw, A. D. (1991) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2580117 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Ever Since Durkheim: The Socialization of Human Development
Dowd, J. J. (2010) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000276507 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Allen, G. L. (2010) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000276356 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048 · see citing works
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 · Cited by 1,529 · see citing works
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02212307 · Cited by 1,443 · see citing works
The Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
Self-citationEpistemological Understanding as a Metacognitive Process: Thinking Aloud During Online Searching
Hofer, B. K. (2004) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015576 · Cited by 566 · see citing works
Dialogic Argumentation as a Vehicle for Developing Young Adolescents’ Thinking
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611402512 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Self-citationRosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9034-0 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Student thought and classroom language: examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775898 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Promoting Argument-Counterargument Integration in Students' Writing
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2001) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2001.9651596 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
“I know, you know”: epistemic egocentrism in children and adults
Royzman, E. B., Cassidy, K. W., & Baron, J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.38 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Learning to Feel Like a Scientist
JABER, L. Z., & HAMMER, D. (2016) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21202 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Self-citationRelations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009) · Informal Logic · doi:10.22329/il.v29i4.2907 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Gobert, J. D., Sao Pedro, M. A., Baker, R. S. J. D., Toto, E., & Montalvo, O. (2012) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3554645 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
How Well Do Jurors Reason? Competence Dimensions of Individual Variation in a Juror Reasoning Task
Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00628.x · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationInvestigating Instruction for Improving Revision of Argumentative Essays
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088310387891 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Verbal and visual causal arguments
Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2000) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00060-3 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Song, Y., & Ferretti, R. P. (2013) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9381-8 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams
Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Fung, D., & Howe, C. (2014) · Cambridge Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/0305764x.2014.897685 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2019) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
The Use of Argument Maps as an Assessment Tool in Higher Education
Rapanta, C., & Walton, D. (2016) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.002 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard
Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.006 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Supporting argumentative essay writing through an online supported peer-review script
Latifi, S., & Noroozi, O. (2021) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2021.1961097 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016) · Infancia y Aprendizaje · doi:10.1080/02103702.2015.1111608 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationHowe, C., & Zachariou, A. (2019) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.007 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
González-Lamas, J., Cuevas, I., & Mateos, M. (2016) · Infancia y Aprendizaje · doi:10.1080/02103702.2015.1111606 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E. (2021) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
Haidt, J. (2008) · Reasoning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814273.055 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Chen, X., Jia, B., Peng, X., Zhao, H., Yao, J., Wang, Z., & Zhu, S. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13471-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Granado-Peinado, M., Cuevas, I., Olmos, R., Martín, E., Casado-Ledesma, L., & Mateos, M. (2023) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuhn, D.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhn, Deanna
- ORCID
- Kuhn, Deanna
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1991-07-26
- Pages
- 678-693
- OpenAlex
- W1792550766
- Cited by
- 2,094
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 99 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 77
- FWCI
- 145.70
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- argumentation, thinking process, reflective thinking, natural language argumentation, everyday argumentation, philosophy of education, discourse analysis
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