Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation
Abstract
This article describes a cognitive argumentation schema for written arguments and presents three empirical studies on the “myside” bias—the tendency to ignore or exclude evidence against one's position. Study 1 examined the consequences of conceding, rebutting, and denying other-side information. Rebuttal led to higher ratings of agreement and quality and better impressions of the author than when the same arguments excluded other-side information (i.e., exhibited the myside bias). In Study 2, claims had a significantly greater impact on agreement ratings and reasons had a significantly greater impact on quality ratings. When participants were given myside reasons supporting other-side claims, they acknowledged argument strength while making relatively minor changes in agreement. In Study 3, the authors found that a brief, theoretically motivated written tutorial was effective in improving undergraduate students' written argumentative essays by significantly increasing the precision of claims, improving the elaboration of reasons, and reducing the myside bias.
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?
When sources present conflicting and contradictory information on a topic, students usually have difficulties including references to arguments that defend positions contrary to their own, tending to ignore or exclude evidence against their own position.
“In addition, when sources present conflicting and contradictory information on a topic, the understanding of the texts can also be affected, since students usually have difficulties including in their texts references to the arguments that defend positions contrary to their own, tending to ignore or exclude evidence against their own position.”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Wolf et al., 2009
Explicit instruction helped students overcome the 'my-side bias' by including relevant arguments and information from the two contradictory sources in their syntheses.
“Thus, explicit instruction helped students overcome the”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Wolf et al., 2009
Reading and contrasting information from multiple texts, especially when contradictory, increases the complexity of the task.
“Reading and contrasting information from multiple texts, especially when they are contradictory, increases the complexity of the task (Mateos & Solé, 2009;Wolf et al., 2009).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Wolf et al., 2009
Students who used the aids after receiving explicit instruction were able to overcome the "my-side bias" and apply in their final text synthesis writing strategies involving balanced reasoning, such as "weighing" and "synthesizing", both in the body of the text and their conclusions after weighing the pros and cons of both perspectives.
“In line with other research, students who used the aids after receiving explicit instruction were able to overcome the "my-side bias" (Wolfe et al., 2009) and apply in their final text synthesis writing strategies involving balanced reasoning, such as "weighing" and "synthesizing" (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007), both in the body of the text and their conclusions after weighing the pros and cons of both”
From How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics (2024) · cites this paper as Wolfe et al., 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 173
- Authors
- Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Miami University (US)
- Northern Illinois University (US)
- Venue
- Written Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-209
- ISSN
- 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8472
- OpenAlex
- W2133870589
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 49.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Written Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- myside bias, argumentative writing, rebuttal, author credibility, argument quality, argumentative reasoning
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
