References

Raymond S. Nickerson

doi:10.1017/9781108892032.015

Ackerknecht, E. H. (1981). Rudolf Virchow: The development of science. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar

Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect-consistent and affect-inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 1–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Adelswärd, V. (1986). The argumentation of self in job-interviews. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 327–336). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Adler, J. (2013). Are conductive arguments possible. Argumentation, 27, 245–257.Google Scholar

Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2015). Phishing for phools: The economics of manipulation and deception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Albarracin, D., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 453–469.Google Scholar

Albarracin, D., & Wyer, R. S. (2001). Elaborative and nonelaborative processing of a behavior-related communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 691–705.CrossRef Google Scholar

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621–1630.CrossRef Google Scholar

Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390–404.Google Scholar

Allen, M. (1994). The persuasive effects of one- and two-sided messages. In Allen, M & Preiss, R. W. (Eds.), Prospects and precautions in the use of meta-analysis (pp. 101–125). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.Google Scholar

Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441–485.Google Scholar

Alloy, L. B., & Ahrens, A. H. (1987). Depression and pessimism for the future: Biased use of statistically relevant information in predictions for self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 366–378.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Alonso, A., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2003). Irrational decisions: Attending to numbers rather than ratios. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1537–1547.Google Scholar

Amgoud, L., & Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 197–215.Google Scholar

Andersen, K., & Clevenger, T. Jr. (1963). A summary of experimental research in ethos. Speech Monographs, 30, 50–78.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A. (1982). Inoculation and counterexplanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Social Cognition, 1, 126–139.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293–305.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A. (1995). Implicit personality theories and empirical data: Biased assimilation, belief perseverance and change, and covariation detection sensitivity. Social Cognition, 13, 25–48.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., & Sechler, E. S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 24–34.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., & Slusher, M. P. (1986). Relocating motivational effects: A synthesis of cognitive and motivational effects on attributions for success and failure. Social Cognition, 4, 270–292.Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049.Google Scholar

Ariely, D., & Simonson, I. (2003). Buying, bidding, playing or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 113–123.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R. (1991). Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 486–498.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R. (2003). The non-use of psychological research at two federal agencies. Psychological Science, 14, 1–6.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., & Harkness, A. R. (1983). Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 11, 117–135.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu, G. (1991). Determinants of judged validity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 576–605.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., Hackett, C., & Boehm, L. E. (1989). The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 81–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., Faust, D., Guilmette, T. J., & Hart, K. (1988). Elimination of the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 305–307.Google Scholar

Arkes, H. R., Wortmann, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254.Google Scholar

Armor, D. A. (1998). The illusion of objectivity: Bias in the belief in freedom from bias. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1995). Concerning sophisms and bad reasonings which are common in ordinary discourse. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 39–54). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1865.)Google Scholar

Aron, R., Keller, S., & Davidson, J. K. (1958). Evidence and inference in history. Daedalus, 87, 11–39.Google Scholar

Attridge, N., & Inglis, M. (2014). Intelligence and negation biases on the conditional inference task: A dual process analysis. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 454–471.CrossRef Google Scholar

Avnet, T., Pham, M.T., & Stephen, A. T. (2012). Consumers’ trust in feelings as information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 720–735.Google Scholar

Babad, E., & Katz, Y. (1992). Wishful thinking – against all odds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1921–1938.Google Scholar

Bachman, J. (1995). Appeal to authority. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 274–286). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. (1939). Novum organum. In Burtt, E. A. (Ed.), The English philosophers from Bacon to Mill (pp. 24–123). New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1620.)Google Scholar

Bacon, F. T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241–252.Google Scholar

Baesler, F. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582–602.Google Scholar

Baird, A. C. (1950). Argumentation, discussion, and debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Baker, L. A., & Emery, R. E., (1993). When every relationship is above average. Perceptions and expectations of divorce at the time of marriage. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 439–450.CrossRef Google Scholar

Balbi, A., & Guerry, A.-M. (1829). Statistique comparée de l’état de l’instruction et du nombre des crimes dans les divers arrondissements des Académies et Cours Royales de France. Paris: Everat.Google Scholar

Balko, R. (2017). The emperor of junk science forensics has died. Washington Post, August 31.Google Scholar

Ball, L. J., Phillips, P., Wade, C. N., & Quayle, J. D. (2006). Effects of belief and logic on syllogistic reasoning: Eye-movement evidence for selective processing models. Experimental Psychology, 53, 77–86.Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar

Banner, L. W. (1983). American beauty. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, M. A. (1979). The role of sample size in sample evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 245–257.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, M. A., & Budescu, D. (1995). The elusive wishful-thinking effect. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 71–103.Google Scholar

Barker, S. F. (1974). Is there a problem of induction? In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 57–61). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barker, S. F. (1979). The method of applied logic: Some philosophical considerations. In Sosa, E (Ed.), The philosophy of Nicholas Rescher (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (1991). Beliefs about thinking. In Foss, J, Perkins, D, & Segal, J (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 169–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221–235.Google Scholar

Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baron, J., & Hershey, J. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569–679.Google Scholar

Barrow, J. D. (1990). The world within the world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barry, H., Jr. (1931). A test for negativism and compliance. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 25, 373–381.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barston, J. I. (1986). An investigation into belief biases in reasoning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Plymouth Polytechnic.Google Scholar

Bartecchi, C. E., MacKenzie, T. D., & Schrier, R. W. (1995). The global tobacco epidemic. Scientific American, 272, 44–51.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Barth, E. M. (1986). Logic to some purpose. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 33–45). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Bartlett, F. E. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Bartley, W. W., III (1977). Appendix C: Editor’s note on Carroll’s “What the tortoise said to Achilles.” In Bartley, W. W., III (Ed.), Lewis Carroll’s symbolic logic. New York: Clarkson N. Potter.Google Scholar

Barton, K., Fugelsang, J., & Smilek, D. (2009). Inhibiting beliefs demands attention. Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 250–267.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Bauman, L. J., & Siegel, J. (1987). Misperception among gay men of the risk of the risk for AIDS associated with their sexual behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 329–350.Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: The science of prospection, Review of General Psychology, 20, 1–2.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66, 1081–1124.Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Oettingen, G. (2016). Pragmatic prospection: How and why people think about the future. Review of General Psychology, 20, 3–16.Google Scholar

Bazerman, M. H., Beekum, R. I., & Schoorman, F. D. (1982). Performance evaluation in a dynamic context: A laboratory study of the impact of a prior commitment to the rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 873–876.Google Scholar

Beardsley, M. (1975). Thinking straight. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Beattie, J., & Baron, J. (1988). Confirmation and matching biases in hypothesis testing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 269–298.Google Scholar

Beck, S. R., Riggs, K. J., & Gorniak, S. L. (2009). Relating developments in children’s counterfactual thinking and executive functions. Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 437–454.Google Scholar

Beckman, P. (1971). A history of pi. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Begg, I., & Armour, T. (1991). Repetition and the ring of truth: Biasing comments. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 23, 195–213.Google Scholar

Begg, I., & Denny, J. P. (1969). Empirical reconciliation of atmosphere and conversion interpretations of syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 351–354.Google Scholar

Begg, I., & Harris, G. (1982). On the interpretation of syllogisms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 595–620.Google Scholar

Begg, I., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source of recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446–458.Google Scholar

Begg, I, Armour, T., & Kerr, T. (1985). On believing what we remember. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 199–214.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bell, E. T. (1991). The magic of numbers. New York: Dover. (Originally published in 1946.Google Scholar

Beller, S., & Kuhnmünch, G. (2007). What causal conditional reasoning tells us about people’s understanding of causality. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 426–460.Google Scholar

Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Bem, D. J., & McConnell, H. K. (1970). Testing the self-perception explanation of dissonance phenomena: On the salience of premanipulation attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 23–31.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641.Google Scholar

Bennett, M., & Hibberd, M. (1986). Availability and the false consensus effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 403–405.Google Scholar

Benoit, W. J. (1986). Argumentation evaluation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 299–305). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Bernstein, D. M., Aßfalg, A., Kumar, R., & Ackerman, R. (2015). Looking backward and forward on hindsight bias. In J. Dunlosky & U. Tauber (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory (pp. 289–304). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Berscheid, E., Graziano, . W, Monson, T., & Dermer, M. (1976). Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 978–989.Google Scholar

Billig, M. (1991). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1987.)Google Scholar

Black, M. (1952). Critical thinking: An introduction to logic and scientific method. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Black, M. (1974). Self-supporting inductive arguments. In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 127–134). London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1958.)Google Scholar

Blackstone, . W (1962). Commentaries on the laws of England of public wrongs. Boston, MA: Beacon. (Original work published in 1769.)Google Scholar

Blair, D. C., & Maron, M. E. (1985). An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document retrieval system. Communications of the ACM, 28, 289–299.Google Scholar

Blair, J. A. (1986). Argumentation, inquiry and speech act theory. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 189–200). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Blair, J. A. (1995). The place of teaching informal fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 328–338). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Blair, J. A. (2013). Are conductive arguments really not possible? OSSA Conference Archive. 24. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/24 Google Scholar

Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.) (2013). Conductive argument: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1986). Social roles and social perception: Individual differences in attribution and “error.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1200–1207.Google Scholar

Block, L. J., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192–203.Google Scholar

Blume, L., Brandenburger, A., & Dekel, E. (1991). Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty. Econometrica, 59, 61–79.Google Scholar

Boden, M. T., Berenbaum, H., & Gross, J. J. (2016). Why do people believe what they do? A functional perspective. Review of General Psychology, 20, 399–411.Google Scholar

Boltzmann, L. (1974). The second law of thermodynamics. In McGuinness, B (Ed. and trans.), Theoretical physics and philosophical problems: Selected writings (pp. 13–32). Dordrecht: Reidel. (Originally published in 1886.)Google Scholar

Bond, C. F., Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.Google Scholar

Bondi, H. (2003). Uniting the world—or dividing it: Which outlook is truly universal, which parochial in the extreme? In Kurtz, P (Ed.), Science and religion: Are they compatible? (pp. 145–148). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Boninger, D. S., Gleicher, F., & Strathman, A. (1994). Counterfactual thinking: From what might have been to what may be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 297–307.Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J. F. (2010). Deduction from if-then personality signatures. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 157–171.Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J. F., & Hilton, D. J. (2002). The suppression of Modus Ponens as a case of pragmatic preconditional reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 21–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bonnefon, J. F., & Hilton, D. J. (2004). Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valid outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 28–37.Google Scholar

Bonner, C., & Newell, B. R. (2008). How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 411–416.Google Scholar

Boorstin, D. J. (1985). The discoverers: A history of man’s search to know his world and himself. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Boot, . W (2019). Are brain games mostly BS? The conversation. theconversation.com Google Scholar

Borgida, E., & Brekke, N. (1981). New directions in attribution research, Vol. 5, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258–271.Google Scholar

Bostrom, N. (2003). Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 243–255.Google Scholar

Boudry, M. (2017). The fallacy fork: Why it’s time to get rid of fallacy theory. Skeptical Inquirer, 41, 46–51.Google Scholar

Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). The fake, the flimsy and the fallacious: Demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation, 29, 431–456.Google Scholar

Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bowden, A. O., Caldwell, F. F., & West, G. A. (1934). A study in prestige. American Journal of Sociology, 40, 193–204.Google Scholar

Bower, G. H., (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.Google Scholar

Boyer, C. B., & Merzbach, U. C. (1991). A history or mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Braine, M. D. S., Reiser, B. J., & Rumain, B. (1984). Some empirical justification for a theory of natural propositional logic. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 18 (pp. 313–371). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Braithwaite, R. B. (1974). The predictionist justification of induction. In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 102–126). London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1953.)Google Scholar

Bramel, D. (1962). A dissonance theory approach to defensive projection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 121–129.Google Scholar

Brennan, J. (2012). The ethics of voting. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Brenner, M. W. (1973). The next-in-line effect. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 320–323.Google Scholar

Brenner, M. W. (1976). Memory and interpersonal relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasiveness research. In Kruglanski, A & Stroebe, W (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285–320). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Durso, G. R. O., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). Power and persuasion: Processes by which perceived power can influence evaluative judgments. Review of General Psychology, 21, 223–241.Google Scholar

Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040–1053.Google Scholar

Brisson, J., de Chantal, P-L., Forgues, H. L., & Markovits, H. (2014). Belief bias is stronger when reasoning is more difficult. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 385–403.CrossRef Google Scholar

Briton, A. (1995). The ad hominem. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 213–228). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Brock, T. C. (1965). Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 650–654.Google Scholar

Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflicts. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Brockner, J., Rubin, J. Z., & Lang, (1981). Face-saving and entrapment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 68–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bronowski, J. (1965). The abacus and the rose. In Bronowski, J (Ed.), Science and Human Values (pp. 77–119). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352, 220–224.Google Scholar

Brown, B. R. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107–122.Google Scholar

Brown, B. R. (1970). Face-saving following experimentally induced embarrassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 255–271.Google Scholar

Brown, C. L. (1999). “Do the right thing:” Diverging effects of accountability in a managerial context. Marketing Science, 18, 230–246.Google Scholar

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard/Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Buchanan, R. W. (1986). The American jury trial: The art of argument in voir dire and opening statements. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 131–140). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Budescu, D. V., & Bruderman, M. (1995). The relationship between the illusion of control and the desirability bias. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 109–125.Google Scholar

Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Sperl, C. T. (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literary Research, 33, 269–301.Google Scholar

Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & McDonald, H. (1997). The role of motivated reasoning in optimistic time predictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 238–247.Google Scholar

Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring he “planning fallacy”: Why peoples underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366–381.Google Scholar

Bull, R. (1989). Can training enhance the detection of deception?. In Yuille, J C. (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 83–99). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Bull, R., & Rumsey, N. (1988). The social psychology of facial appearance. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Bunch, B. (1982). Mathematical fallacies and paradoxes. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Butler, C. (1970). Number symbolism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffitt, W. et al. (1975). The ubiquitous relationship: Attitude similarity and attraction. Human Relations, 24, 201–207.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (1989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition, 31, 61–83.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (1997). Cognitive processes in counterfactual thinking about what might have been. In Medin, D (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 37, pp. 105–154). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 426–431.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J. (2016). Counterfactual thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 135–157.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J., & Egan, S. M. (2004). Counterfactual and prefactual conditionals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 113–120.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. M. J., & McEleney, A. (2000). Counterfactual thinking about actions and failures to act. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1318–1331.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F. (1995). Individual decision making. In Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 587–703). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F. (1998). Bounded rationality in individual decision making. Experimental Economics, 1, 163–183.Google Scholar

Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T. (1959). Systematic error on the part of human links in communication systems. Information and Control, 1, 334–369.Google Scholar

Campbell, F. A., & Burchinal, M. R. (2008). Early childhood interventions: The Abecedarian Project. In Kyllonen, P. C., Roberts, R. D., & Stankov, L (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs (pp. 61–84). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684–698.Google Scholar

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772.Google Scholar

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J. & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. D. (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: The effects of attribute type, relevance, and individual differences in self-esteem and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 281–294.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1985). The effects of self-esteem, hypothetical explanations, and verbalization of expectancies on future performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1097–1111.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. D., & Tesser, A. (1983). Motivational interpretations of hindsight bias: An individual difference analysis. Journal of Personality, 51, 605–620.Google Scholar

Campbell, K. (1974). One form of scepticism about induction. In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 145–148). London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1963.Google Scholar

Campbell, W. K., Sedikides, C., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self-serving bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 229–239.Google Scholar

Carpenter, E. T. (1982). Piagetian interviews of college students. In Fuller, R. G. (Ed.), Piagetian programs in higher education (pp. 15–21). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 88–96.Google Scholar

Carroll, R. T. (2012). Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Cavender, N. M., & Kahane, H. (2013). Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Cesario, J. F. (2006). Regulatory fit from nonverbal behaviors: How source delivery style influences message effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 2276.Google Scholar

Cesario, J. F., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients “feel right:” How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415–420.Google Scholar

Cesaro, J. F. & Provitera, A. (1971). Sources of error in syllogistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 400–410.Google Scholar

Cesario, J. F., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404.Google Scholar

Cesario, J. F., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 444–463.Google Scholar

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.Google Scholar

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In Zanna, M. P. et al. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1959). Atmosphere effect revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 220–226.Google Scholar

Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2009). On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 551–556.Google Scholar

Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2009). Local and global inferential relations: Response to Over (2009). Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 439–446.Google Scholar

Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–416.Google Scholar

Cheng, P. W., & Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Pragmatic constraints on causal deduction. In Nisbett, R. E. (Ed.), Rules for reasoning (pp. 207–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Chesterton, G. (1959). Orthodoxy. Garden City, NY: Image Books.Google Scholar

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 890–905.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar

Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Beach, L. R. (1984). The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. American Psychologist, 39, 75–78.Google Scholar

Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Fobian Willham, C. (1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147–168.Google Scholar

Cialdini, R. B. (2001a). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Cialdini, R. B. (2001b). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284, 76–81.Google Scholar

Cinner, J. (2018). How behavioral science can help conservation. Science, 362, 889–890.Google Scholar

Claidiére, N., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (Submitted). Argumentation and diffusion and counterintuitive beliefs.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.Google Scholar

Clarke, D. S., Jr. (1985). Practical inferences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Clarke, S. H., & Campbell, F. A. (1998). Can intervention early prevent crime later? The Abecedarian Project compared with other programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 319–343.Google Scholar

Cleary, E. W. (1972). McCormick’s handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar

Cleckley, T. H. E. (1988). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality (5th ed.). Guilford, VT: Echo Point Books and Media.Google Scholar

Clement, J. (1983, April). Analogical problem solving in science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Clement, J. (1991). Nonformal reasoning in experts and in science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N, & Segal, J. W. (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Clore, G. Schwarz, L, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In Wyer, R. S. & Srull, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 323–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cohen, I. B. (1985). Revolution in science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. B., & Areni, C. S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In Robertson, T. S. & Kassarjian, H. H. (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 188–240). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior. In Haugtvedt, C, Kardes, F, & Herr, P (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 297–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1979). Rescher’s theory of plausible reasoning. In Sosa, E (Ed.), The philosophy of Nicholas Rescher (pp. 49–60). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317–370.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. R., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

College Board. (1976–1977). Student descriptive questionnaire. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Collins, A., & Michalski, R. (1989). The logic of plausible reasoning: A core theory. Cognitive Science, 13, 1–49.Google Scholar

Collins, L. N., Graham, J. W., Hansen, W. B., & Johnson, C. A. (1985). Agreement between retrospective accounts of substance use and earlier reported substance use. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 301–309.Google Scholar

Connell, L. (2004). Making the implausible plausible. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 244–249).Google Scholar

Connell, L., & Keane, M. T. (2003). PAM: A cognitive model of plausibility. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 264–269).Google Scholar

Connell, L., & Keane, M. T. (2006). A model of plausibility. Cognitive Science, 30, 95–120.Google Scholar

Conway, M. (1990). On bias in autobiographical recall: Retrospective adjustments following disconfirmed expectation. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 183–189.Google Scholar

Conway, M., & Ross, M. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 738–748.Google Scholar

Cook, M., & Smallman, H. S. (2008). Human factors of the confirmation bias in intelligence analysis: Decision support from graphical evidence landscapes. Human Factors, 50, 745–754.Google Scholar

Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1988). Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success (1988). Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 97–108.Google Scholar

Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2010). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar

Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.Google Scholar

Costello, F., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraints on conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299–349.Google Scholar

Costello, F., & Keane, M. T. (2001). Alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 255–271.Google Scholar

Court, N. A. (1961). Mathematics in fun and in earnest. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. (Originally published in 1935.)Google Scholar

Creighton, J. E. (1922). An introductory logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Crews-Anderson, T. A. (2007). Critical thinking and informal logic. ALCS Humanities-Ebook.Google Scholar

Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 272–292.Google Scholar

Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine, 78, 775–780.Google Scholar

Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561–574.Google Scholar

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Crupi, V., Fitleson, B., & Tentori, K. (2008). Probability, confirmation, and the conjunction fallacy. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 182–199.Google Scholar

Crutchfield, J. P., Farmer, J. D., Packard, N. H., Shaw, R. S. (1986). Scientific American, 257, 38–49.Google Scholar

Cummins, D. D. (1995). Naïve theories and causal deduction. Memory and Cognition, 23, 646–658.Google Scholar

Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alksnis, O., & Rist, R. (1991). Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19, 274–282.Google Scholar

Cummings, N. A., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). Psychology’s surrender to political correctness. In Wright, R. H., & Cummings, N. A. (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 3–28). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dale, D., Rudski, J., Schwarz, A., & Smith, E. (2007). Innumeracy and incentives: A ratio bias experiment. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 243–250.Google Scholar

Damer, T. E. (1980). Attacking faculty reasoning (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Darley, J. M., & Berscheid, E. (1967). Increased liking as a result of anticipation of personal contact. Human Relations, 20, 29–40.Google Scholar

Davies, M. F. (1997). Belief persistence after discrediting: The impact of generated versus provided explanations on the likelihood of discredited outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 561–578.Google Scholar

Davies, P. C. W. (1983). God and the new physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Davis, C. G., Lehman, D. R., Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Ellard, J. H. (1996). Self-blame following a traumatic life event: The role of perceived avoidability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 557–567.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M. (1976). Shallow psychology. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 3–12). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M. (1977). Case-by-case versus rule-generated procedures for the allocation of scarce resources. In Kaplan, M. F. & Schwartz, S (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes in applied settings (pp. 83–94). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M. (1989). Statistical criteria for establishing a truly false consensus effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–17.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making, Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shacklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1–11.Google Scholar

Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., Simmons, R. T., & van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1986). Organizing groups for collective action. American Political Science Review, 80, 1171–1185.Google Scholar

Dawkins, R. (2009). The god delusion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Dawkins, R., & Carlisle, T. R. (1976). Parental investment, mate desertion, and a fallacy. Nature, 262, 131–133.Google Scholar

de Dombal, F. T., Leaper, D. J., Horrocks, J. C., Staniland, J. R., & McCann, A. P. (1974). Human and computer-aided diagnosis of abdominal pain: Further report with emphasis on performance of clinicians. British Medical Journal, 1, 376–380.Google Scholar

DeJoy, D. (1989). The optimism bias and traffic accident risk prevention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 21, 333–340.Google Scholar

DeKay, W. T., Haselton, M. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2000). Reversing figure and ground in the rationality debate: An evolutionary perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 670–671.Google Scholar

De Morgan, A. (1926). Formal logic, or, the calculus of inference, necessary and probable (2nd ed.) Edited by Taylor, A. E.. London: Open Court. (Originally published in 1847.)Google Scholar

De Neys, . W, Schaeken, . W, & d’Ydewalle, G. (2003a). Causal conditional reasoning and strength of association: The disabling condition case. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 42, 177–190.Google Scholar

De Neys, . W, Schaeken, . W, & d’Ydewalle, G. (2003b). Inference suppression and semantic memory retrieval: Every counterexample counts. Memory and Cognition, 31, 581–595.Google Scholar

DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.Google Scholar

DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.Google Scholar

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.Google Scholar

Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196.Google Scholar

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Chester, D. S., & Bushman, B. J. (2016). How often does currently felt emotion predict social behavior and judgment? A meta-analytic test of two theories. Emotion Review, 8, 136–143.Google Scholar

Dewdney, A. K. (1993). 200 percent of nothing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Dholakia, R. R. & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities?, Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 223–232.Google Scholar

DiCarlo, C. (2011). How to become a really good pain in the ass. A critical thinker’s guide to asking the right questions. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

DiChristina, M., & Meyerson, B. S. (Eds.) (2018). Top 10 emerging technologies of 2018. Scientific American, 321, 26–37.Google Scholar

Dickstein, L. S. (1975). Effects of instructions and premise ordering errors in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 376–384.Google Scholar

Dickstein, L. S. (1978a). The effect of figure on syllogistic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 6, 76–83.Google Scholar

Dickstein, L. S. (1978b). Error processes in syllogistic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 6, 537–543.Google Scholar

Dillard, J., & Shen, L. (2012). The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Dimnet, E. (1928). The art of thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.Google Scholar

Ditto, P. H., Jemmott, J. B., & Darley, J. M. (1988). Appraising the threat of illness: A mental representational approach. Health Psychology, 7, 183–201.Google Scholar

Dobrescu, B. A., & Lincoln, D. (2015). Mystery of the hidden cosmos. Scientific American, 313, 32–39.Google Scholar

Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.Google Scholar

Druckman, J. N. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256.Google Scholar

Druckman, J. N. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.Google Scholar

Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2019). Does “putting on your thinking cap” reduce myside bias in evaluation of scientific information? Thinking and Reasoning, 25, 477–505.Google Scholar

Dube, C., Rotello, C., & Heit, E. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It’s a response bias effect. Psychological Review, 117, 831–863.Google Scholar

Dube, C., Rotello, C., & Heit, E. (2011). The belief bias effect is aptly named: A reply to Klauer and Kellen (2011). Psychological Review, 118, 155–163.Google Scholar

Dube-Rioux, L., & Russo, J. E. (1988). An availability bias in professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 223–237.Google Scholar

Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1990). An introduction to possibilistic and fuzzy logics. In Shafer, G & Pearle, J (Eds.), Readings in uncertain reasoning (pp. 742–761). Ithaca, NY: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar

Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. The Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 68–85.Google Scholar

Dunning, D. (1993). Words to live by: The self and definitions of social concepts and categories. In Suls, J (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 99–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dunning, D., & Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 213–229.Google Scholar

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106.Google Scholar

Dunning, D., Perie, M., & Story, A. (1991). Self-serving prototypes of social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 957–968.Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., Wood, . W, & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.Google Scholar

Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R., & Matthews, D. R. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337, 867–872.Google Scholar

Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1980). On the external validity of decision-making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world? In Wallsten, T. S. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. 21–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Edlow, D., & Kiesler, C. (1966). Ease of denial and defensive projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 56–69.Google Scholar

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar

Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.Google Scholar

Edwards, P. (1952). Bertrand Russell’s doubts about induction. In Flew, A. G. N. (Ed.), Logic and language (pp. 55–79). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Egglin, T. K., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996). Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. Journal of the American Medical Association. 276, 1752–1755.Google Scholar

Ehninger, D. (1966). Validity as moral obligation. Southern Speech Journal, 21, 215–222.Google Scholar

Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, . W (1963). Decision by debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85, 395–416.CrossRef Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and the general theory. New York: Bonanza books. (First published in 1916.)Google Scholar

Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manuel for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Eliades, M., Mansell, . W, Stewart, A. J., & Blanchette, I. (2012). An investigation of belief-bias and logicality in reasoning with emotional contents. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 461–479.Google Scholar

Ellis, B. (1979). Hypothetical reasoning and conditionals. In Sosa, E (Ed.), The philosophy of Nicholas Rescher: Discussion and replies (pp. 33–45). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (1985). Critical thinking and the curriculum. National Forum, 65, 28–31.Google Scholar

Ennis, R. H. (2001). Argument appraisal strategy: A comprehensive approach. Informal Logic, 21, 97–140.Google Scholar

Enos, R. D., Fowler, A., & Havasy, C. S. (2017). The negative effect fallacy: A case study of incorrect statistical reasoning by federal courts. Journal of Experimental Legal Studies, 14, 618–647.Google Scholar

Epstude, K., & Jonas, K. J. (2015). Regret and counterfactual thinking in the face of inevitability: The case of HIV positive men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 157–163.Google Scholar

Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168–192.Google Scholar

Epstude, K., Scholl, A., & Roese, N, J. (2016). Prefactual thoughts: Mental simulations about what might happen. Review of General Psychology, 20, 48–56.Google Scholar

Eraker, S. A., & Sox, H. C. (1981). Assessment of patients’ preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Medicinal Decision Making, 1, 29–39.Google Scholar

Erickson, J. R. (1974). A set analysis theory of behaviour in formal syllogistic reasoning tasks. In Solo, R (Ed.), Loyola symposium on cognition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Erickson, J. R. (1978). Research on syllogistic reasoning. In Revlin, R & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.), Human reasoning (pp. 39–50). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Erskine, H. (1973). The polls: Hopes, fears, and regrets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 132–145.Google Scholar

Erstad, . W (2018). 6 critical thinking skills you need to master now. www.rasmussen.edu/student-life/blogs/college-life/critical-thinking-skills-to-master-now/Google Scholar

Evans, C. E. (1973). Cults of unreason. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977a). Linguistic factors in reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 297–306.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (1977b). Toward a statistical theory of reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 621–635.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982). The psychology of deductive reasoning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (1993). Bias and rationality. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 6–30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 5–31.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Lynch, J. S. (1973). Matching bias in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 391–397.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1990). Belief bias and problem complexity in deductive reasoning. In Caverni, J. P., Fabre, J. M., & Gonzales, M (Eds.), Cognitive biases (pp. 131–154). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 11, 295–306.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., Over, D. E., & Manktelow, K. I. (1993). Reasoning, decision making and rationality. Cognition, 49, 165–187.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., Neilens, H., & Over, D. E. (2007). Thinking about conditionals: A study of individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1772–1784.Google Scholar

Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, E., Allen, J., & Pollard, P. (1994). Debiasing by instruction: The case of belief bias. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 263–285.Google Scholar

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.Google Scholar

Falk, E. B., Rameson, L., Berkman, E. T. et al.(2010). The neural correlates of persuasion: A common network across cultures and media. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2447–2459.Google Scholar

Falk, R. (1991). Randomness – an ill-defined but much needed concept (Commentary on Ayton, Hunt, & Wright’s “Psychological conceptions of randomness”). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 215–218.Google Scholar

Falk, R. (1993). Understanding probability and statistics: A book of problems. Wellsley, MA: A. K. Peters.Google Scholar

Falk, R. (2011). When truisms clash: Coping with a counterintuitive problem concerning the notorious two-child family. Thinking and Reasoning, 17, 353–366.Google Scholar

Falk, R. (2016). Many faces of the gambler’s fallacy: Subjective randomness and its diverse manifestations. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar

Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1992). The psychology of learning probability. In Gordon, F. S. & Gordon, S. P. (Eds.), Statistics for the twenty-first century (pp. 151–164). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar

Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1997). Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgment. Psychological Review, 104, 301–318.Google Scholar

Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1998). Subjective randomness. In Kotz, S, Read, C. B., & Banks, D. L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Update Vol. 2 (pp. 653–659). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Falk, R., & Lavie Lann, A. (2015). Numbers defy the law of large numbers. Teaching Statistics, 37, 54–60.Google Scholar

Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof; a description and evaluation of certain procedures used in a senior high school to develop an understanding of the nature of proof. Oxford, England: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar

Fearnside, W. W., & Holther, W. B. (1959). Fallacy: The counterfeit of argument. Englecliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Feeney, A., & Heit, E. (2011). Properties of the diversity effect in category-based inductive reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 17, 156–181.Google Scholar

Feldman, J. Miyamoto, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1999). Are actions regretted more than inactions? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 232–255.Google Scholar

Ferguson, K. (1994). The fire in the equations: Science, religion, and the search for God. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar

Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659–676.Google Scholar

Fiedler, K., Armbruster, T., Nickel, S., Walther, E., & Asbeck, J. (1996). Constructive biases in social judgment: Experiments on the self-verification of question contents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 861–873.Google Scholar

Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427–448.Google Scholar

Fillenbaum, S. (1975). If: Some uses. Psychological Research, 37, 245–260.Google Scholar

Fillenbaum, S. (1976). Inducements: On phrasing and logic of conditional promises, threats and warnings. Psychological Research, 38, 231–250.Google Scholar

Fine, T. L. (1973). Theories of probability. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. (1980). Galileo and the art of reasoning: Rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. (1981). Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly, 18, 13–22.Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. (1986). An historical approach to the study of argumentation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 81–91). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. A. (1995). Six types of fallaciousness: Toward a realistic theory of logical criticism. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 120–129). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1987.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1977). Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 349–358.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1980). For those condemned to study the past: Reflective on historical judgment. In Schwede, R. A., & Fiske, D. W. (Eds.), New directions for methodology of behavioral science: Fallible judgments in behavioral research (pp. 79–93). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, & Tversky, A (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 422–444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1975). I knew it would happen: Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. A., & Chauvin, C. (Eds.) (2011). Intelligence analysis: Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–344.Google Scholar

Fisher, A. (1986). Using assertibility conditions to extract and evaluate arguments. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 25–33). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Fisher, A. (1988). The logic of real arguments. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fisher, A. (2004). The logic of real arguments (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (First published in 1988.)Google Scholar

Flesch, R. (1951). The art of clear thinking. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar

Flew, A. G. N. (1968). Introduction. In Flew, A. G. N. (Ed.), Logic and language (pp. 1–10). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fohr, S. (1980). Deductive-inductive: Reply to criticisms. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 5–10.Google Scholar

Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about every-day problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253–292.Google Scholar

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.Google Scholar

Frances, A. et al. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar

Franklin, B. (1907). A letter to Joseph Priestly, September 19, 1772. In Smyth, A. H. (Ed.), The writings of Benjamin Franklin (pp. 437–438). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Frase, L. T. (1966). Validity judgments of syllogisms in relation to two sets of terms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 239–245.Google Scholar

Frase, L. T. (1968). Effects of semantic incompatibility upon deductive reasoning. Psychonomic Science, 12, 64.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. (1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 265–273). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Freeman, R. (August 6, 2006). Was the atomic bombing of Japan necessary? Common Dreams. www.commondreams.org Google Scholar

Freud, S. (1957). The ego and the id. In Rickman, J (Ed.), A general selection from the works of Sigmund Freud. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. (Originally published in 1923.)Google Scholar

Friedman, N., & Halpern, J. Y. (1995). Plausibility measures: A user’s guide. Proceedings of UAI ’95, 175–184.Google Scholar

Friedrich, J. (1993). Primary error detection and minimization (PEDMIN) strategies in social cognition: A reintrerpretation of confirmation bias phenomena. Psychological Review, 100, 298–319.Google Scholar

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.Google Scholar

Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399–429.Google Scholar

Funder, D. C. (1980). On seeing ourselves as others see us: Self-other agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. Journal of Personality, 48, 473–493.Google Scholar

Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 79–90.Google Scholar

Funder, D. C. (2001). The really, really fundamental attribution error. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 21–23.Google Scholar

Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594–604.Google Scholar

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.Google Scholar

Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power, past findings, present considerations and future directions. In Simpson, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Mikulincer, M, & Shaver, P. A. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, Interpersonal relations (pp. 421–460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Galotti, K. M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 331–351.Google Scholar

Galotti, K. M., Baron, J., & Sabini, J. P. (1986). Individual differences in syllogistic reasoning: Deduction rules or mental models? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 16–25.Google Scholar

Garland, H., & Newport, S. (1991). Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 55–69.Google Scholar

Garner, R. (2005). Post-It note persuasion: A sticky influence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 230–237.Google Scholar

Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Garry, M., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2000). Imagination and memory. Psychological Science, 9, 6–9.Google Scholar

Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 208–214.Google Scholar

Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar

Gebauer, G., & Laming, D. (1997). Rational choices in Wason’s selection task. Psychological Research, 60, 284–293.Google Scholar

Geis, M. C., & Zwicky, A. M. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 561–566.Google Scholar

Gelernter, D. (1994). The muse in the machine: Computerizing the poetry of human thought. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A ninety-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40, 181–192.Google Scholar

Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E. (2007). Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology, 26, 745–752.Google Scholar

Gertner, A., Zaromb, F., Schneider, R., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2016). The assessment of biases in cognition: Development and evaluation of an assessment instrument for the measurement of cognitive bias. Mitre Technical Report (MTR) 160163. Westford, MA: The MITRE Corporation.Google Scholar

Gertner, A., Zaromb, F., Schneider, R. et al. (2013). Developing a standardized assessment of cognitive bias for the IARPA Sirius program: A review of the literature. Mitre Technical Report.Google Scholar

Gettys, C. F., Fisher, S. D., & Mehle, T. (1978). Hypothesis generation and plausibility assessment. Annual Report TR 15-10-78. Decision Processes Laboratory, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. (1984). External validity of laboratory experiments: The frequency-validity relationship. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 185–195.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107–143.Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351–1354.Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.Google Scholar

Gilio, A., & Over, D. (2012). The psychology of inferring conditionals from disjunctions: A probabilistic study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 118–131.Google Scholar

Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of another’s ability to read one’s emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.Google Scholar

Gilovich, T., Wang, R. F., Regan, D., & Nishina, S. (2003). Regrets of action and inaction across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 61–71.Google Scholar

Gingerich, O. (1982). The Galileo affair. Scientific American, 247, 133–143.Google Scholar

Gino, F., Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 287–302.Google Scholar

Girotto, V., Legrenzi, P., & Rizzo, A. (1991). Event controllability in counterfactual thinking. Acta Psychologica, 78, 111–133.Google Scholar

Glance, N. S., & Huberman, B. A. (1994). The dynamics of social dilemmas. Scientific American, 279, 76–81.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, . W (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, . W (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 15, 84–93.Google Scholar

Godden, D. M. (2003). Reconstruction and representation: Deductivism as an interpretative strategy (2003). OSSA Conference Archive, 26.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Goldings, H. J. (1954). On the avowal and projection of happiness. Journal of Personality, 25, 30–47.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Golin, S., Sweeney, P. D., & Shaeffer, D. E. (1981). The causality of causal attributions in depression: A cross-lagged panel correlational analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 14–22.Google Scholar

Good, I. J. (1983). Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Goodfield, J. (1996). Reflections on science and the media. New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar

Goorden, D., & Fischer, T. (2011). Conductive arguments and ‘inference to the best explanation.’ OSSA Conference Archive 26.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to the understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development, 59, 26–37.Google Scholar

Gordon, R. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind and Language, 1, 158–171.Google Scholar

Gorn, G. J., Goldberg, M. E., & Basu, K. (1993). Mood, awareness and product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Evaluation, 2, 237–256.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. (1994). The evolution of life on earth. Scientific American, 271, 84–91.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1986). Beyond induction and deduction. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 57–64). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument and evaluation. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1995). Reply to Massey. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 172–180). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1987.)Google Scholar

Govier, T. (1999). The philosophy of argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar

Govier, T. (2011). Conductive arguments: Overview of the symposium. In Blair, J. A. & Johnson, R. H. (Eds.), Conductive arguments: An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning (pp. 262–276). London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Granberg, D., & Brent, E. (1983). When prophecy bends: The preference-expectation link in U.S. presidential elections, 1952–1980. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 477–491.Google Scholar

Granberg, D., & King, M. (1980). Cross-lagged panel analysis of the relation between attraction and perceived similarity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 573–581.Google Scholar

Granberg, D., & Robertson, C. (1982). Contrast effects in estimating policies of the federal government. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 43–53.Google Scholar

Grandy, R. (1973). Reference, meaning, and belief. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 439–452.Google Scholar

Gray, J. B. (2008). Framing: A communication strategy for the medical encounter. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 1, 422–430.Google Scholar

Green, D. W. (2007). A mental model theory of informal argument. In Schaeken, W, Vandierendonck, A, Shroyens, W, & d’Ydewalle, G (Eds.), The mental model theory of reasoning: Refinements and extensions (pp. 189–208). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Green, D. W. (2008). Persuasion and the contexts of dissuasion: Causal models and informal arguments. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 28–59.Google Scholar

Green, D. W., & McCloy, R. (2003). Reaching a verdict. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 307–333.Google Scholar

Green, D. W., Applebaum, R., & Tong, S. (2006). Mental simulation and argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 12, 31–61.Google Scholar

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.Google Scholar

Greene, E., & Cahill, B. S. (2012). Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 280–296.Google Scholar

Greening, L., & Chandler, C. C. (1997). Why it can’t happen to me: The base rate matters, but overestimating skill leads to underestimating risk. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, 760–780.Google Scholar

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.Google Scholar

Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 89–99.Google Scholar

Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 107–141.Google Scholar

Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Article retracted, but the message lives on. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 557–561.Google Scholar

Grennan, . W (1986). A “logical audit” scheme for argument evaluation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 17–24). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Griffin, D. W., & Buehler, R. (1999). Frequency, probability, and prediction: Easy solutions to cognitive illusions? Cognitive Psychology, 38, 48–78.Google Scholar

Grootendorst, R. (1986). Some fallacies about fallacies. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 331–342). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Grosset, N., & Barrouillet, P. (2003). On the nature of mental models of conditionals: The case of If, If then, and Only if. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 289–306.Google Scholar

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Guelzo, A. C. (2017). America’s founding fathers. The Teaching Company. Recorded book produced in collaboration with The Smithsonian Museum.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Guinote, A., & Vescio, T. (2010). The social psychology of power. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Gula, R. (1979). Nonsense: How to overcome it. New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar

Gutting, R., & Ferrell, J. (2004). Reality compared with its alternatives: Age differences in judgments of regret and relief. Developmental Psychology, 40, 764–775.Google Scholar

Haard, J., Slater, M. D., & Long, M. (2004). Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communications, 16, 411–426.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (1975). The emergence of probability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hadjichristidis, C., Sloman, S. A., & Over, D. E. (2014). Categorical induction from uncertain premises: Jeffrey’s doesn’t completely rule. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 405–431.Google Scholar

Hadley, J. E. (1936). Teaching poetry appreciation. Studies in Higher Education, Bulletin of Purdue University, 37, 52–54.Google Scholar

Hafner, A., Ingels, S., Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1990). A profile of the American eighth grader: NELS, 88 student descriptive summary. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar

Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833–1873.Google Scholar

Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207–236.Google Scholar

Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.Google Scholar

Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2012). Rational argument. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford: Oxford university Press.Google Scholar

Hallihan, G. M., Cheong, H., & Shu, L. H. (2012). Confirmation and cognitive bias in design cognition. ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago (IL).Google Scholar

Halpern, J. Y. (2001). Plausibility measures: A general approach for representing uncertainty. Proceedings of the seventeenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1474–1483). Ithaca, NY: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Hamilton, D. L. (1979). A cognitive attributional analysis of stereotyping. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 12 (pp. 53–84). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Illusory correlation as a basis for stereotyping. In Hamilton, D. L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 333–353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis for stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407.Google Scholar

Hample, D. J. (1979). Predicting belief and belief change using a cognitive theory of argument and evidence. Communication Monographs, 46, 142–146.Google Scholar

Hample, D. J. (1981). What is a good argument? In Ziegelmueller, G & Rhodes, J (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argument (pp. 875–893). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Han, B., & Fink, E. L. (2012). How do statistical and narrative evidence affect persuasion?: The role of evidentiary features. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49, 39–58.Google Scholar

Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.) (1995). Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.Google Scholar

Hardin, G. (1985). Filters against folly. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar

Hardy, G. H. (1989). A mathematicians apology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1940.)Google Scholar

Harkness, A. R., DeBono, K. G., & Borgida, E. (1985). Personal involvement and strategies for making contingency judgments: A stake in the dating game makes a difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 22–32.Google Scholar

Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Bradford Books).Google Scholar

Harris, P. (1996). Sufficient grounds for optimism: The relationship between perceived controllability and optimistic bias. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 319–386.Google Scholar

Harris, D. M., & Guten, S. (1979). Health protective behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 17–29.Google Scholar

Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 117–133.Google Scholar

Hasegawa, T. (2007). The end of the Pacific war: Reappraisals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hasher, L., Attig, M. S., & Alba, J. W. (1981). I knew it all along: Or, did I? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 86–96.Google Scholar

Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112.Google Scholar

Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.Google Scholar

Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar

Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2000). Physical attractiveness. In Craighead, W. E. & Nemeroff, C. B. (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1203–1205). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311–327.Google Scholar

Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358–374.Google Scholar

Heit, E., Hahn, U., & Feeney, A. (2005). Defending diversity. In Ahn, W, Golsdstone, R. I., Love, B.C., Markman, A. B., & Wolff, P (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 87–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. (1945). Studies in the logic of confirmation (I). Mind, 54, 1–26.Google Scholar

Henket, M. (1986). Ne bis in idem and related principles. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 123–130). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366–378.Google Scholar

Henle, M. (1981). Another vote for rationality. Commentary on Cohen, 1981. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 339.Google Scholar

Henle, M., & Michael, M. (1956). The influence of attitudes on syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 115–127.Google Scholar

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2008). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J., Nickerson, R. S., Sanchez, M., & Swets, J. A. (1986). Teaching thinking skills. American Psychologist, 41, 1279–1289.Google Scholar

Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1997). The reiteration effect in hindsight bias. Psychological Review, 104, 194–202.Google Scholar

Himsworth, H. (1986). Scientific knowledge and philosophic thought. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Hintikka, J. (2004). A fallacious fallacy? Synthese, 140, 35–45.Google Scholar

Hintikka, J., & Bachman, J. (1991). What if?… Toward excellence in reasoning. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar

Hirt, E. R., & Markman, K. D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1069–1086.Google Scholar

Hirt, E. R., & Sherman, S. J. (1985). The role of prior knowledge in explaining hypothetical events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 519–543.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1986). Enthymematic arguments. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 289–298). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, D. (1995). Do fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking? In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 319–327). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Hoagland, J. (1986). Arguments and explanations. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 389–394). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Hobbes, T. (1919). Leviathan. London: J. M. Dent. (Originally published in 1651.)Google Scholar

Hoch, S. J. (1984). Availability and inference in predictive judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 649–662.Google Scholar

Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 221–234.Google Scholar

Hoch, S. J., & Lowenstein, G. F. (1989). Outcome feedback: Hindsight and information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 605–619.Google Scholar

Hock, H. S. (1973). The effects of stimulus structure and familiarity on same-different comparison. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 413–420.Google Scholar

Hocking, M. B. (1991a). Paper versus polystyrene: A complex choice. Science, 251, 504–505.Google Scholar

Hocking, M. B. (1991b). Relative merits of polystyrene foam and paper in hot drink cups: Implications for packaging. Environmental Management, 15, 731–747.Google Scholar

Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491–510.Google Scholar

Hoeken, H., Šorm, E., & Schellens, P. J. (2014). Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople’s criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 77–98.Google Scholar

Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 394–416.Google Scholar

Hoffrage, U., & Hertwig, R. (1999). Hindsight bias: A price worth paying for fast and frugal memory. In Gigerenzer, G & Todd, P. M. (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 191–208). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, D. R. (2000). Analogy as the core of cognition. In Gleick, J (Ed.), The best American scientific writing 2000 (pp. 116–144). New York: The ECCO Press.Google Scholar

Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 197–217.Google Scholar

Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Holmes, D. S. (1968). Dimensions of projection. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 248–268.Google Scholar

Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. (1954). Cognitive system principles of leveling and sharpening: Individual differences in assimilation effects in visual time-error. Journal of Psychology, 37, 105–122.Google Scholar

Hoorens, V., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Social comparison of health risks: Locus of control, the person-positivity bias, and unrealistic optimism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 291–302.Google Scholar

Hornikx, J. (2008). Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation, 22, 555–569.Google Scholar

Hornikx, J., & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 225–243.Google Scholar

Hoskin, R. E. (1983). Opportunity cost and behavior. Journal of Accounting Research, 21, 78–95.Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I., & Mandell, . W (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 47, 581–588.Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, . W (1951/1952). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Huelsen, R. (1988). Concrete accidental terms and the fallacy of figure of speech. In Kretzmann, N (Ed.), Meaning and inference in medieval philosophy (pp. 175–185). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Hume, D. (1854). A treatise of human nature. In The philosophical works of David Hume. Book 2–3, Vol. 2. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. (Originally published in 1739.)Google Scholar

Hume, D. (1939). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In Burtt, E. A. (Ed.), The English philosophers from Bacon to Mill. New York: Random House. (Originally published in 1748.)Google Scholar

Humphreys, P. W. (1978). (Review: Nicholas Rescher). Plausible reasoning: An introduction to the theory and practice of plausibilistic inference. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 43, 159–160.Google Scholar

Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Irwin, F. W. (1953). Stated expectations as functions of probability and desirability of outcomes. Journal of Personality, 21, 329–335.Google Scholar

Irwin, F. W., & Grace, C. N. (1968). Tests of the discontinuity hypothesis of the effects of independent outcome values upon bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 444–449.Google Scholar

Irwin, F. W., & Metzger, M. J. (1966). Effects of probabilistic independent outcomes upon predictions. Psychonomic Science, 5, 79–80.Google Scholar

Irwin, F. W., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1966). Effects of independent and dependent outcome values upon bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 282–285.Google Scholar

Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1–2.Google Scholar

Jabr, F. (2017). Probiotics are no panacea. Scientific American, 317, 26–27.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Jackson, S. (1983). The arguer in interpersonal argument: Pros and cons of individual-level analysis. In Zarefsky, D, Sillers, M. O., & Rhodes, J (Eds.), Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 631–637). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Jackson, S. (1986). Rational and pragmatic aspects of argument. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 217–277). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Jackson, S., & Allen, M. (1987). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Jacobs, S. (1986). The management of disagreement in conversation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 229–239). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Jacoby, J. (2015). Shock and awe and Agrabah. Boston Globe (December 23, p. A11).Google Scholar

Jacoby, L. L., Bjork, R. A., & Kelley, C. M. (1994). Illusions of comprehension, competence, and remembering. In Druckman, D & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.), Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance (pp. 57–80). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Jacquin, J. (2018). Argumentation in the workplace. In Vine, B (Ed.), Handbook of language in the workplace (pp. 284–294). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

James, . W (1979). The will to believe and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in 1896.)Google Scholar

James, . W (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Work originally published in 1890.)Google Scholar

Janis, I. L. (1954). Personality correlates of susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Personality, 22, 504–518.Google Scholar

Janis, I. L., & Frick, F. (1943). The relationship between attitudes toward conclusions and errors in judging logical validity of syllogisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 73–77.Google Scholar

Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1949). The influence of role-playing on opinion-change. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 49, 211–218.Google Scholar

Jaspers, K. (1952). Reason and anti-reason in our time. (Translated by S. Godman) New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Jefferson, T. (2008). Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies from the papers of Thomas Jefferson(Vol. IV). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Outlook Verlag. (Second edition, edited by T. J. Randolph, originally published in 1830.)Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Jemmott, J. B., Ditto, P. H., & Croyle, R. T. (1986). Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 899–905.Google Scholar

Jenkins, H. M., & Ward, W. C. (1965). Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79, 1–17.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. K., & Sherman, S. J. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing the past and future in the present. In Higgins, E. T. & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 482–526). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H. (1986). Logic naturalized: Recovering a tradition. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 47–56). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H. (1995). The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 107–120). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1987.)Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1983). Logical self-defense (2nd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1993). Logical self-defense (3rd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1975). Models of deduction. In Falmagne, R. J. (Ed.), Reasoning: Representation and process in children and adults (pp. 7–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Human and machine thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1–62.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1989). Only reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 313–330.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Models and deductive rationality. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 177–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Steedman, M. J. (1978). The psychology of syllogisms. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 64–99.Google Scholar

Johnston, W. A. (1967). An individual performance and self-evaluation in a simulated team. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 309–328.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E. (1976). How do people perceive the causes of behavior? American Scientist, 64, 300–305.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.Google Scholar

Joseph, H. W. B. (1906). An introduction to logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, H. W. B. (1916). An introduction to logic (2nd rev. ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. (Originally published in 1906.Google Scholar

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In Adler, G & Hull, R. F. C. (Eds. & Trans), The Collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 6) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original published in German in 1921.)Google Scholar

Kahane, H. (1971). Logic and contemporary rhetoric. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar

Kahane, H. (1984). Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality by its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313–327.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982a). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123–141.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982b). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, & Tversky, A (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D, Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (2003). Critique of pure reason. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. (Original published in 1781.)Google Scholar

Kappes, H. B., & Oettingen, G. (2011). Positive fantasies about idealized futures sap energy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 719–729.Google Scholar

Kappes, H. B., Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2012). Positive fantasies predict low academic achievement in disadvantaged students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 53–64.Google Scholar

Kappes, H. B., Schwörer, B., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Needs instigate positive fantasies of idealized futures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 299–307.Google Scholar

Kareev, Y. (1995). Positive bias in the perception of covariation. Psychological Review, 102, 490–502.Google Scholar

Kassarjian, H. H., & Cohen, J. B. (1965). Cognitive dissonance and consumer behavior. California Management Review, 8, 55–64.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent”: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral configuration in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187–203.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T. et al. (2010). Police induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 39–40.Google Scholar

Kates, R. W. (1962). Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management. Research paper 78. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography.Google Scholar

Katz, D., & Allport, F. (1931). Students attitudes. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press.Google Scholar

Keefe, C., Harte, T. B., & Norton, L. E. (Eds.) (1982). Introduction to debate. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157–175.Google Scholar

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine, D (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15) (pp. 192–241). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar

Kelly, J. (2015). Types of thinking. The Peak Performance Center. http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational-learning/thinking/types-of-thinking-2/Google Scholar

Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 48, 327–335.Google Scholar

Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207–212.Google Scholar

Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32–38.Google Scholar

Keyser, C. J. (1926). Thinking about thinking. New York: Ditton and Company.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, M. (1986). Towards a typology of argumentation schemes. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 275–287). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.Google Scholar

Kinnier, R. T., & Metha, A. T. (1989). Regrets and priorities at three stages of life. Counseling and Values, 33, 182–193.Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, L., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534–544.Google Scholar

Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-biased reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1–24.Google Scholar

Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400–416.Google Scholar

Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2011). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: Reply to Dube, Rotello, and Heit (2010). Psychological Review, 118, 164–173.Google Scholar

Klauer, K. C., Musch, J., & Naumer, B. (2000). On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Psychological Review, 107, 852–884.Google Scholar

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.–W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.Google Scholar

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.–W. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery: Strategy, structure, and content. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 596–604.Google Scholar

Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1989). Motivated person perception: Justifying desired conclusions. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Kleinmuntz, B. (1990). Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 296–310.Google Scholar

Kline, M. (1953). Mathematics in western culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics: The loss of certainty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kline, S. L. (1986). Identity management in argumentative discourse. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 241–251). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Koehler, D. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499–519.Google Scholar

Koger, S. M., & Winter, D. D. (2010). The psychology of environmental problems: Psychology for sustainability (3rd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1996). Social dilemmas, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Kopperschmidt, J. (1986). The function of argumentation: A pragmatic approach. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 179–188). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Koriat, A., Fiedler, K., & Bjork, R. A. (2006). Inflation of conditional predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 429–447.Google Scholar

Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118.Google Scholar

Kornblith, H. (1993). Inductive inference and its natural ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Appeal to ignorance. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 251–264). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. In Zanna, M (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 163–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Krueger, J., & Zeiger, J. (1993). Social categorization and the truly false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 670–680.Google Scholar

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Kugler, T., Kausel, E. E., & Kocher, M. G. (2012). Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. (2012). WIRES Cognitive Science, 3, 471–482.Google Scholar

Kühberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230–240.Google Scholar

Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55.Google Scholar

Kühberger, A., Großbichler, C., & Wimmer, A. (2011). Counterfactual closeness and predicted affect. Thinking and Reasoning, 17, 137–155.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1962.)Google Scholar

Kulp, D. H., II. (1934). Prestige, as measured by single-experience changes and their permanency. Journal of Educational Research, 27, 663–672.Google Scholar

Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647.Google Scholar

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.Google Scholar

Kunda, Z., & Sanitioso, R. (1989). Motivated changes in the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 272–285.Google Scholar

Kusyszn, I. (1968). A comparison of judgmental methods with endorsements in the assessment of personality traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 227–253.Google Scholar

Ladha, K. K. (1992). The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 617–634.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I & Musgrave, A (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of scientific knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lambert, K., & Ulrich, . W (1980). The nature of argument. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Lann, A., & Falk, R. (2006). Tell me the method, I’ll give you the mean. The American Statistician, 60, 322–327.Google Scholar

Laplace, P. S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities. Truscott, F. W. & Emory, F. L. (Trans.) New York: Dover. (Originally published in 1814.)Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In Koehler, D. J. & Harvey, N (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–337). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Larrick, R. P., Morgan, J. N., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). Teaching the use of cost-benefit reasoning in everyday life. Psychological Science, 1, 362–370.Google Scholar

Larsen, A., Hodge, J., & Perrin, C. (2003). The art of argument: An introduction to the informal fallacies. New York: Classical Academic Press.Google Scholar

Larson, E. D., Ross, M. H., & Williams, R. H. (1986). Beyond the era of materials. Scientific American, 254, 34–41.Google Scholar

Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradley, T. N. (2013). Newlyweds’ optimistic forecasts of their marriage: For better or for worse? Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 531–540.Google Scholar

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.Google Scholar

Leary, M. R. (1982). Hindsight distortion and the 1980 presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 257–263.Google Scholar

Lefford, A. (1946). The influence of emotional subject matter on logical reasoning. Journal of General Psychology, 34, 127–151.Google Scholar

Leftow, B. (1994). From Jerusalem to Athens. In Morris, T. V. (Ed.), God and the philosophers: The reconciliation of faith and reason (pp. 189–207). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). Focusing in reasoning and decision making. Cognition, 49, 37–66.Google Scholar

Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2003). Models of consistency. Psychological Science, 14, 131–137.Google Scholar

Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1987). Children on the witness stand: A communication/persuasion analysis of jurors’ reactions to child witnesses. In Ceci, S, M., & Ross, D (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness testimony (pp. 155–177). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Leithy, S. E., Brown, G. P., & Robins, I. (2006). Counterfactual thinking and posttraumatic stress reactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 629–635.Google Scholar

Lemaire, P., & Fayol, M. (1995). When plausibility judgments supersede fact retrieval: The example of the odd-even effect on product verification. Memory and Cognition, 23, 34–48.Google Scholar

Lemay, E. P. Jr., & Venaglia, R. B. (2016). Relationship expectations and relationship quality. Review of General Psychology, 20, 57–70.Google Scholar

Lenz, J. W. (1974). Problems for the practicalist’s justification of induction. In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 98–101). London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1958.Google Scholar

Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the ager of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–496.Google Scholar

Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 225–275.Google Scholar

Lester, R. K. (1986). Rethinking nuclear power. Scientific American, 254, 31–39.Google Scholar

Levasseur, D. G., & Dean, K. W. (1996). The use of evidence in presidential debates: A study of evidence levels and types from 1960 to 1988. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32, 129–142.Google Scholar

Levin, I. P., Chapman, D. P., & Johnson, R. D. (1988). Confidence in judgments based on incomplete information: An investigation using both hypothetical and real gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 29–41.Google Scholar

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.Google Scholar

Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., Russo, C. P., & Deldin, P. J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 362–377.Google Scholar

Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., Deldin, P. J. et al. (1986). Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 48–64.Google Scholar

Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing – therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622–633.Google Scholar

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. J., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.Google Scholar

Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, . W, Chaplin, . W, & Barton, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 203–212.Google Scholar

Lewis, H. B. (1941). Studies in the principles of judgment and attitude: IV, The operation of “prestige suggestion.” Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 229–236.Google Scholar

Lewis, H. B. (1990). A question of values: Six ways we make the personal choices that shape our lives. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Lichter, S. R., Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. (1986). The media elite. Washington, DC: Adler and Adler.Google Scholar

Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wolters, F. J. M. (1986). Why we are fairer than others: A cross-cultural replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 590–604.Google Scholar

Lillis, J., O’Donohue, W. T., Cucciare, M., & Lillis, E. (2005). In R. Wright, H, & Cummings, N. A. (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 283–302). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Fischhoff, B. (1993). AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. In Pryor, J. B. & Reeder, G. D. (Eds.), The social psychology of HIV infection (pp. 5–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Su, Y., Xu, G., & Chan, R. C. K. (2007). Two dissociable aspects of feeling-of-knowing: Knowing that you know and knowing that you do not. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 627–680.Google Scholar

Locke, J. (1995). Four sorts of arguments. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 55–56). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1690.)Google Scholar

Lockwood, B. (2016). Confirmation bias and electoral accountability. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11, 471–501.Google Scholar

Lopes, L. L. (1981). Decision making in the short run. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 377–385.Google Scholar

Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1243.Google Scholar

Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. (1993). Rationality, deduction and mental models. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 211–230). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lund, F. H. (1925). The psychology of belief: A study of its emotional and volitional determinants. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 13–21.Google Scholar

Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgment and justification. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 145–151.Google Scholar

Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822.Google Scholar

Macdonald, R. R. (1986). Credible conceptions and implausible probabilities. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 15–27.Google Scholar

MacGregor, D., Fischhoff, B., & Blackshaw, L. (1987). Search success and expectations with a computer interface. Information Processing and Management, 23, 419–432.Google Scholar

Mackworth, N. H. (1965). Originality. The American Psychologist, 20, 51–66.Google Scholar

Macrae, C. N., Milne, B. A., & Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Counterfactual thinking and the perception of criminal behavior. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 221–226.Google Scholar

Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.Google Scholar

Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633–647.Google Scholar

Malloy, L. C., Schulman, E., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 181–193.Google Scholar

Mandel, D. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 56–76.Google Scholar

Manktelow, K. I. (2012). Thinking and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (1993). Rationality, utility and deontic reasoning. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 231–259). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Manning, R. C. (1986). Beyond argumentation: The role of narrative in moral reasoning. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 170–177). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Marcus, G. B. (1986). Stability and change in political attitudes: Observe, recall, and “explain.” Political Behavior, 8, 21–44.Google Scholar

Marcus, S. L., & Rips, L. J. (1979). Conditional reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 199–224.Google Scholar

Margalit, A., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1981). The irrational, the unreasonable, and the wrong. Commentary on Cohen, 1981. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 346–349.Google Scholar

Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition: A theory of judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 244–267.Google Scholar

Markman, K. D., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Accountability and close counterfactuals: The loser that nearly won and the winner that nearly lost. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1213–1224.Google Scholar

Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 87–109.Google Scholar

Markman, K. D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S. J., & McMullen, M. N. (1995). The impact of perceived control on the imagination of better and worse possible worlds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 221, 588–595.Google Scholar

Markovits, H. (1988). Conditional reasoning, representation, empirical evidence on a concrete task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 483–495.Google Scholar

Markovits, H., & Nantel, G. (1989). The belief-bias effect in the production and evaluation of logical conclusions. Memory and Cognition, 17, 11–17.Google Scholar

Markovits, H., & Potvin, F. (2001). Suppression of valid inferences and knowledge structures: The curious effect of producing alternative antecedents on reasoning with causal conditionals. Memory and Cognition, 29, 736–744.Google Scholar

Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1982). Target attractiveness as a mediator of assumed attitude similarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 728–735.Google Scholar

Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Review, 102, 72–90.Google Scholar

Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. (1975a). Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad? Philosophy in Context, 4, 61–77.Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. (1975b). In defense of the asymmetry. Philosophy in Context (Supplementary), 4, 44–55.Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. (1991). The fallacy behind fallacies. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 159–171). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1981.)Google Scholar

Massey, G. J. (1995). The fallacy behind fallacies. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 159–171). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1981.)Google Scholar

Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory and thought. Cambridge, MA: Shenkman.Google Scholar

Maxwell, J. C. (1873). Molecules. In Niven, W. D. (Ed.), (1890). Scientific papers, Vol. 2. (pp. 361–377). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352.Google Scholar

McConnell, A. R., Neidermeier, K. E., Leibold, J. M. et al. (2000). What if I find it cheaper someplace else? Role of prefactual thinking and anticipated regret in consumer behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 281–298.Google Scholar

McCormick, M., & McElroy, T. (2009). Healthy choices in context: How contextual cues can influence the persuasiveness of framed health messages. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 248–255.Google Scholar

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310–321.Google Scholar

McCrea, S. M., & Flamm, A. (2012). Dysfunctional anticipatory thoughts and the self-handicapping strategy. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 72–81.Google Scholar

McCroskey, J., Young, T., & Scott, M. (1972). The effects of messages sidedness and evidence on inoculation against counterpersuasion in small group communication. Speech Monographs, 39, 205–212.Google Scholar

McGauran, N., Wieseler, B., Kreis, J. et al. (2010). Reporting bias in medical research: A narrative review. Trials, 11, 37.Google Scholar

McGuire, W. J. (1960). A syllogistic analysis of cognitive relationships. In Rosenberg, M. J., Hovland, C. I., McGuire, W. J., Abelson, R. P., & Brehm, J. W. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 65–110). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (Vol. I) (pp. 191–229). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar

McKellar, P. (1957). Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

McKenna, F. P. (1993). It won’t happen to me: Unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? British Journal of Psychology, 84, 39–50.Google Scholar

McKenna, F. P., Stanier, R. A., & Lewis, C. (1991). Factors underlying illusory self-assessment of driving skill in males and females. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23, 45–52.Google Scholar

McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel’s paradox of confirmation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 360–366.Google Scholar

McKeon, M. (undated). Argument. Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy.Google Scholar

McKerrow, R. E. (1987). Rescher’s plausibility thesis and the justification of arguments: A critical analysis. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline: Proceedings of the conference on argumentation (pp. 317–322). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

McMullen, M. N., & Markman, K. D. (2002). Affective impact of close counterfactuals: Implications of possible futures for possible pasts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 64–70.Google Scholar

McMullen, M. N., Markman, K. D., & Gavanski, I. (1995). Living in neither the best not the worst of all possible worlds: Antecedents and consequences of upward and downward counterfactual thinking. In Roese, N. J. & Olson, J. M. (Eds.), What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 133–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.Google Scholar

Medawar, P. B. (1979). A bouquet of fallacies from medicine and medical science with a sideways glance at mathematics and logic. In Duncan, R & Weston-Smith, M (Eds.), The encyclopedia of delusions. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic athletes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603–610.Google Scholar

Mehle, T., Gettys, C. V., Manning, C., Baca, S., & Fisher, S. (1981). The availability explanation of excessive plausibility assessments. Acta Psychologica, 49, 127–140.Google Scholar

Meindl, J. D. (1987). Chips for advanced computing. Scientific American, 257, 78–88.Google Scholar

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.Google Scholar

Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J. et al. (2014). Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psychological Science, 25, 1–10.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. (2011a). On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 85–113.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. (2011b). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26, 177–191.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. (2011c). When experts argue: Explaining the best and the worst of reasoning. Argumentation, 25, 313–327.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 689–700.Google Scholar

Mercier, H. (2017). How gullible are we? A review of the evidence from psychology and social science. Review of General Psychology, 21, 103–122.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33, 243–258.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–111.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2019). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Trouche, E. (2016). Natural-born arguers: Teaching how to make the best of our reasoning abilities. Educational Psychologist, 52, 1–16.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., Trouche, E., Yama, H., Heintz, C., & Girotto, V. (2015). Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 21, 341–355.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193–210.Google Scholar

Messer, R. (1997). Does God’s existence need proof? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480–500.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. (1986a). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 288–294.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J. (1986b). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 623–634.Google Scholar

Metcalfe, J., & Weibe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and non-insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15, 238–246.Google Scholar

Meyerson, B. S. (2018). Bots that argue and instruct. Scientific American, 319, 35–36.Google Scholar

Michel, M., & Peters, M. A. (Submitted). Confirmation bias without rhyme or reason.Google Scholar

Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 379–383.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic, ratiocinative, and inductive, being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation. London: Longmans.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1874). A system of logic (8th ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1995). On fallacies. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 85–94). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1892.)Google Scholar

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. (1986). Assessing cognitive skills in mathematics and science. Submitted to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Available from ERIC ED279690.Google Scholar

Mills, J., & Aronson, E. (1965). Opinion change as a function of the communicator’s attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 173–177.Google Scholar

Minson, J. A., Liberman, V, & Ross, L. (2011). Two to tango: Effects of collaboration and disagreement on dyadic judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1325–1338.Google Scholar

Mintz, E. (1956). An example of assimilative projection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 270–280.Google Scholar

Mischel, . W (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Mischel, . W (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 34, 740–754.Google Scholar

Mischel, . W (2004). Toward an integrated science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.Google Scholar

Mitchell, P., Robinson, E. J., Isaacs, J. E., & Nye, R. M. (1996). Contamination in reasoning about false belief: An instance of realist bias in adults but not children. Cognition, 59, 1–21.Google Scholar

Mitchell, T. R., & Kalb, L. S. (1981). Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on supervisors’ evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 604–612.Google Scholar

Miton, H., & Mercier, H. (2015). Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 633–636.Google Scholar

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (1993). Critical thinking. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar

Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115, 502–517.Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K. (2015). How a video game helped people make better decisions. Harvard Business Review, October 13. https://hbr.org/2015/10/how-a-video-game-helped-people-make-better-decisions Google Scholar

Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I. et al. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 129–140.Google Scholar

Morgan, J. J. B., & Morton, J. T. (1944). The distortion of syllogistic reasoning produced by personal convictions. Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 39–59.Google Scholar

Morley, N. J., Evans, J. St. B.T., & Handley, S. (2004). Belief bias and figural bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 57, 666–692.Google Scholar

Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 231–248.Google Scholar

Moutier, S., Angeard, N., & Houdé, O. (2002). Deductive reasoning and matching-bias inhibition training: Evidence from a debiasing paradigm. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 205–224.Google Scholar

Mullen, B., Atkins, J. L., Champion, D. S. et al. (1985). The false consensus effect: A meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 263–283.Google Scholar

Müller, F. M. (1887). The science of thought. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L., & Ross, B. H. (2010). Uncertainty in category-based induction: When do people integrate across categories? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 263–276.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L., Chen, S. Y., & Ross, B. H. (2012). Reasoning with uncertain categories. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 81–117.Google Scholar

Murphy, G. L., Murphy, L. B., & Newcomb, T. M. (1937). Experimental social psychology. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 132, 586–604.Google Scholar

Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142–1150.Google Scholar

Myers, D. G. (2011). Psychology. New York: Worth.Google Scholar

Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85–95.Google Scholar

Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. London: Aiken & Unwin. (Translated from Norwegian by A. Hannay.)Google Scholar

Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nasby, . W, Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 459–468.Google Scholar

Neilens, H., Handley, S., & Newstead, S. E. (2009). Effects of training and instruction on analytic and belief-based reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 37–68.Google Scholar

Nelius, T., Eisenmann, M., Doeliken, M., Hergl, M., & Matthiesen, S. (2019). Improving decision making by teaching debiasing approaches: Motivating engineering students with reflection. Human behavior in design. Institute of product engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Nelson, T. O., Gerler, D., & Narens, L. (1984). Accuracy of feeling-of-knowing judgments for predicting perceptual identification and relearning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 282–300.Google Scholar

Nestler, S. (2010). Belief perseverance: The role of accessible content and accessibility experiences. Social Psychology, 41, 35–41.Google Scholar

Neumann, B. R., & Friedman, L. A. (1980). The effects of opportunity costs on project investment decisions: A replication and extension. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 407–419.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E. (1990). Conversion in syllogistic reasoning. In Gilhooly, K, Keane, M, Logie, R, & Erdos, G (Eds.), Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thinking (Vol. 1, pp. 73–84). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1993). Mental models as an explanation of belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 46, 93–97.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E., & Griggs, R. A. (1983). Drawing inferences from qualified statements: A study of the square of opposition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 535–546.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E., Pollard, P., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Allen, J. (1992). The source of belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 45, 257–284.Google Scholar

Newstead, S. E., Handley, S. J., Harley, C., Wright, H., & Farrelly, D. (2004). Individual differences in deductive reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 33–60.Google Scholar

N’gbala, A., & Branscombe, N. R. (1997). When does action elicit more regret than inaction and is counterfactual mutation the mediator of this effect? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 139–162.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1986a). Reasoning as argument evaluation. ERIC ED279690.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1986b). Reflections on reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1986c). Why teach thinking? In Baron, J & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 27–37). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1990). The teaching of thinking: Perspectives and approaches. In Hedley, C. N., Houtz, J, & Baratta, A (Eds.), Cognition, curriculum and literacy (pp. 21–33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1991). Some observations on the teaching of thinking. In Mulcahy, R. F., Short, R. H., & Andrews, J (Eds.), Enhancing learning and thinking (pp. 3–9). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving, Vol. 12 of E. C. Carterette & M. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition (pp. 409–449). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1996). Ambiguities and unstated assumptions in probabilistic reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 410–443.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2001). The projective way of knowing: A useful heuristic that sometimes misleads. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 168–172.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2003). Psychology and environmental change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2004). Teaching reasoning. In Leighton, J. P. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 410–442). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2010). Mathematical reasoning: Patterns, problems, conjectures and proofs. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2015). Conditional reasoning: The unruly syntactics, semantics, thematics and pragmatics of “If.” New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (2020). Developing intelligence through instruction. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 205–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. (1987). Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica, 64, 245–259.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S., Butler, S. F., & Barch, D. H. (in press). Validity and persuasiveness of conditional arguments. American Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S., Butler, S. F., & Carlin, M. (2009). Empathy and knowledge projection. In Decety, J & Ickes, W (Eds.), Social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 43–56). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Borgida, E. (1975). Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 932–943.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977a). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977b). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not necessarily informative. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 113–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, D., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.Google Scholar

Nogar, R. J. (1966). The wisdom of evolution. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar

Norman, W. T. (1969). “To see oursels as ithers see us!”: Relations among self-perceptions, peer-perceptions, and expected peer-perceptions of personality attributes. Multivariate Behavior Research, 4, 417–433.Google Scholar

Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681–691.Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.Google Scholar

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (1993). On theories of belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 46, 87–92.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J. V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1985). The effects of belief on the spontaneous production of syllogistic conclusions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 553–569.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J., Garnham, A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1990). Belief bias effects in syllogistic reasoning. In Gilhooly, K, Keane, M, Logie, R, & Erdos, G (Eds.), Lines of thinking: Reflections on the psychology of thought (Vol. 1) (pp. 125–138). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J. V., Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Garnham, A. (1989). Believability and syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 31, 117–140.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking and Cognition, 1, 121–152.Google Scholar

Oaksford, M., Chater, N., & Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 883–899.Google Scholar

O’Brien, T. C. (1972). Logical thinking in adolescents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 4, 401.Google Scholar

O’Brien, T. C. (1973). Logical thinking in college students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 5, 71–79.Google Scholar

Oesterle, J. A. (1952). Logic: The art of defining and reasoning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1198–1212.Google Scholar

O’Gorman, H. J., & Garry, S. L. (1976). Pluralistic ignorance – a replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 449–458.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, D. J. (1997). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 1–12.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22, 209–249.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments from consequences: a review and integration. In Salmon, C. T. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 109–135, Vol. 36). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, D. J. (2017). Persuasion: theory & research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644.Google Scholar

Ormerod, T. C., Manktelow, K. I., & Jones, G. V. (1993). Reasoning with three types of conditional: Biases and mental models. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 705–716.Google Scholar

Osherson, D. (1995). Probability judgment. In Smith, E. E. & Osherson, D. N. (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 3: Thinking (2nd ed., pp. 35–76). Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Osman, M., & Laming, D. (2001). Misinterpretation of conditional statements in Wason’s selection task. Psychological Research, 65, 128–144.Google Scholar

Over, D. E. (2009). New paradigm psychology of reasoning: Review of “Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning.” Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 431–438.Google Scholar

Oxley, D. R., Vedlitz, A., & Wood, D. B. (2014). The effect of persuasive messages on policy problem recognition. Policy Studies Journal, 42, 252–268.Google Scholar

Pal, G. C. (2007). Is there a universal self-serving attribution bias? Psychological Studies, 52, 85–89.Google Scholar

Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley, C. Y. et al. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81–102.Google Scholar

Pascal, B. (1947). Pensées. In Commins, S & Linscott, R. N. (Eds.), Man and spirit: The speculative philosophers (pp. 199–230). New York: Random House. (Originally published in 1670.)Google Scholar

Paul, R. W. (1986). Critical thinking in the strong and the role of argumentation in everyday life. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 379–382). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Paulos, J. A. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Pechmann, C. (1990). How do consumer inferences moderate the effectiveness of two-sided messages? In Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G, & Pollay, R. W. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 337–341). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1869). Preliminary sketch of logic. MS 154. Writings, 2, 294–297.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1956). The probability of induction. In Newman, J. R. (Ed.), The world of mathematics, Vol. 2 (pp. 1341–1354). New York: Simon & Schuster. (Originally published in 1878.)Google Scholar

Pennington, D. C. (1981). Being wise after the event: An investigation of hindsight bias. Current Psychology, 1, 271–282.Google Scholar

Pennington, D. C., Rutter, D. R., McKenna, K., & Morley, I. E. (1980). Estimating the outcome of a pregnancy test: Women’s judgments in foresight and hindsight. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 317–324.Google Scholar

Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Penzias, A. (1992). Creation is supported by all the data so far. In Margenau, H & Varghese, R. A. (Eds.), Cosmos, bios, theos: Scientists reflect on science, God, and the origins of the universe, life and homo sapiens (pp. 78–83). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press. Translated by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N. (1985). Post primary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562–571.Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Voss, J, Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J (Eds.), Informal reasoning (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502–510.Google Scholar

Perner, J., Leekam, S., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds’ difficulty understanding false belief: Cognitive limitation, lack of knowledge, or pragmatic misunderstanding. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 125–137.Google Scholar

Pessin, A., & Engel, S. M. (2015). The study of philosophy (7th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29–46.Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.Google Scholar

Pfeifer, N. (2013). The new psychology of reasoning: A mental probability logic perspective. Thinking and Reasoning, 19, 329–345.Google Scholar

Pfeiffer, B. E., Deval, H., Kardes, F. R. et al. (2014). No product is perfect: The positive influence of acknowledging the negative. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 500–512.Google Scholar

Pham, M. T., (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144–159.Google Scholar

Pham, M. T. (2009). The lexicon and grammar of affect-as-information in consumer decision making: The GAIM. In Wänke, M (Ed.), Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 167–200). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940–961.Google Scholar

Pighin, S., Byrne, R. M. J., Ferrante, D., Gonzalez, M., & Girotto, V. (2011). Counterfactual thoughts about experienced, observed, and narrated events. Thinking and Reasoning, 17, 197–211.Google Scholar

Pinto, R. C. (1995). Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 302–311). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Pinto-Prades, J. L., Martinez-Perez, J. E., & Abellán-Perpiñán, J. M. (2006). The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 118–133.Google Scholar

Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651.Google Scholar

Politzer, G. (2003). Premise interpretation in conditional reasoning. In Hardman, D & Macchi, L (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment, and decision making (pp. 79–93). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Politzer, G. (2005). Uncertainty and the suppression of inferences. Thinking and Reasoning, 11, 5–33.Google Scholar

Politzer, G., & Carles, L. (2001). Belief revision and uncertain reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 217–234.Google Scholar

Polkinghorne, J. (1989). Science and Creation: The search for understanding. Boston, MA: New Science Library.Google Scholar

Pollard, P. (1979). Human reasoning: Logical and non-logical explanations. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Plymouth Polytechnic.Google Scholar

Pollard, P. (1982). Human reasoning: Some possible effects of availability. Cognition, 12, 65–96.Google Scholar

Pollard, P., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1980). The influence of logic on conditional reasoning performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 605–624.Google Scholar

Pollard, P., & Evans, J. St. B.T. (1981). The effect of prior beliefs in reasoning: An associational interpretation. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 73–82.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1954a). Mathematics and plausible reasoning, Vol. 1: Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1954b). Mathematics and plausible reasoning, Vol. 2: Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. (Originally published in 1945.)Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1981). The myth of inductive hypothesis generation. In Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (Eds.), On scientific thinking (pp. 72–76). New York: Columbia University Press. (Originally published in 1962.Google Scholar

Porter, T. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Posner, E. (2014). Why does the court usually decide cases either 9–0 or 5–4? Supreme court breakfast table. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/07/supreme-court-2014-why-are-most-cases-either-9-0-or-5-4.html Google Scholar

Possin, K. (2016). Conductive arguments: Why is this still a thing? Informal Logic, 36, 563–593.Google Scholar

Postman, N. (1985). Critical thinking in the electronic era. National Forum, 65, 4–8.Google Scholar

Poulton, E. C. (1982). Bias in quantitative judgments. Applied Ergonomics, 13, 31–42.Google Scholar

Powers, L. H. (1995). Equivocation. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 287–301). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Prado, J., & Noveck, I. (2006). How reaction time measures elucidate the matching bias and the way negations are processed. Thinking and Reasoning, 12, 309–328.Google Scholar

Price, P. C. (2000). Wishful thinking in the prediction of competitive outcomes. Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 161–172.Google Scholar

Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 39–57.Google Scholar

Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.Google Scholar

Puri, M., & Robinson, D. T. (2007). Optimism and economic choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 86, 71–99.Google Scholar

Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297–340). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Quayle, J., & Ball, L. (2000). Working memory, metacognitive uncertainty, and belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 1202–1223.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar

Rafetseder, E., & Perner, J. (2010). Is reasoning from counterfactual antecedents evidence for counterfactual reasoning? Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 131–155.Google Scholar

Rafetseder, E., & Perner, J. (2014). Counterfactual reasoning: Sharpening conceptual distinctions in developmental studies. Child Developmental Perspectives, 8, 54–58.Google Scholar

Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. R. (Eds.) (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Rathje, W. L. (1989). “Rubbish!” The Atlantic Monthly (December), 99–109.Google Scholar

Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 283–293.Google Scholar

Raymo, C. (1998). Sceptics and true believers: The exhilarating connection between science and religion. New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar

Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibility judgments vs. fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification. Psychological Review, 89, 250–280.Google Scholar

Reder, L. M., & Ross, B. H. (1983). Integrated knowledge in different tasks: The role of retrieval strategy on fan effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 55–72.Google Scholar

Reder, L. M., Wible, C., & Martin, J. (1986). Differential memory changes with age: Exact retrieval versus plausible inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 72–81.Google Scholar

Reed, B. C. (2018). The ongoing story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American Scientist, 106, 88–94.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1964a). Hypothetical reasoning. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1964b). Introduction to logic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1976). Plausible reasoning: An introduction to the theory and practice of plausible inference. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum & Co.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (1979). Reply to L. J. Cohen. In Sosa, E (Ed.), The philosophy of Nicholas Rescher (pp. 61–63). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar

Rescher, N. (2007). Conditionals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Resnick, L. B. (1986). Education and learning to think. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.Google Scholar

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., & Clarke, S. N. (2013). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Revlin, R., & Leirer, V. O. (1978). The effect of personal biases on syllogistic reasoning: Rational decisions from personalized representations. In Revlin, R & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.), Human reasoning (pp. 51–81). Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar

Revlin, R., Leirer, V., Yopp, H., & Yopp, R. (1980). The belief bias effect in formal reasoning: The influence of knowledge on logic. Memory and Cognition, 8, 584–592.Google Scholar

Revlis, R. (1975a). Syllogistic reasoning: Logical decisions from a complex data base. In Falmagne, R. J. (Ed.), Reasoning: Representation and process (pp. 93–133). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Revlis, R. (1975b). Two models of syllogistic inference: Feature selection and conversion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 180–195.Google Scholar

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89–107.Google Scholar

Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1975). Argumentation and the decision-making process. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Riggs, K. J., Peterson, D. M., Robinson, E. J., & Mitchell, P. (1998). Are errors in false belief tasks symptomatic of a broader difficulty with counterfactuality? Cognitive Development, 13, 73–90.Google Scholar

Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rips, L. J. (1995). Deduction and cognition. In Smith, E. E. & Osherson, D. N. (Eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.) (pp. 297–343). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rips, L. J., & Conrad, F. G. (1983). Individual differences in deduction. Cognition and Brain Theory, 6, 259–285.Google Scholar

Rips, L. J., & Marcus, S. L. (1977). Suppositions and the analysis of conditional sentences. In Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (Eds.), Comprehension processes in comprehension (pp. 185–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Rivers, S. E., Salovey, P., Pizarro, D. A., Pizzaro, J., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 65–77.Google Scholar

Robbennolt, J. K. (2013). The effects of negotiated and delegated apologies in settlement negotiation. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 128–135.Google Scholar

Robbins, J. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47.Google Scholar

Roberge, J. J. (1970). A study of children’s abilities to reason with basic principles of deductive reasoning. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 583–596.Google Scholar

Roberge, J. J. (1978). Linguistic and psychometric factors in propositional reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 705–716.Google Scholar

Robertson, L. S. (1977). Car crashes: Perceived vulnerability and willingness to pay for crash protection. Journal of Consumer Health, 3, 136–141.Google Scholar

Robinson, E. J., & Beck, S. (2000). What is difficult about counterfactual reasoning. In Mitchell, P & Riggs, K. J. (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 101–119). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, K. F. (1941). An experimental study of the effects of group discussion upon the social attitudes of college students. Speech Monographs, 8, 34–57.Google Scholar

Roese, N. J. (1993). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Doctoral dissertation. University of Western Ontario, Ontario Canada.Google Scholar

Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805–818.Google Scholar

Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133–148.Google Scholar

Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Counterfactual thinking: A critical review. In Roese, N. J. & Olson, J. M. (Eds.), What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 1–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rohatyn, D. (1986). When is a fallacy a fallacy? In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 102–109). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Rosemond, J., & Ravenal, B. (2008). The diseasing of America’s children: Exposing the ADHD fiasco and empowering parents to take back control. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166.Google Scholar

Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ross, L. (1978). Afterthoughts on the intuitive psychologist. In Berkowitz, L (Ed.), Cognitive theories in social psychology (pp. 385–400). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ross, L., & Anderson, C. A. (1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In Kahneman, D, Slovic, P & Tversky, A (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 129–152). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494.Google Scholar

Ross, L. D., Green, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus” effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301.Google Scholar

Ross, L. D., Lepper, M. R., Strack, F., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social explanation and social expectation: The effects of real and hypothetical explanations upon subjective likelihood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 817–829.Google Scholar

Ross, M., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). Attribution and social perception. In Lindzey, G & Aronson, E (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 73–122). New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336.Google Scholar

Ross, M., McFarland, C., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1981). The effect of attitude on recall of past histories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 627–634.Google Scholar

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 3–19.Google Scholar

Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, 202–220.Google Scholar

Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. (1993). The influence of message framing on health behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408–433.Google Scholar

Rothstein, H., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.Google Scholar

Rozeboom, W. W. (1997). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rubin, J. Z., & Brockner, J. (1975). Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1054–1063.Google Scholar

Ruggiero, V. R. (1981). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Ruggiero, V. R. (1984). The art of critical thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Rumain, B., Connell, J., & Braine, M. D. S. (1983). Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults. If is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19, 471–481.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1961). A free man’s worship. In Egner, R & Dennon, L (Eds.), The basic writings of Bertrand Russell (pp. 66–72). New York: Routledge. (Original published in 1923.)Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1967). The problems of philosophy. London: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1912.)Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., & Corbin, J. C. (2016). Not by desire alone: The role of cognitive consistency in the desirability bias. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 449–459.Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., Meloy, M. G., & Yong, K. (2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 456–470.Google Scholar

Sá, . W, Kelley, C., Ho, C., & Stanovich, K. E. (2005). Thinking about personal theories: Individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1149–1161.Google Scholar

Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001). The really fundamental attribution error in social psychological research. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 1–15.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. C. (1963). Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. C. (1974). The pragmatic justification of induction. In Swinburne, R (Ed.), The justification of induction (pp. 85–97). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Samuelson, P. A. (1988). Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Sanitioso, R. (1989). Mechanisms for motivated changes in the self-concept. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton University.Google Scholar

Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z., & Fong, G. T. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 229–241.Google Scholar

Sanna, L. J. (1996). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and simulating alternatives: Some ups and downs of prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1020–1036.Google Scholar

Sanna, L. J. (1998). Defensive pessimism and optimism: The bittersweet influence of mood on performance and prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 635–665.Google Scholar

Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H., & Gilovich, T. (1997). Remembering and regretting: The Zeigarnik effect and the cognitive availability of regrets for action and inaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 248–257.Google Scholar

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Scheffer, B. K., & Rubenfield, M. G. (2000). A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 39, 352–359.Google Scholar

Scheffer, B. K., & Rubenfeld, M. G. (2001). Critical thinking: What it is and how do we teach it? In Grace, J. M. & Rubl, H. K. (Eds.), Current issues in nursing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge: An introduction to epistemology and education. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism and physical well-being: Outcome expectances on health. Journal of Personality, 55, 169–210.Google Scholar

Schellens, P. J. (1985). Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Schipper, E. W., & Schuh, W. W. (1960). A first course in modern logic. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Schmidt, C. F. (1976). Understanding human action: Recognizing the plans and motives of other persons. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 47–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new principles for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.Google Scholar

Schopenhauer, A. (Undated). The essays of Arthur Schopenhauer (Translated by T. B. Saunders). New York: Willey Book Company. (Originally published in 1896.)Google Scholar

Schulze, C., & Newell, B. R. (2016). More heads choose better than one: Group decision making can eliminate probability matching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 907–914.Google Scholar

Schum, D. A. (1977). The behavioral richness of cascaded inference models: Examples in jurisprudence. In Castellan, N. J., Jr., Pisoni, D. B., & Potts, G. R. (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2) (pp. 149–173). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schum, D. A., & Kelly, C. W. (1973). A problem in cascaded inference: Determining the inferential impact of confirming and conflicting reports from several unreliable sources. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 404–423.Google Scholar

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1987). Problems in the use of survey questions to measure public opinion. Science, 236, 957–959.Google Scholar

Schwartz, B. (1982). Reinforcement-induced behavioral stereotypy: How not to teach people to discover rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 23–59.Google Scholar

Schwarz, N. (1995). Social cognition: Information accessibility and use in social judgment. In Smith, E. E. & Osherson, D. N. (Eds.), Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 3 (2nd ed.) (pp. 345–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Schwarz, N. (2007). Feeling and phenomenal experiences. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Information and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.Google Scholar

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In Krugland, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar

Schweingruber, D., & Wohlstein, R. T. (2005). The madding crowd goes to school: Myths about crowds in introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 33, 136–153.Google Scholar

Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In Sternberg, R. J. & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.), Practical intelligence (pp. 13–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Scriven, M. (1986). Probative logic. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 7–32). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Scriven, M. (2009). Probative inference. In Ritola, J (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar

Searles, H. L. (1948). Logic and scientific methods. New York: The Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar

Seifert, C. M. (2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? Psychology of Learning and Motivation; Advances in Research and Theory 41, 265–292.Google Scholar

Sellier, A-L., Scopelliti, I., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Debiasing training transfers to improve decision making in the field. Psychological Science, 30, 1371–1379.Google Scholar

Sells, S. B. (1936). The atmosphere effect: An experimental study of reasoning. Archives of Psychology, 29, 3–72.Google Scholar

Sells, S. B., & Koob, H. F. (1937). A classroom demonstration of “atmosphere effect” in reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 514–518.Google Scholar

Servick, K. (2016). Sizing up the evidence. Science, 351, 1130–1132.Google Scholar

Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attribution theory and advertiser credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 181–185.Google Scholar

Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S., & Kouri Kissel, T. (2018). Classical logic. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/logic-classical/Google Scholar

Sharot, T., Korn, C. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1475–1479.Google Scholar

Shehryar, O., & Hunt, D. M. (2005). A terror management perspective on the persuasiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 275–287.Google Scholar

Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M. P., Waters, E. A., & Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 395–411.Google Scholar

Sherman, S. J., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1989). Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 281–326.Google Scholar

Sherman, S. J., Skov, R. B., Hervits, E. F., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The effects of explaining hypothetical future events: From possibility to probability to actuality and beyond. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 142–158.Google Scholar

Sherman, S. J., Zehner, K. S., Johnson, J., & Hirt, E. R. (1983). Social explanation: The role of timing, set and recall on subjective likelihood estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1127–1143.Google Scholar

Shermer, M. (2015). Consilience and consensus. Scientific American, 313, 81.Google Scholar

Sidgwick, A. (1884). Fallacies: A view of logic from the practical side. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar

Silver, D. S. (2016). Mathematical induction and the nature of British miracles: A mathematical method of proof challenged traditional beliefs. American Scientist, 104, 296–303.Google Scholar

Simonson, I. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 105–118.Google Scholar

Skovgaard-Olsen, N., Singmann, H., & Klaur, K. C. (2016). The relevance effect and conditionals. Cognition, 150, 26–36.Google Scholar

Skyrms, B. (1975). Choice and Chance: An introduction to inductive logic (2nd ed.). Encino, CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar

Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2005). Do we “do”? Cognitive Science, 29, 5–39.Google Scholar

Slovic, P. (1966). Value as a determiner of subjective probability. Transactions of the Institute of Electronic Engineers: Human Factors Issue, HFE-7, 22–28.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649–744.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1976). Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 165–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Smallman, R., & Roese, N. J. (2009). Counterfactual thinking facilitates behavioral intensions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 845–852.Google Scholar

Smith, E. E., Shafir, E., & Osherson, D. (1993). Similarity, plausibility, and judgments of probability. Cognition, 49, 67–96.Google Scholar

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1979). Individual differences in second language ability. Language and Speech, 22, 151–162.Google Scholar

Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S. W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941–950.Google Scholar

Snyder, M. L., Stephan, W. G., & Rosenfield, D. (1976). Egotism and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 435–441.Google Scholar

Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19–29.Google Scholar

Soeteman, A. (1986). Deduction in law. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 102–109). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador USA.Google Scholar

Sosa, E. (Ed.) (1979). The philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar

Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A., & Sheble, L. (2017). The persistence and peril of misinformation. American Scientist, 105, 372–375.Google Scholar

Sowell, T. (1995). The vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Sowell, T. (2004). Basic economics: A citizen’s guide to the economy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799–806.Google Scholar

Speer, S. R., & Clifton, C. (1998). Plausibility and argument structure in sentence comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 26, 965–978.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stahl, C., Klauer, C., & Erdfelder, E. (2008). Matching bias in the selection task is not eliminated by explicit negations. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 281–303.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. (1970). Probability and conditionals. Philosophy of Science, 37, 64–80.Google Scholar

Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 193–230.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289–317.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998c). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000a). Authors’ response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 701–726.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000b). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.Google Scholar

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 129–167.Google Scholar

Starr, D. (2016). When DNA is lying. Science, 351, 1133–1136.Google Scholar

Staudenmayer, H. (1975). Understanding conditional reasoning with meaningful propositions. In Falmagne, R. J. (Ed.), Reasoning: Representation and process in children and adults (pp. 55–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.Google Scholar

Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.Google Scholar

Staw, B. M., & Huang, H. (1995). Sunk costs in the NBA: Why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 474–494.Google Scholar

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1989). Understanding behavior in escalation situations. Science, 246, 216–220.Google Scholar

Steedman, M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). The production of sentences, utterances and speech acts: Have computers anything to say? In Butterworth, B (Ed.), Language production, Vol. 1: Speech and talk. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Intelligence as thinking and learning skills. Educational Leadership, 39, 18–20.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.) (1986). Practical intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sterne, J., Egger, M., & Moher, D. (2008). Addressing reporting biases. In Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 297–334). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Stevens, S. S., & Greenbaum, H. B. (1966). Regression effect in psychophysical judgment. Perception and Psychophysics, 1, 439–446.Google Scholar

Stevenson, R. J. (1993). Rationality and reality. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 61–82). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Stevenson, R. J., & Over, D. E. (1995). Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 613–643.Google Scholar

Stewart, I. (1989). Chaos: Does God play dice? 1990 yearbook of science and the future (pp. 57–73). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.Google Scholar

Stich, S. P., & Nisbett, R. E. (1984). Expertise, justification, and the psychology of inductive reasoning. In Haskell, T. L. (Ed.), The authority of experts (pp. 226–241). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Monographs, 53, 75–89.Google Scholar

Stove, D. C. (1982). Popper and after: Four modern irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Stove, D. C. (1986). The rationality of induction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Strack, F, Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, mood, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1460–1469.Google Scholar

Strahilevitz, A., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 276–289.Google Scholar

Stupple, E. J. N., & Ball, L. L. (2008). Belief-logic conflict resolution in syllogistic reasoning: Inspection-time evidence for a parallel-process model. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 168–181.Google Scholar

Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143–148.Google Scholar

Svenson, O., Fischhoff, B., & MacGregor, D. (1985). Perceived driving safety and seatbelt usage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 119–133.Google Scholar

Swap, W. C. (1991). Psychological factors in environmental decision making: Social dilemmas. In Chechile, R. A. & Carlisle, S (Eds.), Environmental decision making: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 14–37). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar

Swijtink, Z. G. (1987). The objectification of observation: Measurement and statistical methods in the nineteenth century. In Krüger, L, Daston, L. J., & Heidelberger, M (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution, Vol. 1: Ideas in history (pp. 261–285). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Swinburne, R. (Ed.) (1974). The justification of induction. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swinburne, R. (1981). Faith and reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Synodinos, N. E. (1986). Hindsight distortion: I knew-it-all along and I was sure about it. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 107–117.Google Scholar

Tabachnik, N., Crocker, J., & Alloy, L. B. (1981). Depression, social comparison, and the false-consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 688–699.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101–114.Google Scholar

Tajfel, H., Sheikh, A. A., & Gardner, R. C. (1964). Content of stereotypes and the inference of similarity between members of stereotyped groups. Acta Psychologica, 22, 191–201.Google Scholar

Tal, A. (2015). Looks like science, must be true! Graphs and the halo of scientific truth. The Jury Expert: The Art and Science of Litigation Advocacy, 27, 1–8.Google Scholar

Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2014). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science, October 15. doi: 0963662514549688Google Scholar

Taleb, N. N. (2004). Fooled by randomness: The hidden role of chance in life and in the markets (2nd ed.). New York: Texere.Google Scholar

Taplin, J. E. (1971). Reasoning with conditional sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 10, 219–225.Google Scholar

Taplin, J. E., & Staudenmayer, H. (1973). Interpretation of abstract conditional sentences in deductive reasoning. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 530–542.Google Scholar

Taylor, D., & Doria, J. R. (1981). Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 201–211.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21–27.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R. (1983). It could be worse: Selective evaluation as a response to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 19–40.Google Scholar

Tegar, A. I. (1979). Too much invested to quit: The psychology of the escalation of conflict. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Teigen, K. H., & Nikolaisen, M. I. (2009). Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth. Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 268–293.Google Scholar

Teigen, K. H., Kanten, A. B., & Terum, J. A. (2011). Going to the other extreme: Counterfactual thinking leads to polarized judgments. Thinking and Reasoning, 17, 1–29.Google Scholar

Templin, O., & McCracken, A. (1927). A guide to thinking. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227–236.Google Scholar

Tetlock, P. E., & Levi, A. (1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 68–88.Google Scholar

Thagard, P., & Nisbett, R. E. (1982). Variability and confirmation. Philosophical Studies, 50, 250–267.Google Scholar

Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.Google Scholar

Thomas, L. (1983). The youngest science: Notes of a medicine-watcher. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar

Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2013). Diminishing adult egocentrism when estimating what others know. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 473–486.Google Scholar

Thomas, S. (1973). Practical reasoning in natural language. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A. (1996). Conditional reasoning: The necessary and sufficient conditions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 315–319.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2012). Belief bias in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 278–310.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T., & Handley, S. J. (2005). Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 238–257.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A., Newstead, S. E., & Morley, N. J. (2011). Methodological and theoretical issues in belief bias: Implications for dual-process theories. In Manktelow, K. I., Over, D. E., & Elqayam, S (Eds.), The science of reason: A festschrift for Jonathan St. B. T. Evans (pp. 309–338). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, V. A., Striemer, C. L., Reikoff, R., Gunter, R. W., & Campbell, J. D. (2003). Syllogistic reasoning time: Disconfirmation disconfirmed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 184–189.Google Scholar

Thompson, W. N. (1971). Modern argumentation and debate: Principles and practices. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Thorson, E. (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33, 460–480.Google Scholar

Thouless, R. H. (1931). Phenomenal regression to the real object, II. British Journal of Psychology, 22, 1–30.Google Scholar

Thouless, R. H. (1947). How to think straight. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Thouless, R. H. (1950). How to think straight. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Published also in 1940.)Google Scholar

Thouless, R. H. (1953). Straight and crooked thinking. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Originally published in 1930.)Google Scholar

Toffoli, T. (1982). Physics and computation. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21, 165–175.Google Scholar

Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851–860.Google Scholar

Torrens, D., Thompson, V. A., & Cramer, K. M. (1999). Individual differences and the belief bias effect: Mental models, logical necessity, and abstract reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 1–28.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). Introduction to reasoning, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1979.)Google Scholar

Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79, 94–110.Google Scholar

Trabasso, T., Rollins, H., & Shaughnessy, E. (1971). Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 239–289.Google Scholar

Trapp, R., Yingling, J. M., & Wanner, J. (1986). Measuring argumentative competence. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 253–261). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.Google Scholar

Trippas, D., Verde, M. F., & Handley, S. (2014). Using forced choice to test belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 133, 586–600.Google Scholar

Trippas, D., Pennycook, G., Verde, M. F., & Handley, S. J. (2015). Better but still biased: Analytic cognitive style and belief bias. Thinking and Reasoning, 21, 431–445.Google Scholar

Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1958–1971.Google Scholar

Turnbull, H. W. (1956). The great mathematicians. In Newman, J. R. (Ed.), The world of mathematics, Vol. 1 (pp. 75–168). New York: Simon & Schuster. (Originally published in 1929.)Google Scholar

Turner, J. A. P., & Thompson, V. A. (2009). The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 15, 69–100.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567.Google Scholar

Tweney, R. D., & Doherty, M. E. (1983). Rationality and the psychology of inference. Synthese, 57, 139–161.Google Scholar

Ulrich, . W (1985). In defense of the fallacy. In Cox, J. R., Sillers, M. O., & Walker, G. B. (Eds.), Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 110–126). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

Uttal, . W (2001). The new phrenology: The limits of localizing cognitive processing in the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Valins, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). Attribution processes in the development and treatment of emotional disorders. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S, & Weiner, B (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 137–150). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. Recognizing enthymemes as such, and, in particular, distinguishing them from non-sequiturs can be difficult. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 202–215). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (Eds.) (2012). Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflict of opinion. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1995a). Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 223–228). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1995b). The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 130–144). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, A., & Willard, C. A. (1986). Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline, Proceedings of the conference on Argumentation.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W. et al. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer.Google Scholar

Vedung, E. (1986). Rational argumentation and political deception. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 353–364). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Verplanken, B., & Pieters, R. G. (1988). Individual differences in reverse hindsight bias: I never thought something like Chernobyl would happen. Did I? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 131–144.Google Scholar

Vinokur, A., & Burstein, E. (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305–315.Google Scholar

Visser, J., Lawrence, J., Wagemans, J. H. M., & Reed, C. (2018). An annotated corpus of argument schemes in U.S. election debates. Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1101–1111), Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Voigtländer, N., & Voth, H.-J. (2015). Nazi indoctrination and anti-Semitic beliefs in Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 7931–7936.Google Scholar

Vorobej, M. (1992). Defining deduction. Informal logic, 14, 105–118.Google Scholar

Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Constructing a periodic table of arguments. In Bondy, P & Benacquista, L (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity, and bias: Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Wagemans, J. H. M. (2019). Four basic argument forms. Research in Language, 17, 56–69.Google Scholar

Walker, G. B. (1986). Communicating across cultures: Argument and international negotiation. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 238–252). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Wallace, D. B., & Kassin, S. M. (2012). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors? Law and Human Behavior, 36, 151–157.Google Scholar

Wallen, R. (1943). Individuals’ estimates of group opinion. Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 269–274.Google Scholar

Wallsten, T. S., & González-Vallejo, C. (1994). Statement verification: A stochastic model of judgment and response. Psychological Review, 101, 490–504.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1985). Are circular arguments necessarily vicious? American Philosophical Quarterly, 22, 263–274.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1986). What is a fallacy? In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 323–330). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1995). The essential ingredients of the fallacy of begging the question. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 229–239). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to pity: Argumentum ad misericordiam. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar

Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ward, A., & Brenner, L. (2006). Accentuate the negative: The positive effects of negative acknowledgment. Psychological Science, 17, 959–962.Google Scholar

Warren, R. J., II, King, J. R., Tarsa, C., Haas, B., & Henderson, J. (2017). A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology. PLoS ONE, 12, e0182502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182502 Google Scholar

Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In Foss, B (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 106–137). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wasserman, E. A., Dorner, W. W., & Kao, S. F. (1990). Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 509–521.Google Scholar

Watkins, R. (2002). Cogito, ergo, sum: The life of René Descartes. Boston, MA: David Godine.Google Scholar

Watts, I. (1995). Kinds of arguments and the doctrine of sophisms. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 57–66). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1796.)Google Scholar

Weatherson, B. (2003). What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies, 115, 1–31.Google Scholar

Weddle, P. (1980). Good grief: More on induction/deduction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 1–13.Google Scholar

Weddle, P. (1986). Informal logic and the deductive-inductive distinction. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 383–388). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Wegrocki, H. J. (1934). The effect of prestige suggestibility on emotional attitude. Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 384–394.Google Scholar

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A. et al. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S, & Weiner, B (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95–120). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.Google Scholar

Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232–1233.Google Scholar

Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.Google Scholar

Weiss, R. (2017). Nip misinformation in the bud. Science, 358, 427.Google Scholar

Wellman, C. (1971). Challenge and response: Justification in ethics. Carbondale & Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Wells, G. L., Taylor, B. R., & Turtle, J. W. (1987). The undoing of scenarios. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 421–430.Google Scholar

Wertz, S. K. (1985). When affirming the consequent is valid. International Logic Review, 31, 17–18.Google Scholar

Wetherick, N. E. (1993). Human rationality. In Manktelow, K. I. & Over, D. E. (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 83–109). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wetherick, N. E., & Gilhooly, K. (1990). The figural effect in syllogistic reasoning. In Gilhooly, K, Keane, M. T. G., Logie, R, & Erdos, G (Eds.), Lines of thought: Reflections on the psychology of thinking, Vol. 1. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Whately, R. (1995). Of fallacies. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 67–94). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. (Originally published in 1853.)Google Scholar

Whitaker, J. O. (1965). Sex differences and susceptibility to interpersonal persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 66, 91–05.Google Scholar

Whitaker, J. O., & Meade, R. D. (1967). Sex of communicator as a variable in source credibility. Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 27–34.Google Scholar

White, W. S. (2003). Miranda’s waning protections: Police interrogation practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Whitehead, A. N. (1956). Mathematics as an element in the history of thought. In Newman, J. R. (Ed.), The world of mathematics, Vol. 1, (pp. 402–416). New York: Simon & Schuster. (Originally published in 1925.)Google Scholar

Whitehead, A. N. (1994). Religion and science. In Gardner, M (Ed.), Great essays in science (pp. 216–228). New York: Prometheus Books. (Originally published in 1967.)Google Scholar

Whewell, . W (1858). The history of scientific ideas. London: John Parker & Son.Google Scholar

Wildman, T. M., & Fletcher, H. J. (1977). Developmental increases and decreases in solutions of conditional syllogism problems. Developmental Psychology, 13, 630–636.Google Scholar

Wilkins, M. C. (1928). The effect of changed material on ability to do formal syllogistic reasoning. Archives of Psychology, 16, 83.Google Scholar

Willard, C. A. (1995). Failures of relevance: A rhetorical view. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 145–158). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, A. D. (1992). Bias and debiasing techniques in forensic psychology. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 103, 19–26.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Myers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821–836.Google Scholar

Wisdom, J., & Barker, S. F. (1991). Proof and explanation: The Virginia lectures by John Wisdom. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. (Lectures given in 1957.)Google Scholar

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, A. B., Hertzman, M. et al. (1954). Personality through perception: An experimental and clinical study. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1972). On certainty. Edited by Anscombe, G. E. M. & von Wright, G. H., translated by D. Paul & G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Harper Torchbooks. (Originally published in 1950.)Google Scholar

Wixon, D. R., & Laird, J. D. (1976). Awareness and attitude change in the forced-compliance paradigm: The importance of when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 376–384.Google Scholar

Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2005). The use of other-side information: Explaining the myside bias in argumentation. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1–27.Google Scholar

Wood, G. (1978). The knew-it-all-along effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 345–353.Google Scholar

Woods, J. (1995a). Appeal to force. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 240–250). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Woods, J. (1995b). Fearful symmetry. In Hansen, H. V. & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 181–193). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1979). What type of argument is an ad verecundiam? Informal Logic Newsletter, 2, 5–6.Google Scholar

Woodworth, R. S., & Sells, S. B. (1935). An atmosphere effect in formal syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 451–460.Google Scholar

Wreen, M. (1986). When no reason is good reason. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 56–64). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Wright, R. (April, 1988a). Did the universe just happen? Atlantic Monthly, 261, 29–45.Google Scholar

Wright, R. (1988b). Three scientists and their gods: Looking for meaning in an age of information. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar

Wright, R. H., & Cummings, N. A. (Eds.) (2005). Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 276–291.Google Scholar

Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677–688.Google Scholar

Wyer, R. S., & Frey, D. (1983). The effects about self and others on the recall and judgments of feedback-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 540–559.Google Scholar

Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept (Vol. 2): Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Xie, Y. (2017). Conductive argument as a mode of strategic maneuvering. Informal Logic, 37, 2–22.Google Scholar

Xu, X., Arpan, L. M., & Chen, C-f. (2015). The moderating role of individual differences in responses to benefit and temporal framing of messages promoting residential energy saving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 95–108.Google Scholar

Yama, H., Manktelow, K. I., Mercier, H. et al. (2010). A cross-cultural study of hindsight bias and conditional probabilistic reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 346–371.Google Scholar

Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495–506.Google Scholar

Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260–281.Google Scholar

Yarmey, A. D. (1984). Age as a factor in eyewitness memory. In Wells, G. L. & Loftus, E. F. (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 142–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the study of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In Lloyd-Bostock, S & Clifford, B. R. (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (1992). The quest for randomness and its statistical applications. In Gordon, F. S. & Gordon, S. P. (Eds.), Statistics for the twenty-first century (pp. 139–150). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar

Zakay, D. (1983). The relationship between the probability assessor and the outcome of an event as a determiner of subjective probability. Acta Psychologica, 53, 271–280.Google Scholar

Zakay, D. (1984). The influence of perceived event’s controllability on its subjective occurrence probability. The Psychological Record, 34, 233–240.Google Scholar

Zappel, K. (1986). Argumentation and literary text: Towards an operational model. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R, Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and practices (pp. 217–224). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Zeleny, L. D. (1940). Experimental appraisal of a group learning plan. Journal of Educational Research, 34, 37–42.Google Scholar

Zhao, J., & Osherson, D. (2010). Updating beliefs in light of uncertain evidence: Descriptive assessment of Jefferey’s rule. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 288–307.Google Scholar

Zimbardo, P. G., Johnson, R. L., & McCann, V. (2006). Psychology: Core concepts. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, M. (1979) Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287.Google Scholar

Zur, O. (2005). The psychology of victimhood. In Wright, R. H., & Cummings, N. A. (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentioned path to harm (pp. 45–64). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive