Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse.

Autor/inn/en	Thiebach, Monja; Mayweg-Paus, Elisabeth; Jucks, Regina
Titel	Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse.
Quelle	In: Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 30 (2016) 2-3, S. 133-149Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1010-0652; 1664-2910
DOI	10.1024/1010-0652/a000174
Schlagwörter	Kognition; Kritisches Denken; Verbale Kommunikation; Auseinandersetzung; Kooperation
Abstract	Investigated how critically questioning and elaborating on the partner's information can be supported in argumentative discourses on scientific information. In a 1 x 2 between-subjects design, either a difference or a similarity focus was established by instructing 68 dyads to pay attention to either differences or similarities in views and arguments while discussing the topic. Results show that focusing on differences had beneficial effects on the quality of argumentative discourse as well as on individual critical thinking. However, on a sociomotivational level, participants' intrinsic motivation regarding the cooperation with the discourse partner and working on the tasks was higher when focusing on similarities. Implications for improving argumentative discourse and thereby fostering individuals' critical thinking skills are discussed. (ZPID).
Erfasst von	Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie, Trier
Update	2017/2