Can People be Made More Rational? Testing Whether People’s Ability to Assess Arguments can be Enhanced

Abstract Scholars have expressed widespread concern about voters’ ability to critically evaluate political messages, particularly in light of recent democratic outcomes such as the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum. This study investigates whether written instructions alone—without interpersonal interaction—can enhance individuals’ ability to assess the strength of arguments. Drawing on the argument scheme approach and its associated critical questions, we establish a standard of argument quality and a method for evaluating arguments. In an experimental study, we test whether instructions on using critical questions improve participants’ evaluations of political arguments, and whether repeated exposure strengthens this effect. The results show that participants who received repeated instructions distinguished more clearly between low- and high-quality arguments than those who received instructions only once or not at all, suggesting an improved ability to evaluate political arguments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2025-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09683-y
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can People be Made More Rational? Testing Whether People’s Ability to Assess Arguments can be Enhanced

Sebastian Lundmark, Henrik Oscarsson, Henrik Friberg‐Fernros, Nora Theorin et al.
Argumentation
Misinformation and Its Impacts
article

Can People be Made More Rational? Testing Whether People’s Ability to Assess Arguments can be Enhanced

Sebastian Lundmark, Henrik Oscarsson, Henrik Friberg‐Fernros, Nora Theorin, Jakob Ahlbom
article en

Abstract

Abstract Scholars have expressed widespread concern about voters’ ability to critically evaluate political messages, particularly in light of recent democratic outcomes such as the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum. This study investigates whether written instructions alone—without interpersonal interaction—can enhance individuals’ ability to assess the strength of arguments. Drawing on the argument scheme approach and its associated critical questions, we establish a standard of argument quality and a method for evaluating arguments. In an experimental study, we test whether instructions on using critical questions improve participants’ evaluations of political arguments, and whether repeated exposure strengthens this effect. The results show that participants who received repeated instructions distinguished more clearly between low- and high-quality arguments than those who received instructions only once or not at all, suggesting an improved ability to evaluate political arguments.

Argumentation
Stockholm University (SE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.