Nav: Home

Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking

March 15, 2017

Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

"Envisioning opposing views leads to a more comprehensive examination of the issue," says psychology researcher Julia Zavala (Teachers College, Columbia University), first author on the study. "Moreover, it impacts how people understand knowledge--constructing opposing views leads them to regard knowledge less as fact and more as information that can be scrutinized in a framework of alternatives and evidence."

Students--and many adults--often have difficulty when it comes to persuasive or expository writing, failing to consider challenges to their own perspective. Previous research has shown that peer-to-peer discussion can help students overcome these limitations, but opportunities for these kinds of discussions are not always available. Zavala and study co-author Deanna Kuhn (also at Teachers College, Columbia University) wondered whether students may be able to reap the benefits of this kind of dialogue in a solo writing assignment.

Zavala and Kuhn asked 60 undergraduates to participate in a one-hour writing activity. Some participants were randomly assigned to construct a dialogue between TV commentators discussing two mayoral candidates. They received a list of notable problems that the city was facing and a list of actions proposed by each candidate to solve these problems. Other participants received the same information about the city and the candidates but were asked to write a persuasive essay highlighting the merits of each candidate instead. Then, participants in both groups were asked to write a script for a two-minute TV spot, promoting their preferred candidate.

Examining the students' writing samples, Zavala and Kuhn found that participants who had constructed a dialogue included more discrete ideas in their writing than did participants who wrote an essay. Compared with the essays, the dialogues also included more statements that directly compared the two candidates and more statements that connected the city's problems to the candidates' proposed actions.

In the subsequent TV script, students who had written a dialogue made more references to city problems and to proposed actions, they made more statements that linked a problem with an action, they made more comparisons between the candidates, and they made more statements that were critical of the candidates' positions, compared with students who had written an essay.

Students in the dialogue group were also less likely to make claims in their TV script that lacked supporting evidence. Only 20% of students in the dialogue group made one or more unsubstantiated claims, compared with 60% of the students in the essay group.

"These results support our hypothesis that the dialogic task would lead to deeper, more comprehensive processing of the two positions and hence a richer representation of each and the differences between them," says Kuhn.  Constructing a dialogue thus helped to expand and sharpen students' thinking, Zavala and Kuhn argue.

Results from a separate task indicated that participants in the dialogue group also showed a more sophisticated understanding of knowledge. While some of the participants in the essay group seemed to approach knowledge from an absolutist perspective - interpreting knowledge as a body of certain facts that exists apart from human judgment - none of the students in the dialogue group did so.

"The dialogue task, which took no more than an hour to complete, appeared to have a strong effect on students' epistemological understanding," Zavala explains.

"Everything possible should be done to encourage and support genuine discourse on critical issues, but our findings suggest that the virtual form of interaction we examined may be a productive substitute, at a time when positions on an issue far too often lack the deep analysis to support them," Kuhn concludes.
-end-
For more information about this study, please contact: Julia Zavala at julia.h.zavala@gmail.com or Deanna Kuhn at dk100@tc.columbia.edu.

The article abstract are available online at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797616689248

The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "Solitary Discourse Is a Productive Activity" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Anna Mikulak at 202-293-9300 or amikulak@psychologicalscience.org.

Association for Psychological Science

Related Candidates Articles:

Kidneys from diabetic donors may benefit many transplant candidates
Patients who received kidney transplants from donors with diabetes had better survival compared with those who remained on the waitlist.
Potential drug candidates halt prostate and breast cancer growth
Scientists on the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have designed two new drug candidates to target prostate and triple negative breast cancers.
Transgender political candidates still likely face an uphill battle, study finds
A new study led by a University of Kansas political scientist found 35 percent-40 percent of adults would oppose a transgender candidate for office, which was higher than the 30 percent who would likely oppose a gay or lesbian candidate.
Differences in the rhetorical styles of candidates in the 2016 US presidential election
A new paper published in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities reveals and quantifies dramatic differences in the speaking styles of candidates in the 2016 United States presidential election.
Study finds that views of swing voters do not matter much to presidential candidates
Despite the familiar belief that candidates must appeal to the 'moderate middle' of the voting public in order to win elections, US presidential candidates routinely take less-than moderate positions on a variety of issues.
Vaccine candidates protect primates against Zika virus
A month after announcing that two promising vaccine candidates provided mice with complete protection against the Zika virus, a research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), in collaboration with scientists at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the University of São Paulo, now reports achieving complete protection against Zika virus in rhesus monkeys.
Vaccine candidates protect against Zika virus in rhesus monkeys
An Army-developed ZIKV purified inactivated virus Zika vaccine candidate provided robust protection against the virus in rhesus monkeys in a new preclinical study.
Team led by SF State astronomer catalogs most likely 'second-Earth' candidates
An international team of researchers has pinpointed which of the more than 4,000 exoplanets discovered by NASA's Kepler mission are most likely to be similar to Earth.
Americans say political candidates are not listening to their health concerns
A strong majority of Americans (81 percent) say medicines available today have improved their quality of life and even more (91 percent) say it is important to develop better medicines for conditions we currently treat, according to a new national public opinion survey commissioned by Research!America.
Plant kingdom provides 2 new candidates for the war on antibiotic resistance
New research has discovered peptides from two crop species that have antimicrobial effects on bacteria implicated in food spoilage and food poisoning.

Related Candidates Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Climate Crisis
There's no greater threat to humanity than climate change. What can we do to stop the worst consequences? This hour, TED speakers explore how we can save our planet and whether we can do it in time. Guests include climate activist Greta Thunberg, chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox, research scientist Sean Davis, food innovator Bruce Friedrich, and psychologist Per Espen Stoknes.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#527 Honey I CRISPR'd the Kids
This week we're coming to you from Awesome Con in Washington, D.C. There, host Bethany Brookshire led a panel of three amazing guests to talk about the promise and perils of CRISPR, and what happens now that CRISPR babies have (maybe?) been born. Featuring science writer Tina Saey, molecular biologist Anne Simon, and bioethicist Alan Regenberg. A Nobel Prize winner argues banning CRISPR babies won’t work Geneticists push for a 5-year global ban on gene-edited babies A CRISPR spin-off causes unintended typos in DNA News of the first gene-edited babies ignited a firestorm The researcher who created CRISPR twins defends...