Page 280 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 280
What Do We Know about the World?
sis in question (Risen and Gilovich, 2007), and seems due to the cogni-
tive engagement with the topic (Lao and Kuhn, 1996). Indeed, polariza-
tion may occur when a party believes in a particular opinion (Lao and
Kuhn, 1996; Pomerantz et al., 1995; Raden, 1985), when this opinion
is strongly advocated for or its advocacy is listened to (Budesheim and
Lundquist, 1999; Lao and Kuhn, 1996; Sears et al., 1964), and with ag-
ing (Kuhn et al., 1997).
Polarization mostly occurs in the debate setting. Sears et al. (1964)
recognized that the debate audience’s confidence in previous opinions
was strengthened after having watched a debate. Lao and Kuhn (1996)
and Budesheim and Lundquist (1999) showed that debaters also polar-
ize, and our exploratory survey on 63 debaters confirmed this result. The
exception was when debaters advocated for a position opposite to their
personal belief, in which case their confidence in their opinion weak-
ened significantly (De Conti, in press; cf. Budesheim and Lundquist,
1999; Green and Klug, 1990).
The trouble with polarization is that it seems to trigger bias assimi-
lation or confirmation bias (Lord et al., 1979; Nickerson, 1998; Sears et
al., 1964), dichotomization – i.e. “radicalizing a polarity by emphasizing
the incompatibility of the poles and the inexistence of intermediate al-
ternatives by stressing the obvious character of the dichotomy as well as
of the pole that ought to be preferred” (Dascal, 2008: 34; cf. Dascal and
Knoll, 2011) – and escalate conflict and disagreement attitudes, as Glasl
(1997), Pruitt and Kim (2004) and Kennedy and Pronin (2008) attest.
These negative outcomes help us to make explicit the reasoning be-
hind many scholars who discard debate. If debate leads to polarization
and polarization leads to bias assimilation, dichotomization or disagree-
ment and conflict escalating attitudes, then debate is a detrimental ed-
ucational tool. Johnson and Johnson (1994) consider debate as a con-
text where “competitors tend to avoid communicating with each other,
misperceive each other’s position and motivations, be suspicious of each
other, deny the legitimacy of others’ needs and feelings, and see the sit-
uation only from their own perspective” (ibidem: 118) concluding that
debate promotes closed-mindedness or refusing to incorporate any op-
ponent’s arguments into one’s own position as Felton et al. (2009) point
out. In addition, Tannen (1999) argues that since debaters “want to win
the argument […] they must go for the most gross and dramatic state-
ments they can muster. They will not concede an opponent’s point, even
if they can see its validity because that would weaken their position” (ibi-
sis in question (Risen and Gilovich, 2007), and seems due to the cogni-
tive engagement with the topic (Lao and Kuhn, 1996). Indeed, polariza-
tion may occur when a party believes in a particular opinion (Lao and
Kuhn, 1996; Pomerantz et al., 1995; Raden, 1985), when this opinion
is strongly advocated for or its advocacy is listened to (Budesheim and
Lundquist, 1999; Lao and Kuhn, 1996; Sears et al., 1964), and with ag-
ing (Kuhn et al., 1997).
Polarization mostly occurs in the debate setting. Sears et al. (1964)
recognized that the debate audience’s confidence in previous opinions
was strengthened after having watched a debate. Lao and Kuhn (1996)
and Budesheim and Lundquist (1999) showed that debaters also polar-
ize, and our exploratory survey on 63 debaters confirmed this result. The
exception was when debaters advocated for a position opposite to their
personal belief, in which case their confidence in their opinion weak-
ened significantly (De Conti, in press; cf. Budesheim and Lundquist,
1999; Green and Klug, 1990).
The trouble with polarization is that it seems to trigger bias assimi-
lation or confirmation bias (Lord et al., 1979; Nickerson, 1998; Sears et
al., 1964), dichotomization – i.e. “radicalizing a polarity by emphasizing
the incompatibility of the poles and the inexistence of intermediate al-
ternatives by stressing the obvious character of the dichotomy as well as
of the pole that ought to be preferred” (Dascal, 2008: 34; cf. Dascal and
Knoll, 2011) – and escalate conflict and disagreement attitudes, as Glasl
(1997), Pruitt and Kim (2004) and Kennedy and Pronin (2008) attest.
These negative outcomes help us to make explicit the reasoning be-
hind many scholars who discard debate. If debate leads to polarization
and polarization leads to bias assimilation, dichotomization or disagree-
ment and conflict escalating attitudes, then debate is a detrimental ed-
ucational tool. Johnson and Johnson (1994) consider debate as a con-
text where “competitors tend to avoid communicating with each other,
misperceive each other’s position and motivations, be suspicious of each
other, deny the legitimacy of others’ needs and feelings, and see the sit-
uation only from their own perspective” (ibidem: 118) concluding that
debate promotes closed-mindedness or refusing to incorporate any op-
ponent’s arguments into one’s own position as Felton et al. (2009) point
out. In addition, Tannen (1999) argues that since debaters “want to win
the argument […] they must go for the most gross and dramatic state-
ments they can muster. They will not concede an opponent’s point, even
if they can see its validity because that would weaken their position” (ibi-
