Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

Why Do Bystanders Become Cyberbullies? The Effect of Perceived Reasonableness of Online Messages on Bystanders' Aggressive Tendency and Its Underlying Mechanism

The objectives of this study were to examine the influence of bystanders' perceived reasonableness of online messages on their aggressive tendency toward victims and to examine the mediating role of bystanders' attribution of responsibility to victims on their aggressive tendency toward the victims. Our study involved two parts: In Study 1, 295 Taiwanese undergraduates were recruited, and questionnaires were distributed to them to measure their perceived reasonableness of cyberbullying attacks. In Study 2, a total of 78 university students were recruited. The participants' perceived reasonableness of cyberbullying attacks was reduced through experimental manipulation. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to a group with relatively low reasonableness or a control group. The results of both studies revealed that the participants' aggressive tendency toward the victim was influenced by their perceived reasonableness of cyberbully messages. The relation between perceived reasonableness and aggressive tendency was mediated by the participants' attribution of responsibility to the victim.

Attitude Strength

Attitude strength has been the focus of a huge volume of research in psychology and related sciences for decades. The insights offered by this literature have tremendous value for understanding attitude functioning and structure and for the effective application of the attitude concept in applied settings. This is the first Annual Review of Psychology article on the topic, and it offers a review of theory and evidence regarding one of the most researched strength-related attitude features: attitude importance. Personal importance is attached to an attitude when the attitude is perceived to be relevant to self-interest, social identification with reference groups or reference individuals, and values. Attaching personal importance to an attitude causes crystallizing of attitudes (via enhanced resistance to change), effortful gathering and processing of relevant information, accumulation of a large store of well-organized relevant information in long-term memory, enhanced attitude extremity and accessibility, enhanced attitude impact on the regulation of interpersonal attraction, energizing of emotional reactions, and enhanced impact of attitudes on behavioral intentions and action. Thus, important attitudes are real and consequential psychological forces, and their study offers opportunities for addressing behavioral change.

Evaluating arguments during instigations of defence motivation and accuracy motivation

When people evaluate the strength of an argument, their motivations are likely to influence the evaluation. However, few studies have specifically investigated the influences of motivational factors on argument evaluation. This study examined the effects of defence and accuracy motivations on argument evaluation. According to the compatibility between the advocated positions of arguments and participants' prior beliefs and the objective strength of arguments, participants evaluated four types of arguments: compatible-strong, compatible-weak, incompatible-strong, and incompatible-weak arguments. Experiment 1 revealed that participants possessing a high defence motivation rated compatible-weak arguments as stronger and incompatible-strong ones as weaker than participants possessing a low defence motivation. However, the strength ratings between the high and low defence groups regarding both compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments were similar. Experiment 2 revealed that when participants possessed a high accuracy motivation, they rated compatible-weak arguments as weaker and incompatible-strong ones as stronger than when they possessed a low accuracy motivation. However, participants' ratings on both compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments were similar when comparing high and low accuracy conditions. The results suggest that defence and accuracy motivations are two major motives influencing argument evaluation. However, they primarily influence the evaluation results for compatible-weak and incompatible-strong arguments, but not for compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments.