Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students
Descripción del Articulo
Argumentation is a process in which reasons and justifications are produced to support a point of view. It has been widely studied due to its relationship with cognitive change and its significance in education at all levels. The present research aimed to explore three cases of university students e...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de Publicación: | 2025 |
| Institución: | Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| Repositorio: | Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| Lenguaje: | español inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:revistas.usil.edu.pe:article/2113 |
| Enlace del recurso: | https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113 |
| Nivel de acceso: | acceso abierto |
| Materia: | Argument Discussion Dialogue University-students Cognitive-change Argumento Discusión Dialogo Estudiantes-universitarios Cambio-cognitivo |
| id |
REVUSIL_4287afd7d6b0277b099c5bfb485129e3 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usil.edu.pe:article/2113 |
| network_acronym_str |
REVUSIL |
| network_name_str |
Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| repository_id_str |
. |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students Argumentación e integración sociocognitiva en debates diádicos: persuasión, consenso y discusión libre en estudiantes universitarios |
| title |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| spellingShingle |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students Curcio, Juan Manuel Argument Discussion Dialogue University-students Cognitive-change Argumento Discusión Dialogo Estudiantes-universitarios Cambio-cognitivo |
| title_short |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| title_full |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| title_fullStr |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| title_sort |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University Students |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Curcio, Juan Manuel Castellaro, Mariano A. Peralta, Nadia S. |
| author |
Curcio, Juan Manuel |
| author_facet |
Curcio, Juan Manuel Castellaro, Mariano A. Peralta, Nadia S. |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Castellaro, Mariano A. Peralta, Nadia S. |
| author2_role |
author author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Argument Discussion Dialogue University-students Cognitive-change Argumento Discusión Dialogo Estudiantes-universitarios Cambio-cognitivo |
| topic |
Argument Discussion Dialogue University-students Cognitive-change Argumento Discusión Dialogo Estudiantes-universitarios Cambio-cognitivo |
| description |
Argumentation is a process in which reasons and justifications are produced to support a point of view. It has been widely studied due to its relationship with cognitive change and its significance in education at all levels. The present research aimed to explore three cases of university students engaged in debates across three distinct contexts (persuasion, consensus, and free debate) and their influence on the development of dialogue. The study analyzed argumentation and socio-cognitive integration, defined as the ability of students to incorporate information contributed during the debate. The findings align with previous studies but emphasize the importance of examining individual student characteristics in achieving effective socio-cognitive integration and dialogue development. Furthermore, potential theoretical and methodological implications are discussed. |
| publishDate |
2025 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2025-09-30 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113 10.20511/pyr2025.v13.2113 |
| url |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113 |
| identifier_str_mv |
10.20511/pyr2025.v13.2113 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
spa eng |
| language |
spa eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113/1941 https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113/1946 /*ref*/Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718 /*ref*/Asterhan, C., Schwarz, B., Butler, R., Butera, F., Darnon, C., Nokes, T., Levine, J., Belenky, D., Gadgil, S., Resnick, L., & Sinatra, G. (2010). Motivation and Affect in Peer Argumentation and Socio-Cognitive Conflict. International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS), 2. https://repository.isls.org/handle/1/2801 /*ref*/Baker, M. J. (2022). Types of Types of Educational Dialogue. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100387 /*ref*/Brehm, S., Brehm, J. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. Academic Press. /*ref*/Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. No. 4. Cambridge University Press. /*ref*/Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory into practice, 43(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1353/tip.2004.0002 /*ref*/Butera, F., Dompnier, B., & Darnon, C. (2024). Achievement Goals: A Social Influence Cycle. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 527-554. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-013123-102139 /*ref*/Cano, M., & Castelló, M. (2016). Development of Argumentative Discourse Based on Learning Demand. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 84-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111 /*ref*/Castellaro, M., Peralta, N. S., Tuzinkievicz, M. A., & Fariz, G. (2023). Una perspectiva microsecuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva en situaciones de asimetría de competencia. Psykhe (Santiago), 32(2), 0-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.2021.35645 /*ref*/Castellaro, M., & Roselli, N. (2018). Resolución Colaborativa de Problemas Lógicos en Condiciones de Simetría y Asimetría Cognitiva. Propósitos y Representaciones, 6(1), 135-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2018.v6n1.196 /*ref*/Clark, A. (2024). Extending the Predictive Mind. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 102(1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2022.2122523 /*ref*/Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58(1): 7-19. https://alice.id.tue.nl/references/clark-chalmers-1998.pdf /*ref*/Craig, R. T., & Sanusi, A. L. (2000). 'I'm Just Saying...': Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity. Argumentation, 14, 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007880826834 /*ref*/Felton, M., Crowell, A., Garcia-Mila, M., & Villarroel, C. (2022). Capturing Deliberative Argument: An Analytic Coding Scheme for Studying Argumentative Dialogue and Its Benefits for Learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350 /*ref*/Felton, M., García-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015a). Arguing Collaboratively: Argumentative Discourse Types and Their Potential for Knowledge Building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078 /*ref*/Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015b). Arguing to Agree: Mitigating My-Side Bias Through Consensus-Seeking Dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315590788 /*ref*/Felton, M., García-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation Versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417-446. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i4.2907 /*ref*/Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford University Press. /*ref*/García-Mila, M., Pérez-Echeverría, M. P., Postigo, Y., Martí, E., Villarroel, C., & Gabucio, F. (2016). Nuclear power plants? Yes or no? Thank you! The argumentative use of tables and graphs/ ¿Centrales nucleares? ¿Sí o no? ¡Gracias! El uso argumentativo de tablas y gráficas. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 187-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111605 /*ref*/Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857-2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.663191 /*ref*/Huma, B., Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2021). Vocabularies of social influence: Managing the moral accountability of influencing another. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12409 /*ref*/Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), 559-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136 /*ref*/Koudenburg, N., Kutlaca, M., & Kuppens, T. (2024). The Experience and Emergence of Attitudinal Consensus in Conversations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2992 /*ref*/Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2001). The Path to Wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3604_6 /*ref*/McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2007). The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191 /*ref*/Menary, R. (2010). Cognitive Integration and the Extended Mind. In: A. Clark & D. Chalmers (Eds.), The Extended Mind (pp. 85-112). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8535.003.0010 /*ref*/Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press. /*ref*/Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90070-0 /*ref*/Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2002). Clasificación y Descripción de las Metodologías de Investigación en Psicología. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2(3), 503-508. /*ref*/Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Pigière, D., Dragulescu, A., & Buchs, C. (2002). Self-competence, interaction style and expert social influence: Toward a correspondence hypothesis. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 61(3), 153. https://doi.org/10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.153 /*ref*/Mugny, G., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Doise, W. (1981). Interpersonal Coordinations and Sociological Differences in the Construction of the Intellect. Progress in Applied Social Psychology, 1, 315-343. /*ref*/Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of educational psychology, 97(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 /*ref*/O'Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and Research. SAGE. /*ref*/Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903494584 /*ref*/Peralta, N., Castellaro, M., & Tuzinkievicz, M. A. (2022). Influencia del tipo de tarea sobre la construcción dialógica y resolución del conflicto en ingresantes universitarios. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 12(2), 77-90. /*ref*/Peralta, N. S., & Roselli, N. (2021). Efectos de la regulación de la interacción diádica en tareas argumentativas. Revista de Psicología (PUCP), 39(1), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202101.09 /*ref*/Peralta, N., & Roselli, N. (2016). Conflicto sociocognitivo e intersubjetividad: análisis de las interacciones verbales en situaciones de aprendizaje colaborativo. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 6(1), 90-113. /*ref*/Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2020). Evaluation and promotion of argumentative reasoning among university students: The case of academic writing. Revista Lusofona de Educacao, 45(45), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle45.09 /*ref*/Rucker, D. D., D'Agostino, J., Dyer, M., & Tormala, Z. L. (2024). The Allure of Consensus: People (Over) Seek Consensus in Selecting Group Persuasion Strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(4), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000382 /*ref*/Ruiz, L., & Leitáo, S. (2010). Regulación Argumentativa, Revisión Local y Géneros Discursivos Escritos. Praxis Psy, 18, 149-172. /*ref*/Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Fogelin, R. J. (2015). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic. Cengage Learning. /*ref*/Sorlin, S. (2017). The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002 /*ref*/Stasser, G., & Taylor, L.A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675. /*ref*/Tenenbaum, H., Winstone, N., Avery, R., & Leman, P. J. (2019). How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. [Publicación avanzada en línea]. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436 /*ref*/Tuzinkievicz, M. A., Peralta, N. S., Castellaro, M., & Santibáñez. C. (2018). Complejidad argumentativa individual escrita en estudiantes universitarios ingresantes y avanzados. Liberabit. Revista Peruana de Psicología, 24(2), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n2.05 /*ref*/Van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2023). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication, 17(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763 /*ref*/Van Eemeren, F. H. V. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer. /*ref*/Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2010). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter. /*ref*/Villarroel, C., García-Milá, M., Felton, M., & Miralda-Banda, A. (2019). Effect of argumentative goals in the quality of argumentative dialogue and written argumentation / Efecto de la consigna argumentativa en la calidad del diálogo argumentativo y de la argumentación escrita. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 42(1), 37-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1550162 /*ref*/Walton, D. (2010). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In: Computational models of argument (pp. 13-24). IOS Press. /*ref*/Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press. /*ref*/Walton, D., Toniolo, A., & Norman, T. J. (2016). Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument & Computation, 7(2-3), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-160009 /*ref*/Weigand, E. (2023). Principles of New Science: Dialogue between science and philosophy. Language and Dialogue, 13(1), 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00142.wei /*ref*/Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue-the mixed game. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 /*ref*/Weigand, E. (2006). Argumentation: The mixed game. Argumentation, 20(1), 59-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4 /*ref*/Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311399236 /*ref*/Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
Derechos de autor 2025 Propósitos y Representaciones https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Derechos de autor 2025 Propósitos y Representaciones https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Carrera de Psicología, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Perú. |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Carrera de Psicología, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Perú. |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Propósitos y Representaciones; ##issue.vol## 13 (2025): Enero - Diciembre; e2113 Propósitos y Representaciones; Vol. 13 (2025): Enero - Diciembre; e2113 Propósitos y Representaciones. Journal of Educational Psychology; Vol. 13 (2025): January - December; e2113 2310-4635 2307-7999 10.20511/pyr2025.v13 reponame:Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola instname:Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola instacron:USIL |
| instname_str |
Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| instacron_str |
USIL |
| institution |
USIL |
| reponame_str |
Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| collection |
Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
|
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1850410038987849728 |
| spelling |
Argumentation and Socio-cognitive Integration in Dyadic Debates: Persuasion, Consensus, and Free Discussion in University StudentsArgumentación e integración sociocognitiva en debates diádicos: persuasión, consenso y discusión libre en estudiantes universitariosCurcio, Juan ManuelCastellaro, Mariano A.Peralta, Nadia S.ArgumentDiscussionDialogueUniversity-studentsCognitive-changeArgumentoDiscusiónDialogoEstudiantes-universitariosCambio-cognitivoArgumentation is a process in which reasons and justifications are produced to support a point of view. It has been widely studied due to its relationship with cognitive change and its significance in education at all levels. The present research aimed to explore three cases of university students engaged in debates across three distinct contexts (persuasion, consensus, and free debate) and their influence on the development of dialogue. The study analyzed argumentation and socio-cognitive integration, defined as the ability of students to incorporate information contributed during the debate. The findings align with previous studies but emphasize the importance of examining individual student characteristics in achieving effective socio-cognitive integration and dialogue development. Furthermore, potential theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.La argumentación es un proceso en el que se producen razones y justificaciones para sostener un punto de vista. Ha sido ampliamente estudiada debido a su relación con el cambio cognitivo y su relevancia en la educación en todos los niveles. La presente investigación tuvo como objetivo explorar tres casos de estudiantes universitarios involucrados en debates en tres contextos distintos (persuasión, consenso y debate libre) y su influencia en el desarrollo del diálogo. El estudio analizó la argumentación y la integración sociocognitiva, definida como la capacidad de los estudiantes para incorporar la información aportada durante el debate. Los resultados coinciden con estudios previos, pero destacan la importancia de examinar las características individuales de los estudiantes para lograr una integración sociocognitiva efectiva y el desarrollo del diálogo. Además, se discuten posibles implicancias teóricas y metodológicas.Carrera de Psicología, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Perú.2025-09-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/211310.20511/pyr2025.v13.2113Propósitos y Representaciones; ##issue.vol## 13 (2025): Enero - Diciembre; e2113Propósitos y Representaciones; Vol. 13 (2025): Enero - Diciembre; e2113Propósitos y Representaciones. Journal of Educational Psychology; Vol. 13 (2025): January - December; e21132310-46352307-799910.20511/pyr2025.v13reponame:Revistas - Universidad San Ignacio de Loyolainstname:Universidad San Ignacio de Loyolainstacron:USILspaenghttps://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113/1941https://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/2113/1946/*ref*/Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718/*ref*/Asterhan, C., Schwarz, B., Butler, R., Butera, F., Darnon, C., Nokes, T., Levine, J., Belenky, D., Gadgil, S., Resnick, L., & Sinatra, G. (2010). Motivation and Affect in Peer Argumentation and Socio-Cognitive Conflict. International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS), 2. https://repository.isls.org/handle/1/2801/*ref*/Baker, M. J. (2022). Types of Types of Educational Dialogue. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100387/*ref*/Brehm, S., Brehm, J. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. Academic Press./*ref*/Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. No. 4. Cambridge University Press./*ref*/Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory into practice, 43(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1353/tip.2004.0002/*ref*/Butera, F., Dompnier, B., & Darnon, C. (2024). Achievement Goals: A Social Influence Cycle. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 527-554. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-013123-102139/*ref*/Cano, M., & Castelló, M. (2016). Development of Argumentative Discourse Based on Learning Demand. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 84-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111/*ref*/Castellaro, M., Peralta, N. S., Tuzinkievicz, M. A., & Fariz, G. (2023). Una perspectiva microsecuencial de la interacción sociocognitiva en situaciones de asimetría de competencia. Psykhe (Santiago), 32(2), 0-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.2021.35645/*ref*/Castellaro, M., & Roselli, N. (2018). Resolución Colaborativa de Problemas Lógicos en Condiciones de Simetría y Asimetría Cognitiva. Propósitos y Representaciones, 6(1), 135-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2018.v6n1.196/*ref*/Clark, A. (2024). Extending the Predictive Mind. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 102(1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2022.2122523/*ref*/Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58(1): 7-19. https://alice.id.tue.nl/references/clark-chalmers-1998.pdf/*ref*/Craig, R. T., & Sanusi, A. L. (2000). 'I'm Just Saying...': Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity. Argumentation, 14, 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007880826834/*ref*/Felton, M., Crowell, A., Garcia-Mila, M., & Villarroel, C. (2022). Capturing Deliberative Argument: An Analytic Coding Scheme for Studying Argumentative Dialogue and Its Benefits for Learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 36, 100350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100350/*ref*/Felton, M., García-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015a). Arguing Collaboratively: Argumentative Discourse Types and Their Potential for Knowledge Building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078/*ref*/Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015b). Arguing to Agree: Mitigating My-Side Bias Through Consensus-Seeking Dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315590788/*ref*/Felton, M., García-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation Versus Dispute: The Impact of Argumentative Discourse Goals on Learning and Reasoning in the Science Classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417-446. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i4.2907/*ref*/Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford University Press./*ref*/García-Mila, M., Pérez-Echeverría, M. P., Postigo, Y., Martí, E., Villarroel, C., & Gabucio, F. (2016). Nuclear power plants? Yes or no? Thank you! The argumentative use of tables and graphs/ ¿Centrales nucleares? ¿Sí o no? ¡Gracias! El uso argumentativo de tablas y gráficas. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 39(1), 187-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1111605/*ref*/Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students’ use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2857-2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.663191/*ref*/Huma, B., Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2021). Vocabularies of social influence: Managing the moral accountability of influencing another. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12409/*ref*/Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2011). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), 559-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136/*ref*/Koudenburg, N., Kutlaca, M., & Kuppens, T. (2024). The Experience and Emergence of Attitudinal Consensus in Conversations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2992/*ref*/Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2001). The Path to Wisdom. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3604_6/*ref*/McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2007). The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20191/*ref*/Menary, R. (2010). Cognitive Integration and the Extended Mind. In: A. Clark & D. Chalmers (Eds.), The Extended Mind (pp. 85-112). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8535.003.0010/*ref*/Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press./*ref*/Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(3), 270-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90070-0/*ref*/Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2002). Clasificación y Descripción de las Metodologías de Investigación en Psicología. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2(3), 503-508./*ref*/Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Pigière, D., Dragulescu, A., & Buchs, C. (2002). Self-competence, interaction style and expert social influence: Toward a correspondence hypothesis. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 61(3), 153. https://doi.org/10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.153/*ref*/Mugny, G., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Doise, W. (1981). Interpersonal Coordinations and Sociological Differences in the Construction of the Intellect. Progress in Applied Social Psychology, 1, 315-343./*ref*/Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of educational psychology, 97(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157/*ref*/O'Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and Research. SAGE./*ref*/Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903494584/*ref*/Peralta, N., Castellaro, M., & Tuzinkievicz, M. A. (2022). Influencia del tipo de tarea sobre la construcción dialógica y resolución del conflicto en ingresantes universitarios. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 12(2), 77-90./*ref*/Peralta, N. S., & Roselli, N. (2021). Efectos de la regulación de la interacción diádica en tareas argumentativas. Revista de Psicología (PUCP), 39(1), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202101.09/*ref*/Peralta, N., & Roselli, N. (2016). Conflicto sociocognitivo e intersubjetividad: análisis de las interacciones verbales en situaciones de aprendizaje colaborativo. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 6(1), 90-113./*ref*/Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2020). Evaluation and promotion of argumentative reasoning among university students: The case of academic writing. Revista Lusofona de Educacao, 45(45), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle45.09/*ref*/Rucker, D. D., D'Agostino, J., Dyer, M., & Tormala, Z. L. (2024). The Allure of Consensus: People (Over) Seek Consensus in Selecting Group Persuasion Strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(4), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000382/*ref*/Ruiz, L., & Leitáo, S. (2010). Regulación Argumentativa, Revisión Local y Géneros Discursivos Escritos. Praxis Psy, 18, 149-172./*ref*/Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Fogelin, R. J. (2015). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic. Cengage Learning./*ref*/Sorlin, S. (2017). The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002/*ref*/Stasser, G., & Taylor, L.A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675./*ref*/Tenenbaum, H., Winstone, N., Avery, R., & Leman, P. J. (2019). How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. [Publicación avanzada en línea]. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436/*ref*/Tuzinkievicz, M. A., Peralta, N. S., Castellaro, M., & Santibáñez. C. (2018). Complejidad argumentativa individual escrita en estudiantes universitarios ingresantes y avanzados. Liberabit. Revista Peruana de Psicología, 24(2), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n2.05/*ref*/Van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2023). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication, 17(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1617763/*ref*/Van Eemeren, F. H. V. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer./*ref*/Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2010). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter./*ref*/Villarroel, C., García-Milá, M., Felton, M., & Miralda-Banda, A. (2019). Effect of argumentative goals in the quality of argumentative dialogue and written argumentation / Efecto de la consigna argumentativa en la calidad del diálogo argumentativo y de la argumentación escrita. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 42(1), 37-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1550162/*ref*/Walton, D. (2010). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In: Computational models of argument (pp. 13-24). IOS Press./*ref*/Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press./*ref*/Walton, D., Toniolo, A., & Norman, T. J. (2016). Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances. Argument & Computation, 7(2-3), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-160009/*ref*/Weigand, E. (2023). Principles of New Science: Dialogue between science and philosophy. Language and Dialogue, 13(1), 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00142.wei/*ref*/Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue-the mixed game. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10/*ref*/Weigand, E. (2006). Argumentation: The mixed game. Argumentation, 20(1), 59-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4/*ref*/Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311399236/*ref*/Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019Derechos de autor 2025 Propósitos y Representacioneshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:revistas.usil.edu.pe:article/21132025-11-18T21:07:13Z |
| score |
13.97985 |
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).
