Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentive Reasoning

TLDR

The study explicitly tested whether engaging in dyadic discussion about a topic improves the quality of reasoning about that topic. Participants engaged in a series of dyadic discussions about capital punishment. Dyadic interaction significantly enhanced reasoning quality in both early adolescents and young adults, expanding argument variety, promoting two‑sided arguments, alternative frameworks, and metacognitive awareness, with process analysis indicating multiple interaction forms contributed to change.

Abstract

Abstract The object of this research was to provide an explicit test of the hypothesis that engagement in thinking about a topic enhances the quality of reasoning about that topic. Engagement took the form of a series of dyadic discussions of the topic of capital punishment. At both age levels examined--early adolescence and young adulthood-this dyadic interaction significantly enhanced quality of reasoning, relative to a more minimal, single-occasion dyadic engagement or a control condition limited to repeated elicitation of the participant's own opinions and arguments. The range of different arguments increased from pretest to posttest, suggesting a process of social transmission of new knowledge. In addition, however, 10 different types of qualitative improvement in the form of reasoning appeared in both age groups. Primary among them were a shift from 1 -sided to 2-sided arguments, arguments based within a framework of alternatives, and metacognitive awareness of coexistence of multiple views. Process analysis of the dialogues provided evidence of a variety of different forms of interaction contributing to change.