IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v33y2021i4p448-479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do informal reasoning fallacies really shape decisions? Experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Vrbová
  • KateÅ™ina JiÅ™inová
  • Karel Helman
  • Hana Lorencová

    (Prague University of Economics and Business, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Informal reasoning fallacies belong to a persuasive tactic, leading to a conclusion that is not supported by premises but reached through emotions and/or misleading and incomplete information. Previous research focused on the ability to recognize informal reasoning fallacies. However, the recognition itself does not necessarily mean immunity to their influence on decisions made. An experiment was designed to study the relationship between the presence of informal reasoning fallacies and a consequent decision. Having conducted paired comparisons of distributions, we have found some support for the hypothesis that informal reasoning fallacies affect decision-making more substantially than non-fallacious reasoning—strong support in the case of a slippery slope, weak in that of appeal to fear, anecdotal evidence argument defying evaluation. Numeracy and cognitive reflection seem to be associated with higher resistance to the slippery slope, but do not diminish appeal to fear.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Vrbová & KateÅ™ina JiÅ™inová & Karel Helman & Hana Lorencová, 2021. "Do informal reasoning fallacies really shape decisions? Experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(4), pages 448-479, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:448-479
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631211033658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631211033658
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631211033658?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:448-479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.