IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v33y2021i4p448-479.html

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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal & Andrew Gelman & Christian Robert & Jennifer L. Tackett, 2019. "Abandon Statistical Significance," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 235-245, March.
    2. Dan M. Kahan, 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    3. Cokely, Edward T. & Galesic, Mirta & Schulz, Eric & Ghazal, Saima & Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, 2012. "Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, January.
    4. Edward T. Cokely & Mirta Galesic & Eric Schulz & Saima Ghazal & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2012. "Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, January.
    5. Sergio Barbosa & William Jiménez-Leal, 2017. "It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 308-313, May.
    6. Kevin Arceneaux, 2012. "Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 271-285, April.
    7. Kahan, Dan M., 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    8. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    9. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2005. "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Barbosa, Sergio & Jiménez-Leal, William, 2017. "It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 308-313, May.
    11. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.
    12. François Facchini & Louis Jaeck, 2019. "Ideology and the rationality of non-voting," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(3), pages 265-286, August.
    13. Nicola Pensiero, 2020. "To leave or not to leave? Understanding the support for the United Kingdom membership in the European Union: Identity, attitudes towards the political system and socio-economic status," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(3), pages 255-277, August.
    14. Valentin Amrhein & Sander Greenland & Blake McShane, 2019. "Scientists rise up against statistical significance," Nature, Nature, vol. 567(7748), pages 305-307, March.
    15. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Timon M J Hruschka & Markus Appel, 2023. "Learning about informal fallacies and the detection of fake news: An experimental intervention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-14, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hannes Mohrschladt & Maren Baars & Thomas Langer, 2024. "Belief Updating Beyond the Two-State Setting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(10), pages 6761-6777, October.
    2. Robert M. Ross & David G. Rand & Gordon Pennycook, 2021. "Beyond “fake news†: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 484-504, March.
    3. Jessica K. Witt, 2022. "An Objective Measure of Decisional Clarity to Assess Decision Aid Effectiveness in Situations with Equipoise: A Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 822-831, August.
    4. Peeters, Ronald & Veiga, Helena & Vorsatz, Marc, 2025. "An experimental analysis of contagion in financial markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Bao, Te & Corgnet, Brice & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Okada, Katsuhiko & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Zhu, Jiahua, 2025. "Financial forecasting in the lab and the field: Qualified professionals vs. smart students," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    6. Sven Grüner & Oliver Mußhoff, 2025. "Behavioral climate change: does thinking about future consequences of climate change affect risk preferences and cooperation?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 178(7), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Brandts, Jordi & Busom, Isabel & Lopez-Mayan, Cristina, 2025. "Do giving voice and social information help in revising a misconception about rent–control?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Agnew, Stephen & Roger, Patrick & Roger, Tristan, 2026. "Financial literacy, cognitive abilities and gender gap," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    9. Inmaculada Otero & Pamela Alonso, 2023. "Cognitive reflection test: The effects of the items sequence on scores and response time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Gruener, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2025. "Behavioral climate change: Does thinking about future consequences of climate change affect risk preferences and cooperation?," OSF Preprints 7vdu6_v1, Center for Open Science.
    11. Prakashan Chellattan Veettil & Yashodha Yashodha & Joseph Vecci, 2025. "Hypothetical bias and cognitive ability: Farmers' preference for crop insurance products†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(3), pages 888-924, May.
    12. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    13. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    14. Firth, Chris & Stewart, Neil & Antoniou, Constantinos & Leake, David, 2023. "The effects of personality and IQ on portfolio outcomes," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    16. Irina Gemmo & Pierre-Carl Michaud & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2023. "Selection into Financial Education and Effects on Portfolio Choice," NBER Working Papers 31682, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    18. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    19. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Karl Halvor Teigen & Erik Løhre & Sigrid Møyner Hohle, 2018. "The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 309-321, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.