Show simple item record

dc.contributorWichita State University. Department of Counseling, Educational and School Psychologyen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchommer-Aikins, Marleneen_US
dc.contributor.authorEaster, Marilynen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-15T21:29:55Z
dc.date.available2012-02-15T21:29:55Z
dc.date.issued2009-03en_US
dc.identifier19306676en_US
dc.identifier0376332en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe Journal of psychology. 2009 Mar; 143(2): 117-32.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-3980en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.2.117-132en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10057/4459
dc.descriptionClick on the DOI link below to access the article (may not be free).en_US
dc.description.abstractWillingness to argue is associated with higher level thinking. The authors tested the relation between ways of knowing-involving separate knowing (i.e., playing the devil's advocate) and connected knowing (i.e., empathic understanding)--and students' willingness to argue. Participants were 171 male and 231 female college undergraduates who completed assessments in ways of knowing and willingness to argue. Also, the participants defined the word argument in their own words. After the authors controlled for demographic variables, endorsement of separate knowing predicted willingness to argue. Students with high scores in separate knowing (objective, adversarial knowing) and connected knowing (subjective, empathic knowing) indicated more willingness to argue. Furthermore, these same students defined argument as a constructive form of communication. Students with low scores in separate knowing defined argument as an emotional battle with the goal of psychological harm. This negative perspective could be an impediment to engaging students in classroom debate and critical thinking.en_US
dc.format.extent117-32en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherRoutledge (Taylor & Francis)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Psychologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJ Psycholen_US
dc.sourceNLMen_US
dc.subjectMulticenter Studyen_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshAwarenessen_US
dc.subject.meshDissent and Disputesen_US
dc.subject.meshEmotionsen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshPsychological Testsen_US
dc.subject.meshThinkingen_US
dc.subject.meshVolitionen_US
dc.titleWays of knowing and willingness to argueen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.coverage.spacialUnited Statesen_US
dc.description.versionpeer revieweden_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2009 Heldref Publicationsen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record