Individual differences in distinguishing licit from illicit ways of discharging the burden of proof

Abstract

Within argumentation theory, the burden of proof (BoP) refers to an incurred obligation to provide evidence or justification in support of one's position in an argument. The nature of BoP rules in conversational arguments and the basis of lay individual's sensitivity to such rules were explored across two studies. College students were presented with hypothetical two-person arguments featuring four different types of response to a challenge. Study 1 established which of these responses represent legitimate defenses, involving a licit discharging of the BoP, and which do not. Participants made a subtle distinction between two uses of challenge as a defense in this regard. Study 2 identified several dispositional characteristics that predict individual differences in the ability to distinguish between licit and illicit ways of discharging the BoP. These characteristics include knowledge of the norms or rules that enable argumentation to approach the ideal of a critical discussion, trait argumentativeness, a positive theory of argument, and both separation and connection as alternative ways of knowing. Results are discussed in terms of the pragma-dialectical ( van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004) and presumptive ( Walton, 1996b) models of argumentation.