The Complexity Paper: A Writing Assignment that Targets Cognitive Bias
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.981Keywords:
cognitive bias, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, open-mindedness, perspective taking, argumentative writing genres, persuasive essayAbstract
Cognitive bias, especially confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, poses a significant challenge to argumentative writing genres, including the persuasive essay. To address this challenge, I introduce the complexity paper. Rather than attempting to convince the reader of a particular position on an issue as with a persuasive essay, the goal of a complexity paper is to convince the reader that the issue under discussion is difficult to resolve. This altered motivational structure encourages the writer to engage in perspective taking, thereby addressing confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I outline a three-part structure of the complexity paper using the example of physician-assisted suicide with the goal to help university instructors implement this genre into their courses. I recommend incorporating a complexity paper into a writing scaffold structure that precedes an argumentative paper.
References
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey Bass Wiley.
Brock, D. (1992). Voluntary active euthanasia. Hastings Center Report, 22(2): 10–22.
Carey, S. S. (2000). The uses and abuses of argument: Critical thinking and fallacious reasoning. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Copper, S. & Patton, R. (1987). Writing logically, thinking critically (2nd ed.). Longman.
Ditto, P. & Lopez, D. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
Freeland, A., Godkin, D., Dembo, J., Chan, P., Knoops, F., Lachmann, M., ... & Charbonneau, M. (2022). Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder: Challenges and considerations. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 67(1), 71-87.
Gorsuch, N. M. (2006). The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830343
Hairston, M. (1976). Carl Rogers’s alternative to traditional rhetoric. College Composition and Communication, 27(4), 373-377.
Kass, L. R. (2002). “I will give no deadly drug”: Why doctors must not kill. In K. M. Foley & H. Hendin (Eds.), The case against assisted suicide for the right to end-of-life care (pp. 17-40). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalization, Cambridge University Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Leper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. New England Journal of Medicine, 292(2), 78-80.
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2006). The Allyn & Bacon guide to writing. (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
Southworth, J. (2020). How argumentative writing stifles open-mindedness. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 20(2), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022220903426
Southworth, J. (2021). A perspective-taking theory of open-mindedness: Confronting the challenge of motivated reasoning. Educational Theory, 71(5), 589-607. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12497
Sumner, L. (2011). Assisted death: A study in ethics and law. Oxford University Press.
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.
Yudkowsky E (2008) Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks. In N. Bostrom & M. Cirkovic (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks (pp. 81-119). Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 James Southworth
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.
