Do task instructions affect argument evaluation when accounting for individual differences in reasoning ability and dispositions?

The ways instructions affect argument evaluation remain largely unknown. There may thus be uncovered ways to improve people's argumentation as well as matters better left unsaid. We examined how accurate and biased argument evaluation differ between instructions that emphasise facts, objectivity, or conscience. Data from adult Finns (N = 1600) showed that highlighting objective evaluation of arguments was connected to lower myside bias and to greater discernment between strong and weak arguments than when considerations of conscience or factual information were emphasised. The clearest differences in argument evaluations were between the instructions emphasising objectivity and conscience. We also analysed whether the cognitive correlates of argument evaluation varied depending on the instructions and found no differences. Instead, higher actively open-minded thinking, scientific reasoning skills, and cognitive reflection correlated systematically with better ability to separate strong from weak arguments. They were also never positively related to myside bias in argument evaluation.