Sixty college students either read a script of a dialog between two individuals holding contrasting positions on the issue of U.S. immigration or read texts containing their two individual position statements on the issue, expressing their same respective views. With this material removed from view, participants expressed in writing their own views on the issue. We asked whether exposure to the dialogic framing would have a greater effect on argumentive thinking, compared to non-dialogic presentation of the same arguments. Essays of the two groups differed in several ways. The dialog group showed greater investment in the task by writing more. Additionally, 78% of the dialog group (vs. 48% of the individual-position control group) made reference to the views they had read, despite no instruction to do so, over half referencing them in a comparative way (vs. 21% of the control group). The substance of the essays showed richer thought by the dialog group, including more “However” clauses (connecting two opposing statements) and more meta-level statements about the issue itself, supporting the hypothesis of a benefit of dialogic framing. Theoretical and educational implications are considered.

中文翻译：

---

仅仅接触对话框架就可以丰富辩论思维

60 名大学生要么阅读在美国移民问题上持不同立场的两个人之间的对话脚本，要么阅读包含他们在该问题上的两个个人立场声明的文本，表达各自相同的观点。将这些材料从视图中删除后，参与者以书面形式表达了他们对这个问题的看法。我们询问，与相同论点的非对话呈现相比，接触对话框架是否会对论证思维产生更大的影响。两组的论文在几个方面有所不同。对话组通过编写更多的内容显示出对任务的更大投入。此外，尽管没有指示，对话组的 78%（相对于个人位置控制组的 48%）参考了他们阅读的视图，超过一半的人以比较的方式引用它们（对照组为 21%）。论文的内容显示了对话组更丰富的思想，包括更多的“然而”从句（连接两个对立的陈述）和更多关于问题本身的元级陈述，支持对话框架有益的假设。考虑了理论和教育意义。