Philosophical Reflections on Argument Strength and Gradual Acceptability

2021 ◽  
pp. 144-158
Author(s):  
Henry Prakken
Keyword(s):  
Argument Strength

Mood State, Issue Involvement, and Argument Strength on Responses to Persuasive Appeals

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 739-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Sinclair ◽  
Tanya K. Lovsin ◽  
Sean E. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Mood State ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Introductory Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Responses ◽  
High Involvement ◽  
Argument Strength ◽  
Induction Condition ◽  
Issue Involvement ◽  
Thought Listing ◽  
Sad Mood

This study investigated the effects of mood state, issue involvement, and argument strength on responses to persuasive appeals. Through an unrelated second study paradigm, 144 introductory psychology students were randomly assigned to High or Low Issue Involvement, Happy or Sad Mood Inductions, and Strong or Weak Argument conditions. Attitudes, measured on 9-point Likert-type scales, and cognitive responses, measured through a thought listing, were assessed. On attitudes, people in the Happy Induction condition were equally persuaded by Strong and Weak Arguments, whereas people in the Sad Induction condition were persuaded by Strong, but not Weak, Arguments. Involvement had no effect. On the thought-listing measures, people in the Happy Induction condition showed modest elaboration. A stronger pattern of effects, consistent with high elaboration, was noted on the thought listings of people in the Sad Induction condition and who were in the High Involvement group. Interestingly, people in the Sad Induction condition who were in the Low Involvement group showed mood-congruency on thoughts. The data suggest that the effects of mood state are not moderated by the effects of issue Involvement on this measure of attitudes but that there may be some moderation on measures of elaboration. Implications and directions for research are discussed.

scholarly journals Leaping to conclusions: Why premise relevance affects argument strength

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Ransom ◽  
Amy Perfors ◽  
Danielle Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Model ◽  
Raw Data ◽  
Argument Strength ◽  
Everyday Reasoning

Everyday reasoning requires more evidence than raw data alone can provide. We explore the idea that people can go beyond this data by reasoning about how the data was sampled. This idea is investigated through an examination of premise non‐monotonicity, in which adding premises to a category‐based argument weakens rather than strengthens it. Relevance theories explain this phenomenon in terms of people's sensitivity to the relationships among premise items. We show that a Bayesian model of category‐based induction taking premise sampling assumptions and category similarity into account complements such theories and yields two important predictions: First, that sensitivity to premise relationships can be violated by inducing a weak sampling assumption; and second, that premise monotonicity should be restored as a result. We test these predictions with an experiment that manipulates people's assumptions in this regard, showing that people draw qualitatively different conclusions in each case.

scholarly journals Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Lukin ◽  
Pranav Anand ◽  
Marilyn Walker ◽  
Steve Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
Argument Strength ◽  
Audience Effects

On Argument Strength

2012 ◽  
pp. 185-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niki Pfeifer
Keyword(s):  
Argument Strength

scholarly journals Which cues influence the perceived usefulness and credibility of an online review? A conjoint analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Isabel Lopes ◽  
Nathalie Dens ◽  
Patrick De Pelsmacker ◽  
Freya De Keyzer
Keyword(s):  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Product Category ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Online Review ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Argument Strength

PurposeThis study aims to assess the relative importance of the argument strength, argument sidedness, writing quality, number of arguments, rated review usefulness, summary review rating and number of reviews in determining the perceived usefulness and credibility of an online review. Additionally, the authors use insights from the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) to explore the effect of consumers' product category involvement on the cues' relative importance.Design/methodology/approachA conjoint analysis (N = 287) is used to study the relative importance of the seven previously mentioned attributes. A balanced orthogonal design generated eight cards that correspond to individual reviews. Respondents scored all eight cards in a random order for perceived usefulness and credibility.FindingsOverall, argument strength is the most important cue, while summary review rating and the number of reviews are the least important for perceived review usefulness and credibility. The number of arguments is more important for people who are more highly involved with the product, while writing quality and rated review usefulness are relatively more important for the low-involvement group.Originality/valueThis study provides a comprehensive test of how consumers perceive online reviews, as it the first to the authors’ knowledge to simultaneously investigate a large set of cues using conjoint analysis. This method allows for the implicit valuation (utility) of the individual cues, revealing the cues' relative importance, in a setting that comes close to a real-life context. Besides, insights of the ELM are used to understand how the relative importance of cues differs depending on the level of review readers' product category involvement.

The negative impact of market-discrimination CSR: How do consumers respond to perceived company greed?

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-106
Author(s):  
Myungsuh Lim
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Corporate Image ◽  
Argument Strength ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
A Company ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Practical Implications

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is reported to have a positive effect on corporate image. However, if companies that have entered different markets implement market-discrimination CSR, which refers to unfairly applied CSR policies in the intermarket, and if the consumer recognizes this fact, the CSR effects will be diminished. To prove this, this research investigated consumers’ adverse reactions when a company that implements market-discrimination CSR faces a crisis. According to the results of this study, consumers who perceived company greed as evidence of a company practicing market-discrimination CSR activities experienced pleasure at the misfortune which called schadenfreude when the company faced a crisis and schadenfreude positively affected the argument strength of a rumor. Finally, the argument strength of a rumor has a positive effect on the consumer’s intention to spread the rumor as an act of revenge against the company. The results of this research suggest that CSR, which aims to build a positive corporate image, can have an adverse effect when it is felt that it is used to discriminate against consumers. Based on these results, this research presents theoretical and practical implications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document