Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

An exploratory test of an intuitive evaluation method of perceived argument strength

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6170486
AutoresJos Hornikx (0000-0002-5362-0997, Radboud University Nijmegen), Annemarie Weerman (Radboud University Nijmegen), Hans Hoeken (0000-0002-7535-1273, Utrecht University)
Ano2021
Data de publicação2021-12-17
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoStudies in Communication Sciences (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1424-4896 • E-ISSN: 2296-4150
EditoraElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.24434/j.scoms.2022.02.003
OpenAlexW4200573091
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas13

According to Mercier and Sperber (2009, 2011, 2017), people have an immediate and intuitive feeling about the strength of an argument. These intuitive evaluations are not captured by current evaluation methods of argument strength, yet they could be important to predict the extent to which people accept the claim supported by the argument. In an exploratory study, therefore, a newly developed intuitive evaluation method to assess argument strength was compared to an explicit argument strength evaluation method (the PAS scale; Zhao et al., 2011), on their ability to predict claim acceptance (predictive validity) and on their sensitivity to differences in the manipulated quality of arguments (construct validity). An experimental study showed that the explicit argument strength evaluation performed well on the two validity measures. The intuitive evaluation measure, on the other hand, was not found to be valid. Suggestions for other ways of constructing and testing intuitive evaluation measures are presented

Argument (complex analysis · Cognitive psychology · Construct (python library · Construct validity · Developmental psychology · Feeling · Psychometrics · Test (biology · Computer Science · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology

  • On being drawn to different types of arguments

    Open Access•Annika M Svedholm‐Häkkinen, Mika Hietanen•Thinking & Reasoning•2025

  • Individual Differences in Argument Strength Discrimination

    Open Access•Annika M Svedholm‐Häkkinen, Mika Hietanen et al.•Argumentation•2024

  • Argumentation Schemes

    Open Access•D Walton, Douglas N Walton et al.•Argumentation Schemes•2008

  • Intuition, reason, and metacognition

    Open Access•Valerie A Thompson, Jamie A Prowse Turner et al.•Cognitive Psychology•2011

  • Intuition and Reasoning

    Jonathan St B T Evans•Psychological Inquiry•2010

  • Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory

    Open Access•Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber•Behavioral and Brain Sciences•2011

  • Logic, Fast and Slow

    Open Access•Wim De Neys, Gordon Pennycook•Current Directions in Psychological…•2019

  • Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition

    Open Access•Jonathan St B T Evans, Keith E Stanovich•Perspectives on Psychological…•2013

  • The Relationship Between the Perceived and Actual Effectiveness of Persuasive Messages

    Open Access•James Price Dillard, Kirsten M Weber et al.•Journal of Communication•2007

  • The Relative Persuasiveness of Different Forms of Arguments-From-Consequences

    Daniel J O’keefe•Annals of the International…•2013

  • Message Pretesting Using Perceived Persuasiveness Measures

    Open Access•Daniel J O’keefe•Communication Methods and Measures•2019

  • A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength

    Xiaoquan Zhao, Andrew A Strasser et al.•Communication Methods and Measures•2011

  • Cultural Differences in the Persuasiveness of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality

    Jos Hornikx, Hans Hoeken•Communication Monographs•2007

  • When is Statistical Evidence Superior to Anecdotal Evidence in Supporting Probability Claims? The Role of Argument Type

    Open Access•Hans Hoeken, Lettica Hustinx et al.•Human Communication Research•2009

  • Self-Schema Matching and Attitude Change

    Christian Wheeler, S Christian Wheeler et al.•Journal of Consumer Research•2005

Obras citantes distintas2
Citações por ano1
Intervalo de citações2024 - 2025 (2)
Velocidade de citaçãorecent
Altamente citadoNão
Tipos de citaçãoNeutras: 2
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae