Argument Strength Research Articles

The paradox of argument strength: how weak arguments undermine the persuasive effects of strong arguments.

This paper analyzes effects of the mutual presentation of weak and strong arguments. Departing from the prevalent "the-more-the-better" heuristic, our research scrutinizes whether the inclusion of weak arguments enhances or diminishes the persuasive impact of strong arguments. Leveraging insights from judgment formation literature, we conducted four experimental studies on political and health-related topics to unravel whether the presenting weak arguments strengthens the persuasive effect of a strong argument (adding) or actually weakens this persuasive effect (averaging). The results show that providing supporting arguments of moderate strength along with a strong argument increases persuasion, representing an additive pattern. However, presenting weak supporting arguments along with a strong argument reduces the persuasive effect of the strong argument, representing an averaging pattern. Exposure to weak arguments diminishes the strength of strong ones, suggesting the omission of weak arguments. These findings underscore the vital role of strategically selecting arguments to optimize persuasion across disciplines.

Investigating level descriptors and their impact on validity

This article presents a validation study which investigates the relationship between mastery level descriptors and item difficulty in the National Tests of English (NTE) in Norway. The aim is to establish the extent to which the descriptors indicate item difficulty and thus support the argument that the mastery levels are a reflection of the framework of the NTE. This argument strength has direct implications for validity and for the defensibility of moving from criterion-based descriptors to norm-based national data. The study involved a panel of 10 raters assigning level descriptors from 7 content categories to 80 test items, giving a total of 5,600 individual judgements. These judgements are compared to the real test scores of around 46,000 pupils to establish if the level descriptors assigned by raters can predict pupil performance on the tests. The results show a strong correlation between rater judgements and real test scores, meaning that the descriptors offer an indication of item difficulty. However, some individual descriptor categories contain deviations from the expected order. We conclude that, while the level descriptors reflect the test’s framework, and thus support the validity argument, the argument could be strengthened with the revision of some individual descriptors.

Teaching Critical Thinking With Argument Mapping

Critical thinking is the cornerstone of any undergraduate education. One technique for helping students develop critical thinking skills is argument mapping. Argument mapping involves diagraming the arguments for and against a proposition. The map also includes each piece of evidence used to support these arguments. Argument mapping can help students avoid confirmation bias by bringing attention to arguments and evidence which may run counter to their prior beliefs. It also prompts consideration of the strength of arguments and the quality of evidence. We describe how argument mapping can be incorporated in an undergraduate class and then present an example of a classroom exercise. The exercise involves mapping the arguments in a speech by American Secretary of State Colin Powell justifying the use of military force in Iraq before the United Nations Security Council in February 2013.

An abstract and structured account of dialectical argument strength

This paper presents a formal model of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. First a model is proposed that is abstract but designed to avoid overly limiting assumptions on instantiations or dialogue contexts. It is then shown that most principles for argument strength proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notions of dialectical strength, which clarifies the rational foundations of these principles and highlights the importance of distinguishing between kinds of argument strength, in particular logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength. The abstract model is then instantiated with ASPIC+ to test the claim that it does not make overly limiting assumptions on the structure of arguments and the nature of their relations.

Pilgrim links in women's stories in the Noble Qur'an

The stories of women in the Holy Qur'an abound in the persuasive language, and this is due to the diversity of its topics and the multiplicity of recipients in it, so we find it employing many deliberative argumentative strategies, including persuasive connectors. To find out the extent of its argumentative strength and the role it participated in bringing together and linking meanings, and achieving persuasion and influence, the research dealt with a group of argumentative connectors. The argumentative connectors link the argument and the result for interpretation and reasoning, and help to arrange and sequence events and link meanings to each other, and hence they form a persuasive structure by which persuasion reaches to fit the idea when addressed. This study aims to uncover these connectors via depending on the descriptive analytical approach. The research concluded that persuasion in the stories of women, in the Holy Qur'an, is a direct intentional process on the opinions of individuals, their behavior and beliefs, thus these stories are the transmission of the message from the sender to the recipient in order to influence his/her attitudes, thoughts and behaviors, and convince him/her of the idea.

Antinatalist procreationism and humanity's cosmic significance

In this article, I explore several prominent arguments forwarded by advocates of the antinatalist philosophy. Mainly, I assess the asymmetry argument, the argument concerning the lack of consent by future individuals, the arguments about the quality and meaning of life, and the imposition argument. After identifying some issues with the asymmetry argument and underscoring the strengths of the other arguments, I propose a form of antinatalism that accepts procreation under narrowly defined circumstances to avert species extinction and its potentially catastrophic consequences from a cosmic perspective.

Facilitating and Hindering Accurate Perceptions of Argument Strength: The Effects of Intergroup Bias and Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility (IH), the awareness that one’s beliefs could be wrong, is lacking in U.S. political discourse. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we conducted an experiment (N = 308) examining people’s ability to differentiate objectively strong (versus weak) political arguments. We explore whether IH influences the effects of in-/outgroup sources on perceived argument strength. Results revealed people high in IH were better able to differentiate strong from weak arguments (nonsignificant with covariates in the model (p = .07), but significant without covariates). Additionally, participants evaluated ingroup messages as stronger than outgroup messages, an effect not moderated by IH.

On being drawn to different types of arguments: a mouse-tracking study

How people distinguish well-justified from poorly justified arguments is not well known. To study the involvement of intuitive and analytic cognitive processes, we contrasted participants’ personal beliefs with argument strength that was determined in relation to established criteria of sound argumentation. In line with previous findings indicating that people have a myside bias, participants (N = 249) made more errors on conflict than on no-conflict trials. On conflict trials, errors and correct responses were practically equal in terms of response times and mouse-tracking indices of hesitation. Similarly to recent findings on formal reasoning, these findings indicate that correct reasoning about informal arguments may not necessitate corrective analytic processing. We compared findings across four argument schemes but found few differences. The findings are discussed in light of intuitive logic theories and the notion that evaluating informal arguments could be based on implicit knowledge of argument criteria.

Care Providers’ Perspectives on the Design of Assistive Persuasive Behaviors for Socially Assistive Robots

ObjectivesThe main objectives of this research are (1) to uniquely design assistive behaviors for socially assistive robots using the principles of persuasion from behavioral psychology, and (2) to investigate caregivers’ perspectives and opinions on the use of these behaviors to engage and motivate older adults in cognitive activities. DesignWe developed 10 unique robot persuasive assistive behavior strategies for the social robot Pepper using both verbal and nonverbal communication modes. Robot verbal behaviors were designed using Cialdini's principles of persuasion; nonverbal behaviors included expansive movements of the body. Care providers' perceptions of the quality, strength, and persuasiveness of these robot persuasive behaviors were assessed based on the Perceived Argument Strength Likert scale. Setting and ParticipantsEighteen formal and informal care providers caring for older adults including those living with mild cognitive impairments participated. MethodsAn online survey was designed consisting of short videos of the Pepper robot displaying each behavior. After viewing each video, care providers completed the Perceived Argument Strength Likert scale to evaluate 6 attributes for each behavior. They also provided comments. ResultsResults show robot assistive behaviors using praise with emotion, along with emotion with commitment were the most positively rated by care providers. Qualitative responses indicate robot body language and speech quality were influencing factors in how a person perceives assistance in human-robot interactions. Conclusions and ImplicationsOur findings provide new insights into incorporating persuasive strategies into the design of assistive social robot behaviors with the aim of engaging and motivating older adults in an activity. The majority of care providers rated the robot persuasive behaviors positively. In designing a persuasive socially assistive robot for older adults, it is beneficial to display a combination of persuasive strategies, such as praise and commitment with emotion, to address individual users’ needs and cognitive levels.

Extending science instruction beyond the CER: Use of critical questions in the argumentation of middle school science students

AbstractCritiquing arguments is important for K‐12 science students to learn but not emphasized by the predominant claim‐evidence‐reasoning (CER) argumentation model. Drawing on the work of Yu and Zenker (2020), and Dove and Nussbaum (2018), we developed a tool for supplementing CER with critical questions (CQs) from philosophy that cover most, if not all, the logical dimensions of argument critique. Six middle school science teachers designed lessons involving argumentation, including the use of CQs. We assessed the effects on student self‐efficacy for engaging in argument critique, teacher self‐efficacy for using argument pedagogy, and teachers’ perceptions of the value of CQs. Qualitative data included teacher interviews, lesson transcripts, and student work samples. Quantitative data included surveys of student self‐efficacy administered at the beginning and end of the school year. There was evidence suggesting an increase over time in students’ confidence for engaging in argument critique and teachers’ confidence with argument pedagogy. However, only four of the six teachers were confident and skilled enough to include CQs in their lessons. Those who did use CQs tended to perceive them as providing a helpful structure for critique, prompts for deeper thinking, and a tool for fostering critical classroom norms. Discussion of CQs may have benefitted students’ writing by promoting peer critique and encouragement to elaborate. Overall, CQs afford students with a framework for judging argument strength. Scientific argumentation involving CQs provides a more contemporary philosophical basis for scientific argumentation than CER or the Toulmin model as it emphasizes the critical and dialogic nature of science.

Mental disorders: exploring normality models to distinguish what is normal from what is illness

IntroductionWhen reading about psychopathology what we find described are experiences similar to our own. Psychiatry deals with anguish, fear, motivation, choice, and many other aspects that makes us human. However, even though psychopathology is rooted in common human experience, mental disorders are often outside the experience of those who don’t suffer from it. Therefore, the distinction between normality and disease is central to psychiatry. The DSM proposes that mental disorders are necessarily linked to distress and/or impairment. However, it adds that the syndrome or pattern must not be an expectable response to an event - it excludes “normal” experiences and responses from the realm of mental illness. But how do we distinguish normal distress from illness? This review investigates how different meanings of normality can help us discern the fine line between mental illness and ordinary human experience.ObjectivesWe intend to critically examine and compare different models of normality. Additionally, we seek to discern the implications of these models for distinguishing mental disorders from normal mental experiences.MethodsReview of the literature.ResultsWe analyzed definitions and models of normality throughout the literature and selected the most relevant ones according to their popularity and/or strength of argument. Different models of normality (e.g. Biostatistical, Process, Health, Ideal, Biological advantage, etc.) were examined and compared, and the conceptualization of mental disorder was examined through the lens of each of these frameworks. Our investigation reveals the multifaceted nature of normality, with different models offering unique perspectives on mental health. From statistical approaches to cultural considerations, each model contributes distinct criteria for distinguishing what is normal from what is illness. By synthesizing these results, we gain a comprehensive view of the factors influencing the conceptualization of normality in the context of mental health.ConclusionsThis review emphasizes the importance of adopting a nuanced, cautious and multifactorial approach when discerning mental disorders from normal experiences. Rather than relying on a singular definition, our analysis suggests that a comprehensive understanding of normality can help us to better discern what is normal and what is illness.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

Bilateral Gradual Semantics for Weighted Argumentation

Abstract argumentation is a reasoning model for evaluating arguments. Recently, gradual semantics has received considerable attention in weighted argumentation, which assigns an acceptability degree to each argument as its strength. In this paper, we aim to enhance gradual semantics by non-reciprocally incorporating the notion of rejectability degree. Such a setting offers a bilateral perspective on argument strength, enabling more comprehensive argument evaluations in practical situations. To this end, we first provide a set of principles for our semantics, taking both the acceptability and rejectability degrees into account, and propose three novel semantics conforming to the above principles. These semantics are defined as the limits of iterative sequences that always converge in any given weighted argumentation system, making them preferable for real-world applications.

When Arguments Meet a Story: An Experiment Testing Message Design Strategies for Skin Cancer Prevention and Detection

ABSTRACT Persuasion research often suggests combining different message formats such as facts, statistics, and narratives in message design to maximize persuasive effects. However, the effect of the combination, especially between fact-based arguments and long-form narratives, varies depending on many factors which have been understudied. Our study therefore tested how argument strength, argument position, and target behavior interacted in impacting behavioral outcomes for such a combined message about skin cancer. Findings from our experiment revealed a significant three-way interaction, as weak arguments were more effective when embedding them in a long-form narrative, whereas strong arguments were more impactful when placing them before the narrative. Such an interaction emerged only when messages recommended sunscreen use but not when recommending skin-self exams. We discussed the implications of the findings for message design about skin cancer prevention and detection.

Factor affecting internet information credibility: The moderating effect of gender

This study provides an analytical view of the correlation between several factors that influence the credibility of information available through various sources on the Internet. The most critical factors include information quality, source credibility, argument strength, message credibility, and average credibility. Additionally, the study explores the impact of gender and years of experience as demographic variables on the nature and size of these relationships. The study relied on a critical review of previous related literature. In addition, it adopted an analytical approach using a sample of 300 Internet users through a questionnaire designed based on the study hypotheses. Most of these relationships were found to be at an average level, except for the relationship between source credibility and information credibility. No statistical indicators were observed. Consequently, the researchers acknowledge the need for caution when generalizing these results to society. The study also found that the gender of the recipient and the number of years of experience did not necessarily play a mediating role in the relationship between the tested factors and the credibility of information received via the Internet.

Japan's "Three National Security Documents" and Defense Capabilities: Reinforcing a Radical Military Trajectory

Abstract: Japan's government argues that its 2022 three national security documents are at the same time transformational and yet maintain overall continuity in military and security policy. This article through investigating pivotal aspects of the defense reforms—perceived threats and strategy, defense budgets, counterstrike doctrine and capabilities, first island chain defense, and domestic policy and public resolve for implementation—weighs the strength of arguments for essential continuity versus step change. It concludes that the three documents fundamentally change Japan's exclusively defense-oriented policy and the division of labor in the U.S.-Japan alliance, further accelerate Japan's radical military trajectory, and pose important implications for regional security.

Re-Routing Persuasion: How Conversion Messages Boost Attitudes and Reduce Resistance Among Holdouts Unvaccinated for COVID-19

ABSTRACTThis study examined the persuasive effects of two-sided refutational conversion messages compared to one-sided advocacy messages in increasing pro-COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and reducing resistance to getting vaccinated among U.S. adults who self-reported as unvaccinated. Results showed that main effects of conversion messages led to significantly higher attitudes but failed to directly reduce resistance toward vaccination. Predicted mediation effects between conversion messages and the dependent variables were found for homophily but were not supported for argument strength. Significant group differences were detected between participants who self-reported as high or low in vaccine hesitancy, for structural equation models that significantly and indirectly led to decreased resistance. Findings show the potential for two-sided conversion messages to be used by public health message designers to affect pro-health outcomes. Implications and limitations of these results and future directions are discussed.

Thou Shalt Not Squander Life – Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength

Abstract Different approaches analyze the strength of a natural language argument in different ways. This paper contrasts the dialectical, structural, probabilistic (or Bayesian), computational, and empirical approaches by exemplarily applying them to a single argumentative text (Epicureans on Squandering Life; Aikin & Talisse, 2019). Rather than pitching these approaches against one another, our main goal is to show the room for fruitful interaction. Our focus is on a dialectical analysis of the squandering argument as an argumentative response that voids an interlocutor’s right to assertion. This analysis addresses the pragmatic dimensions of arguing and implies an argument structure that is consistent with empirical evidence of perceived argument strength. Results show that the squandering argument can be evaluated as a (non-fallacious) ad hominem argument, which however is not necessarily stronger than possible arguments attacking it.

Preface for the special issue on argument strength

Preface for the special issue on argument strength

Confronting value-based argumentation frameworks with people’s assessment of argument strength

We reported a series of experiments carried out to confront the underlying intuitions of value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs) with the intuitions of ordinary people. Our goal was twofold. On the one hand, we intended to test VAF as a descriptive theory of human argument evaluations. On the other, we aimed to gain new insights from empirical data that could serve to improve VAF as a normative model. The experiments showed that people’s acceptance of arguments deviates from VAF’s semantics and is rather correlated with the importance given to the promoted values, independently of the perceptions of argument interactions through attacks and defeats. Furthermore, arguments were often perceived as promoting more than one value with different relative strengths. Individuals’ analyses of scenarios were also affected by external factors such as biases and arguments not explicit in the framework. Finally, we confirmed that objective acceptance, that is, the acceptance of arguments under any order of the values, was not a frequent behavior. Instead, participants tended to accept only the arguments that promoted the values they subscribe.

The effects of authoritative source cue and argument strength of correction tweets on MMR vaccine-related misinformation credibility

Objectives: This study aimed to examine the joint effect of two core message elements – authoritative source and argument strength – in correction tweets to counter conspiratorial misinformation about the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Design/Method: An online experiment with US residents ( N = 404) was conducted in a 2 (authoritative correction sources: layperson vs US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control [CDC]) × 2 (correction argument strength: weak vs strong) design. Results: The results indicate that the correction employing strong arguments and a correction provided by the CDC heightened heuristic processing of the corrective information, which in turn increased the perceived credibility of the conspiratorial misinformation. The effect of the CDC correction on heuristic processing was heightened when it contained weak arguments. Notably, user-generated corrections with weak arguments reduced heuristic processing of the information and contributed to reducing the perceived credibility of the misinformation. Conclusion: Based on the findings, we argue that both communicator- and content-related cues jointly influence how audiences process corrective information. The current study discusses the potency of user-generated social media corrections to counter vaccine misinformation and provides practical implications for how user-generated social media correction can be utilised by health practitioners. Public health organisations should prioritise presenting corrective information in an easily understandable manner, using user-generated content that fosters a sense of connection and engagement with individuals.