Argument Strength Research Articles

Natural Historical Attitude: Objectivity Before Truth Book Review: Turner D. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Derek Turner believes that a proper interpretation of Arthur Fine’s natural ontological attitude can help to reveal the nature of the difference between «historical» (geology, archeology, forensics) and «empirical» (physics, chemistry) sciences. From his point of view, the apparent asymmetry between these sciences is a consequence of different understanding of the possibilities to «manipulate» the objects of study and the role played by background theories. In our opinion, Turner’s concept is a good example of how profound and inviting the instrumentalistic concept of science could be. First, it is «reflexive» in the sense that it constrained other instrumentalist theories (B. Fraassen’s constructive empiricism deeply flawed). And secondly, it is «constructive» – the emphasis that «the strength of arguments for or against scientific realism can vary depending on the scientific context» quite unexpectedly leads to the fact that «ideographic / nomothetic division is not very helpful», and to the fact that «epistemic disadvantage, but the same epistemic status». Reflections on the book: Turner D. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Individual Differences in Argument Strength Discrimination

Being able to discriminate poorly justified from well justified arguments is necessary for informed citizenship. However, it is not known whether the ability to recognize argument strength generalizes across different types of arguments, and what cognitive factors predict this ability or these abilities. Drawing on the theory of argument schemes, we examined arguments from consequence, analogy, symptoms, and authority in order to cover all major types of arguments. A study (N = 278) on the general population in Finland indicated that the ability to discriminate between strong and weak arguments did not differ between these schemes. Argument strength discrimination ability correlated positively with analytic thinking dispositions promoting both quality and quantity of thinking, slightly positively with education, and negatively with overconfidence. It was unrelated to an intuitive thinking style, and to self-rated mental effort.

The impact of explanations as communicative acts on belief in a claim: The role of source reliability

Providing an explanation is a communicative act. It involves an explainee, a person who receives an explanation, and an explainer, a person (or sometimes a machine) who provides an explanation. The majority of research on explanation has focused on how explanations alter explainees’ beliefs. However, one general feature of communicative acts is that they also provide information about the speaker (explainer). Work on argumentation suggests that the speaker’s reliability interacts with the content of the speaker’s message and has a significant impact on argument strength. In five experiments we explore the interplay between explanation, the explainee’s confidence in what is being explained, and the explainer’s reliability. Experiment 1 replicates results from previous literature on the impact of explanations on an explainee’s confidence in what is being explained using real-world explanations. Experiments 2 and 3 show that providing an explanation not only impacts the explainee’s confidence about what is being explained but also influences beliefs about the reliability of the explainer. Additionally, the two experiments demonstrate that the impact of explanation on the explainee’s confidence is mediated by the reliability of the explainer. In Experiment 4, we experimentally manipulated the explainer’s reliability and found that both the explainer’s reliability and whether or not an explanation was provided have a significant effect on the explainee’s confidence in what is being explained. In Experiment 5, we observed an interaction between providing an explanation and the explainer’s reliability. Specifically, we found that providing an explanation has a significantly greater impact on the explainee’s confidence in what is being explained when the explainer’s reliability is low compared to when that reliability is high. Throughout the study we point to the important impact of background knowledge, warranting further studies on this matter.

When do I ponder? The role of elaboration in counterfactual thinking

AbstractThe counterfactual thought such as “If only I had…” has a powerful impact on people's subsequent behavioral intentions. The literature has documented what may happen with CFT. But little has been done to investigate how CFT produces these effects. In this research, three studies provided evidence to show that elaboration rather than priming is the mechanism for CFT to have an effect on behavioral intentions; and the factors such as argument strength, outcome severity, and goal valence may interfere with such counterfactual effects. These theoretical contributions to the CFT literature offer important managerial implications and help marketers determine optimal persuasion strategies to influence consumers' information processing style.

Measures of Argument Strength: A Computational, Large-Scale Analysis of Effective Persuasion in Real-World Debates

ABSTRACT The present research examined how value-free and value-driven measures of argument strength (MAS) can be computationally extracted using a theory-driven approach at scale in a naturalistic setting by analyzing a total of 7,961 real-world debates and 42,716 judgments in rhetorical quality. In the first study, value-free MAS was significantly related to the rhetorical quality of arguments (i.e. their persuasiveness). The results indicate that the side that provides more information-source citation, less quantitative specificity, more unique words, and more abstract language is more likely to be perceived as convincing in dialectical argumentation, where two people are exchanging opposing arguments. In the second study, the added influence of value-driven MAS is investigated. The results show that the similarity between the moral values represented in arguments and those that are salient to argument receivers predicts the rhetorical quality. The research demonstrates how rhetorical quality can be measured and predicted at scale, and how naturally generated arguments can be used for scientific progress in persuasion research.

Responsibility for Future Climate Justice: The Direct Responsibility to Mitigate Structural Injustice for Future Generations

ABSTRACTIn this article we argue that duties towards future generations are situated on the collective level and that they should be understood in terms of collective responsibility for structural injustice. In the context of climate change, it seems self‐evident that our moral duties pertain not only to the current generation but to future generations as well. However, conceptualizing this leads to the non‐identity problem: future persons cannot be harmed by present‐day choices because they would not have existed if other choices had been made. Recently, Charlotte Franziska Unruh has proposed a solution that places the duties not on the individual level but on the collective level. The current generation has a responsibility for future generations as a whole. This solution is promising, but we argue that it problematically overlooks the existence of unjust relations within the contemporary collective, as we all contribute differently to bringing future generations into existence. Therefore, we propose to graft Iris Marion Young's Social Connection Model, which is concerned with structural injustice, on to the discussion of responsibility for future generations. Our proposal incorporates the strengths of Unruh's arguments, while also allowing for a differentiated responsibility based on different implications in unjust structures.

A few or several? Construal, quantity, and argumentativity

AbstractThis study examines two seemingly similar quantifiers, a few and several, and argues that the differences between them go beyond the (slightly) different quantities they each denote. Specifically, we argue that several construes its nominal complement as composed of individuated entities, which renders them more prominent, and thus a stronger basis in support of a conclusion the speaker is arguing for. We base our analysis on two experiments and a corpus study. The experiments show that there is indeed an argumentative difference between the quantifiers, and the corpus study points to the discourse factors behind it. In comparison with a few, several is associated with a higher discourse prominence for its complement (greater individuation, significance) and with greater argumentative strength. Based on this data, we characterize the quantifiers’ prototypical discourse profiles. A typical instance of several occurs in persuasive genres, refers to a not-so-small quantity, construes the plural entity as composed of individuated entities, and contributes to a strong argument. A typical instance of a few occurs in non-persuasive genres, denotes a small quantity, construes the entities composing the plural entity as un-individuated, and contributes to a weak or neutral argument.

Abstract Argumentation Framework with Conditional Preferences

Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a central formalism in the area of knowledge representation and reasoning. Preferences in AF allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments in a simple yet expressive way. Preference-based AF (PAF) has been proposed to extend AF with preferences of the form a > b, whose intuitive meaning is that argument a is better than b. In this paper we generalize PAF by introducing conditional preferences of the form a > b \leftarrow body that informally state that a is better than b whenever the condition expressed by body is true. The resulting framework, namely Conditional Preference-based AF (CPAF), extends the PAF semantics under three well-known preference criteria, i.e. democratic, elitist, and KTV. After introducing CPAF, we study the complexity of the verification problem (deciding whether a set of arguments is a ``best'' extension) as well as of the credulous and skeptical acceptance problems (deciding whether a given argument belongs to any or all ``best'' extensions, respectively) under multiple-status semantics (that is, complete, preferred, stable, and semi-stable semantics) for the above-mentioned preference criteria.

Online incivility, argument quality and public expression in China: Exploring the moderating role of education level and opinion congruency

Uncivil comments are prevalent in Chinese cyberspace. Many studies have explored the impacts of online incivility and argument quality on public expression, but very few studies have been conducted in authoritarian societies. We conducted two online experiments with different topics in China. The results showed that after being exposed to uncivil content, people's intentions to make comments online changed depending on their education level and opinion congruency. The less-educated people are more likely to express whereas the well-educated tend to remain silent. Besides, incivility and argument quality can work together to influence public expression. A strong argument with a civil tone can promote people's enthusiasm for expression. But a strong argument with an uncivil tone can decrease people's expression willingness. However, uncivil comments with weak arguments increase less-educated people's willingness to express themselves publicly. Besides, opinion congruency moderates the relationship between argument strength and online expression. But the pattern was contingent upon the nature of the discussion topics.

Evaluating and selecting arguments in the context of higher order uncertainty.

Human and artificial reasoning has to deal with uncertain environments. Ideally, probabilistic information is available. However, sometimes probabilistic information may not be precise or it is missing entirely. In such cases we reason with higher-order uncertainty. Formal argumentation is one of the leading formal methods to model defeasible reasoning in artificial intelligence, in particular in the tradition of Dung's abstract argumentation. Also from the perspective of cognition, reasoning has been considered as argumentative and social in nature, for instance by Mercier and Sperber. In this paper we use formal argumentation to provide a framework for reasoning with higher-order uncertainty. Our approach builds strongly on Haenni's system of probabilistic argumentation, but enhances it in several ways. First, we integrate it with deductive argumentation, both in terms of the representation of arguments and attacks, and in terms of utilizing abstract argumentation semantics for selecting some out of a set of possibly conflicting arguments. We show how our system can be adjusted to perform well under the so-called rationality postulates of formal argumentation. Second, we provide several notions of argument strength which are studied both meta-theoretically and empirically. In this way the paper contributes a formal model of reasoning with higher-order uncertainty with possible applications in artificial intelligence and human cognition.

Beyond Structure: Using the Rational Force Model to Assess Argumentative Writing

Current approaches used in educational research and practice to evaluate the quality of written arguments often rely on structural analysis. In such assessments, credit is awarded for the presence of structural elements of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and rebuttals. In this article, we discuss limitations of such approaches, including the absence of criteria for evaluating the quality of the argument elements. We then present an alternative framework, based on the Rational Force Model (RFM), which originated from the work of a Nordic philosopher Næss. Using an example of an argumentative essay, we demonstrate the potential of the RFM to improve argument analysis by focusing on the acceptability and relevance of argument elements, two criteria widely considered to be fundamental markers of argument strength. We outline possibilities and challenges with using the RFM in educational contexts and conclude by proposing directions for future research.

Modeling Claim - Evidence - Stance link in the Discussion Section of Research Genres: A Comparative Case Study of Expert and Student Writers in Applied Linguistics

The previous genre-based studies have emphasized the rhetorical organization of the discussion section in research articles or thesis writing. The present study extends this trend by exploring the argumentative structure and its link to stance-taking features in the discussion part-genre written by both expert and student writers. Two corpora were compiled, including discussion samples taken from published research articles and those chosen from Master’s theses in applied linguistics. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to identify any differences and similarities between the two groups of writers in terms of their organization of argumentative structure and the stance-taking manner. The results demonstrated that expert and student writers significantly differ in the manipulation of supporting evidence albeit their similar tendency to craft claim-evidence link. The significant differences were particularly found in the realization of interpretive arguments, with student writers employing more use of reason-result pattern whereas established writers presenting the higher occurrence of concessive clauses to reinforce the strength of arguments. Besides, the study also revealed that student writers tend to favor more numerical data while expert writers show greater preferences for generalized evidential and research evaluation to seek support for knowledge claims. Furthermore, the analysis of stance markers highlighted that stance-taking devices are inextricably interwoven with the claim-evidence link, with hedges and self-mentions predominantly serving for the interpretive evidence, attitude markers for both evidential and evaluative labels, and boosters for claim sets and factual evidence. Statistically significant differences between two corpora were also observed across the allocation of stance markers in relation to argumentative structures. The findings of the study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications for EAP writing instruction and learning needs.

Quality of Student Scientific Argumentation Through the Application of Problem-Based Learning With Flipped Classroom Approach

This research is quantitative research with a descriptive method that aims to analyze and compare the quality of students' scientific arguments in experimental class 1 which is applied by the PBL model through Flipped Classroom approach with experimental class 2 which applies the PBL model only. Instruments to measure students' scientific argumentation skills are essay questions. The quality of the students' arguments was analyzed based on the completeness of the components and the strength of the arguments. Analysis of the completeness of students' argumentation components aims to determine the level of students' argumentation which consists of 5 levels. The strength of the students' arguments was analyzed and categorized into three categories, namely weak, moderately strong, and strong. The results showed that students' scientific argumentation skills based on the completeness of the argument components in both classes experienced a significant increase. Most of the students in both classes have level 3 argumentation skills, meaning that students can make claims accompanied by complete supporting grounds. Based on the analysis of students' argument strength, experimental class 1 showed better argument quality than experimental class 2 where the percentage of students with strong argument strength in experimental class 1 was higher. Therefore, it can be concluded that the application of PBL with Flipped Classroom approach can improve the quality of students' scientific arguments

Corrigendum to 'the Role of Argument Strength and Informational Biases in Polarization and Bi-Polarization Effects', Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26 (2) 5, 2023

Corrigendum to 'the Role of Argument Strength and Informational Biases in Polarization and Bi-Polarization Effects', Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 26 (2) 5, 2023

The Role of Argument Strength and Informational Biases in Polarization and Bi-Polarization Effects

The Role of Argument Strength and Informational Biases in Polarization and Bi-Polarization Effects

A Study on the Changes in the Argument Statement Strategy According to the Media and Audience Transition －Focusing on the ‘Rebuttal’ in both the Discussion Scripts and the Essay after a Debating among College Students

In this paper, I examined how the transition between the media and the audience affects the thesis statement. Based on the fact that different media characteristics of speech and writing embody the same content in different ways, the aspects of media transition and audience transition were examined for college students’ discussion scripts and essays after debating. The reason why the rebuttal in the discussion model was studied was that the rebuttal not only shows the dialogic argumentation well, but also reflects the media transition and audience transition at the same time when it is converted into monologic argumentation, which is writing. First, the media transition from discussion to writing showed a difference in the amount of rebuttal terms. In the essays written after debating, we can see that the phenomenon of significantly reducing the existing rebuttal and replacing it with a new and interesting argument tends to give intellectual interest more advantage in the article written, compared to the special speaking situation of discussion. Second, as a result of examining the impact of audience transition on the argumentation strategy at the level of politeness, questioning, and communication, the politeness expression in discussion was removed from the writing and the argument strength increased, while the question aspect was diverse in discussion scripts using dialogic argumentation. In addition, analysis via Hyland’s ‘academic interaction model’ confirmed that audience transition is the cause of a different selection of boosters and hedges in the discussion script and essays after debating. In conclusion, we can say that the transition between the media and the audience has a certain effect on the argument development strategy.

Twilight of Rationality

Twilight of Rationality

On the strength of arguments related to standardization in risk management regulations

Risk-informed decision-making is a key concept in regulatory regimes covering a wide range of technical disciplines and risk domains. Increased standardization in terms of highly prescriptive and detailed requirements is observed in various risk management regulations and application areas. This development has spurred a discussion with equally strong voices promoting and opposing standardization of risk. The aim of this paper is to explore the knowledge base from scientific literature related to effects of standardization of risk and to assess the strength of the arguments used in the discussion. Through a scoping study and a systematic argument analysis, this study contributes to the debate on the most adequate approach to standardization in risk management regulations. Conclusions from the study are that effects of standardization of risk management regulations are not widely covered in scientific literature and empirical evidence is largely lacking to support the arguments used. The argument analysis indicate that many arguments are assessed as being weak, interconnected and even contradictory. It seems not possible to come to a conclusion and reach agreement in the discussion if the strengths of standardization outweigh the weaknesses. Thus, the discussion should be in the form of dialectic rather than debate. Acknowledging, understanding and addressing the various arguments in favour of and rejecting standardization, as well as their respective context, is essential when designing risk management regulations. Future research efforts are required to further explore when and how the risk management and risk governance processes can be standardized and the appropriate level of standardization.

Framing Effects on US Adults’ Reactions to COVID-19 Public Health Messages: Moderating Role of Source Trust

Increasing politicization of health guidance and fluctuating trust in public health institutions have challenged effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health communication in the United States. Applying the extended parallel process model, this research reports findings from two online survey experiments conducted at different points in the pandemic regarding two advocated risk reduction behaviors. Analyses test US adults’ emotional and argument strength reactions to experimental tweets attributed to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention which vary with regards to advocated behavior (social distancing; vaccination), emotional appeal, wellbeing orientation (individual vs. collective), and content frame (health vs. economic outcomes). Trust in the CDC is treated as a potential moderator. Results of path analyses indicated that emotional appeal and content frame had little impact on emotional or cognitive responses to the social distancing tweets, though unvaccinated adults with low trust in the CDC experienced greater hope and fear responses to tweets emphasizing collective benefits of vaccination. Hope reactions in both studies predicted greater perceived response efficacy for the advocated behavior, particularly among those with low CDC trust, while message annoyance undermined efficacy among low trust participants. Particularly among adults with low trust in the CDC, fear reactions led to reduced efficacy. Perceived efficacy of vaccination predicted greater intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, controlling for prior intention. Messages which inspire hope with regards to risk reduction behaviors and include sound arguments may be more motivating than fear-appeal messages, particularly among individuals with low levels of trust in public health institutions.

How does negative evidence impact argument strength during semantic category-based induction? An event-related potential study.

Negative evidence may influence category-based inductive reasoning, but the underlying time course of cognitive brain processing is unclear. This study adopted event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate this effect by manipulating the category type (related vs. unrelated) and argument type (positive vs. negative) in a semantic category-based induction task. The behavioral results showed that, under unrelated conditions, a negative argument produced greater argument strength and shorter reaction time than a positive argument did. Meanwhile, the ERP results found a negative argument elicited larger P300, N400, and slow negative component amplitudes than a positive argument, which could possibly embody the expectation-related processing produced by memory updating, semantic integration, and the more complex inference-driven information integration and interpretation processes and cognitive load in hypothesis generation. This study provides novel evidence on the temporal course of how negative evidence influences argument strength during semantic category-based induction.