When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? the role of argument type

Human Communication Research

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 491-510

  Hoeken, Hans ^a   Hustinx, Lettica ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349307277     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allen, M., and Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331 336.
2. Areni, C. S., and Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 197 203, Vol. 15). Provo, UT : Association for Communication Research.
3. Baesler, E. J., and Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence. Communication Research, 21, 582 602.
4. Brosius, H.-B., and Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48 78.
5. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (pp. 3 40, Vol. 5). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
6. Chebat, J. C., Gelinas-Chebat, C., Hombourger, S., and Woodside, A. G. (2003). Testing consumers' motivation and linguistic ability as moderators of advertising readability. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 599 624.
7. De Wit, J. B. F., Das, E., and Vet, R. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110 115.
8. Dilley, L. C., and McAuley, J. D. (2008). Distal and prosodic context affects word segmentation and lexical processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 294 311.
9. Fagerlin, A., Wang, C., and Ubel, P. A. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health case decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making, 25, 398 405.
10. Feeley, T. H., Marshall, H. M., and Reinhart, A. M. (2006). Reactions to narrative and statistical written messages promoting organ donation. Communication Reports, 19, 89 100.
11. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1981). Acceptance, yielding, and impact: Cognitive processes in persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. Ostrom, and T. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 339 359). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
12. Forster, K. I., and Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: Monte Carlo estimates of error rates for F1, F2, F' and Min F'. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 135 142.
13. Hoeken, H. (2001a). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425 437.
14. Hoeken, H. (2001b). Convincing citizens: The role of argument quality. In D. Janssen and R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 147 169). Amsterdam/Philadelphia : Benjamins.
15. Hoeken, H., and Hustinx, L. (2007a). The impact of exemplars on responsibility stereotypes in fund-raising letters. Communication Research, 34, 596 617.
16. Hoeken, H., and Hustinx, L. (2007b). The influence of additional information on the persuasiveness of flawed arguments by analogy. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, and B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 625 630). Amsterdam : SicSat.
17. Hornikx, J., and Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443 463.
18. Hornikx, J., Starren, M., and Hoeken, H. (2003). Cultural influence on the relative occurrence of evidence types. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 531 536). Amsterdam : SicSat.
19. Hustinx, L., van Enschot, R., and Hoeken, H. (2007). Argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model: An empirical study of strong and weak arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, and B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 651 657). Amsterdam : SicSat.
20. Jackson, S., O'Keefe, D. J., and Jacobs, S. (1988). The search for reliable generalizations about messages: A comparison of research strategies. Human Communication Research, 15, 127 142.
21. Johnson, B. T., Maio, G. R., and Smith-McLallen, A. (2005). Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 617 669). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
22. Koballa, T. R. (1986). Persuading teachers to reexamine the innovative elementary science programs of yesterday: The effect of anecdotal versus data-summary communications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 437 449.
23. Krupat, E., Smith, R. H., Leach, C. W., and Jackson, M. A. (1997). Generalizing from atypical cases. How general a tendency? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 341 365.
24. Lowrey, T. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 187 206.
25. McGuire, W. J. (2000). Standing on the shoulders of ancients: Consumer research, persuasion, and figurative language. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 109 114.
26. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion, theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
27. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., Orfgen, T., and Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social-judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81 102.
28. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Berlin : Springer.
29. Post, B., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Randall, B., and Tyler, L. K. (2008). The processing of English regular inflections: Phonological cues to morphological structure. Cognition, 109, 1 17.
30. Reinard, J. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence. The status after 50 years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3 59.
31. Reinard, J. C. (1998). The persuasive effects of testimony assertion evidence. In M. Allen and R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 69 96). Cresskill, NJ : Hampton.
32. Reynolds, R. A., and Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 427 444). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
33. Rieke, R. D., and Sillars, M. O. (1984). Argumentation and the decision making process. New York : Harper Collins.
34. Schellens, P. J., and Jong, M. D. T. (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18, 295 323.
35. Scheutz, M., and Eberhard, K. M. (2008). Effects of morphosyntactic gender features in bilingual language processing. Cognitive Science, 28, 559 588.
36. Slater, M., and Rouner, D. (1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23, 210 235.
37. Ubel, P. A., Jepson, C., and Baron, J. (2001). The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 21, 60 68.
38. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
39. Van Enschot, R., Hustinx, L., and Hoeken, H. (2003). The concept of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 319 335). Dordrecht : Kluwer.
40. Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1, 69 94.
41. Zillmann, D. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, S221 S237.
42. Zillmann, D., and Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
43. Zillmann, D., Perkins, J. W., and Sundar, S. S. (1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplifications. Medienpsychologie: Zeitschrift für Individual- und Massenkommunikation, 4, 168 185.