Message framing, normative advocacy and persuasive success

Argumentation

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 153-163

  Corner, Adam ^a   Hahn, Ulrike ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Fallacy; Framing effects; Normativity; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954085128     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9159-6     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adams, E. W. 1998. A primer of probability logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
2. Corner, A., U. Hahn, and M. Oaksford. 2006. The Slippery slope argument: Probability, utility and category boundary reappraisal. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 1145-1151. Vancouver.
3. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
4. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006a. A Bayesian approach to informal reasoning fallacies. Synthese 152 (2): 207-237.
5. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006b. Why a normative theory of argument strength and why might one want it to be Bayesian? Informal Logic 26: 1-24.
6. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114 (3): 704-732.
7. Hoeken, H. 2001. Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation 15: 425-437.
8. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263-292.
10. Kuhberger, A. 1998. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75: 23-55.
11. Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2): 149-188.
12. McKenzie, C. R. M., and J. D. Nelson. 2003. What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10: 596-602.
13. Mckenzie, C. R. M., M. Liersch, and R. Finklestein. 2006. Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science 17 (5): 414-420.
14. Moxey, A., D. O'Connell, P. McGettigan, and D. Henry. 2003. Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18: 948-959.
15. Oaksford, M., and N. Chater. 1994. A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review 101: 608-631.
16. O'Keefe, D. J. 1995. Argumentation studies and dual-process models of persuasion. In Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation, vol. 1: Perspectives and approaches, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, 3-17. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
17. O'Keefe, D. J. 1997a. Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy 34: 1-12.
18. O'Keefe, D. J. 1997b. Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy 35: 61-75.
19. O'Keefe, D. J. 2003. The potential conflict between normatively good argumentative practice and persuasive success. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, C. A. Willard, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. O'Keefe, D. J. 2005. News for argumentation from persuasion effects research: Two cheers for reasoned discourse. In Selected papers from the thirteenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. C. A. Willard, 215-221. Washington: National Communication Association.
21. O'Keefe, D. J. 2007. Potential Conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion research. Argumentation 21: 151-163.
22. O'Keefe, D. J., and J. D. Jensen. 2007. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviours: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication 12: 623-644.
23. Priester, J. R., and R. E. Petty. 1995. Source attributions and persuasion: perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 637-654.
24. Rothman, A. J., R. D. Bartels, J. Wlaschin, and P. Salovey. 2006. The strategic use of gain-and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behaviour: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication 56: S202-S220.
25. Rothman, A. J., and P. Salovey. 1997. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin 121: 3-19.
26. Semin, G. R., and C. J. De Poot. 1997. Bringing partiality to light: Question wording and choice as indicators of bias. Social Cognition 15: 91-106.
27. Sher, S., and C. R. M. McKenzie. 2006. Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition 101: 467-494.
28. Siewierska, A. 1994. Word order and linearization. In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. R. E. Asher, and J. M. Y. Simpson. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
29. Stalnaker, R. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5: 269-286.
30. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211 (4481): 453-458.
31. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 59: 251-278.
32. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation-the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. van Enschot-van Dijk, R., L. Hustinx, and H. Hoeken. 2003. The concept of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, C. A. Willard, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 319-333. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1982. Argument: The logic of the fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.