Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 394-416

  Hoeken, Hans ^a   Timmers, Rian ^a   Schellens, Peter Jan ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argument quality; Argument types; Argumentation; Desirability claims; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862309240     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.669986     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Areni, C. S. and Lutz, R. J. 1988. "The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model". In Advances in consumer research, Edited by: Houston, M. J. 197-203. Provo, UT: Association for Communication Research. Vol. 15).
2. Baron, J. 2000. Thinking and deciding, (3rd ed.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baumeister, R. F. and Masicampo, E. J. 2010. Conscious thought is for facilitating social and cultural interactions: How mental simulations serve the animal-culture interface. Psychological Review, 117(3): 945-971. DOI: 10.1037/a0019393
4. Bonnefon, J. F. 2009. A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review, 116: 888-907. DOI: 10.1037/a0017186
5. Bonnefon, J. F. 2012 this issue. Utility conditionals as consequential arguments: A random sampling experiment. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 379-393.
6. Bonnefon, J. F. and Hilton, D. J. 2004. Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30: 28-37. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.28
7. Chaiken, S. 1987. "The heuristic model of persuasion". In Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Edited by: Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M. and Herman, C. P. Vol. 5, 3-39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
8. Chater, N. and Oaksford, M. 1999. Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3: 57-65. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01273-X
9. 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 & Marketing, 20: 599-624. DOI: 10.1002/mar.10088
10. Chen, S. and Chaiken, S. 1999. "The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context". In Dual-process theories in social psychology, Edited by: Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. 73-96. New York: Guilford Press.
11. Copi, I. and Burgess-Jackson, K. 1996. Informal logic, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Corner, A., Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2011. The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 133-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml. 2010.10.002
13. Diestler, S. 2005. Becoming a critical thinker. A user friendly manual, (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
14. Evans, J., Neilens, H., Handley, S. and Over, D. 2008. When can we say 'if'?. Cognition, 108: 100-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.001
15. Feteris, E. T. 2002. A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16: 349-367. DOI: 10.1023/A:1019999606665
16. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1981. "Acceptance, yielding, and impact: Cognitive processes in persuasion". In Cognitive responses in persuasion, Edited by: Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. and Brock, T. 339-359. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
17. Fogelin, R. J. and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2005. Understanding arguments. An introduction to informal logic, (7th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
18. Freeley, A. J. and Steinberg, D. L. 2000. Argumentation and debate. Critical thinking for reasoned decision making, (10th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
19. Glasman, L. R. and Albarracín, D. 2006. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 778-822. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
20. Govier, T. 2005. A practical study of argument, (6th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thomson Learning.
21. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2006. A normative theory of argument strength. Informal Logic, 26: 1-24.
22. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114: 704-732. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704
23. Harris, A. J. L. and Hsu, A. S., Madsen, J. K. 2012 this issue. Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 311-343.
24. Hayes, B. K., Heit, E. and Swendsen, H. 2010. Inductive reasoning. Wiley's Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1: 278-292. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.44
25. Heit, E. 2000. Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7: 569-592. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212996
26. Heit, E. and Rotello, C. 2012 this issue. The pervasive effects of argument length on inductive reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 244-277.
27. Hoeken, H. and Hustinx, L. 2007. "The influence of additional information on the persuasiveness of flawed arguments by analogy". In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Edited by: van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. and Garssen, B. 625-630. Amsterdam: SicSat.
28. Hoeken, H. and Hustinx, L. 2009. When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35: 491-510. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x
29. Hollihan, T. A. and Baaske, K. T. 1994. Arguments and arguing; the products and process of human decision making, Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
30. 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 a persuasive message". In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Edited by: van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. and Garssen, B. 651-657. Amsterdam: SicSat.
31. Johnson, B. T., Maio, G. R. and Smith-McLallen, A. 2005. "Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects". In The handbook of attitudes, Edited by: Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P. 617-669. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
32. Johnson, B. T., Smith-McLallen, A., Killeya, L. A. and Levin, K. D. 2004. "Truth or consequences: Overcoming resistance with positive thinking". In Resistance and persuasion, Edited by: Knowles, E. S. and Linn, J. A. 215-233. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
33. Kruglanski, A. W. and Thompson, E. P. 1999. Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10: 83-109. DOI: 10.1207/S15327965PL100201
34. Layman, C. S. 2005. The power of logic, (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw Hill.
35. Lowrey, T. M. 1998. The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7: 187-206. DOI:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_04
36. McGuire, W. J. 2000. Standing on the shoulders of ancients: consumer research, persuasion, and figurative language. Journal of Consumer Research, 27: 109-114. DOI: 10.1086/314312
37. Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34: 57-111. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
38. O'Keefe, D. J. 2002. Persuasion. Theory & research, (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. O'Keefe, D. J. 2003. Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13: 251-274. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
40. O'Keefe, D. J. in press. "The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments-from-consequences: A review and integration". In Communication yearbook 36, Edited by: Salmon, C. London: Routledge.
41. 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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x
42. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, Berlin: Springer.
43. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P. and Smith, S. M. 1995. "Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior". In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, Edited by: Petty, R. E. and Krosnick, J. A. 93-130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
44. Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y. and Cacioppo, J. T. 2004. "The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion". In Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining, Edited by: Seiter, J. S. and Gass, G. H. 65-89. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
45. Reinard, J. C. 1991. Foundations of argument. Effective communication for critical thinking, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
46. Reynolds, R. A. and Reynolds, J. L. 2002. "Evidence". In The persuasion handbook, Edited by: Dillard, J. P. and Pfau, M. 427-444. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Schellens, P. J. 1985. Redelijke argumenten[Reasonable arguments], Dordrecht: Foris.
48. Schellens, P. J. and Jong, M. D. T. 2004. Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18: 295-323. DOI: 10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046707.68172.35
49. Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. and Handley, S. J. 2005. Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 238-257. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.001
50. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. and Meuffels, B. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules, Dordrecht: Springer.
51. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. and Meuffels, B. 2012 this issue. The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 344-364.
52. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
53. Van Enschot - Van Dijk, R., Hustinx, L. and Hoeken, H. 2003. "The concept of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model". In Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, Edited by: van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 319-335. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
55. Walton, D., Reed, C. and Macagno, F. 2008. Argumentation schemes, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Ziegelmueller, G. W. and Dause, C. A. 1975. Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.