Persuasive Evidence in India: An Investigation of the Impact of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 246-257

  Hornikx, Jos ^a   Best, Judith de ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

culture; evidence; experiment; India; persuasiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862321232     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2011.11821750     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Allen, M., (2009). Meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 76, 398–407.
2. Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M., McKellips, S., Ryan, D. J., & Spiegelhoff, M., (2000). Testing the persuasiveness of evidence: Combining narrative and statistical forms. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331–336.
3. Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W., (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14, 125–131.
4. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N., (1997). Statistics for the behavioral and social sciences: A brief course. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Baesler, E. J., (1997). Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 170–175.
6. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R., (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.
7. Central Intelligence Agency (2011). The World Factbook. Retrieved July 14, 2011, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html
8. Cohen, J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Combs, S. C., (2004). The useless-/usefulness of argumentation: The Dao of disputation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 58–70.
10. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E., (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.
11. Garssen, B. J., (1997). Argumentatieschema's in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argumentation schemes in a pragma-dialectic perspective: A theoretical and empirical study], Amsterdam: IFOTT.
12. Gillon, B. S., (2008). An early Buddhist text on logic: Fang Bian Xin Lun. Argumentation, 22, 15–25.
13. Greene, K., & Brinn, L. S., (2003). Messages influencing college women's tanning bed use: Statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 443–461.
14. Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L., (2003). The relative persuasiveness of different types of evidence. In F. H., van Eemeren, J. A., Blair, C. A., Willard, & A. F., Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 497–501). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
15. Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L., (2007). The influence of additional information on the persuasiveness of flawed arguments by analogy. In F. H., van Eemeren, J. A., Blair, C. A., Willard, & B., Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 625–630). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
16. Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L., (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491–510.
17. Hofstede, G., (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Hornikx, J., (2005). A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences, 5, 205–216.
19. Hornikx, J., (2008). Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation, 22, 555–569.
20. Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H., (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443–463.
21. Jackson, S., (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
22. Jensen, J. V., (1992). Values and practices in Asian argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28, 153–166.
23. Kellermann, K., (1980). The concept of evidence: A critical review. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 159–172.
24. Knight, N., & Nisbett, R. E., (2007). Culture, class and cognition: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7, 283–291.
25. 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.
26. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B., (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. McCroskey, J. C., (1969). A summary of experimental research on the effects of evidence in persuasive communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 55, 169–176.
28. Miller, J. G., (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–678.
29. Monga, A. B., & John, D. R., (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 529–536.
30. Nisbett, R. E., (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. London: Nicolas Brealey.
31. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A., (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
32. Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E., (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653–684.
33. Oetke, C., (1996). Ancient Indian logic as a theory of non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 24, 447–539.
34. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M., (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
35. Parrott, R., Silk, K., Dorgan, K., Condit, C., & Harris, T., (2005). Risk comprehension and judgments of statistical evidentiary appeals: When a picture is not worth a thousand words. Human Communication Research, 31, 423–452.
36. Reinard, J. C., (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3–59.
37. Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L., (2002). Evidence. In J. P., Dillard, & M., Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 427–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Rossiter, J. R., (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.
39. Schellens, P. J., (1985). Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers [Reasonable arguments: A study in criteria for critical reading], Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
40. Siegel, H., (1999). Argument quality and cultural difference. Argumentation, 13, 183–201.
41. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D., (1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23, 210–235.
42. Tillemans, F. J. F., (2008). Introduction: Buddhist argumentation. Argumentation, 22, 1–14.
43. Varnum, M. E. W., Grossmann, I., Katunar, D., Nisbett, R. E., & Kitayama, S., (2008). Holism in a European cultural context: Differences in cognitive style between central and east Europeans and Westerners. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8, 321–333.
44. Walton, D. N., (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
45. Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S., (1989). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. New York: Macmillan.