Combining Anecdotal and Statistical Evidence in Real-Life Discourse: Comprehension and Persuasiveness

References

• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14, 125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Baesler, E. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2007). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cathcart, R. S. (1955). An experimental study of the relative effectiveness of four methods of presenting evidence. Speech Monographs, 22, 227–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chambliss, M. J. & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34, 91–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32, 235–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Feeley, T. H., Marshall, H. M., & Reinhart, A. M. (2006). Reactions to narrative and statistical written messages promoting organ donation. Communication Reports, 19, 89–100.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., Callison, C., & Zillmann, D. (2011). Quantitative literacy and affective reactivity in processing statistical information and case histories in the news. Media Psychology, 14, 96–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, B., & Fink, E. L. (2012). How do statistical and narrative evidence affect persuasion? The role of evidentiary features. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49, 39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H. (2001). Convincing citizens: The role of argument quality. In D. Janssen & R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 147–169). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• 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, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., Šorm, E., & Schellens, P. J. (2014). Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople’s criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Thinking and Reasoning, 20, 77–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking and Reasoning, 18, 394–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J. (2007). Is anecdotal evidence more persuasive than statistical evidence? A comment on classic cognitive psychological studies. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7, 151–164.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & Houët, T. (2009). De overtuigingskracht van normatief sterke en normatief zwakke anekdotische evidentie in het bijzijn van statistische evidentie. In W. Spooren, M. Onrust, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Studies in Taalbeheersing, volume 3 (pp. 125–133). Assen: Van Gorcum.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & ter Haar, M. (2013). Evidence quality and persuasiveness: Germans are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 483–501.
   Google Scholar
• Kellermann, K. (1980). The concept of evidence: a critical review. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 159–172.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S.-Y., Allen, M., Gattoni, A., Grimes, D., Herrman, A. M., Huang, H., … Zhang, Y. (2012). Testing an additive model for the effectiveness of evidence on the persuasiveness of a message. Social Influence, 7, 65–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopfman, J. E., Smith, S. W., Yun, J. K. A., & Hodges, A. (1998). Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 279–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsey, L. L. M., & Yun, K. A. (2003). Examining the persuasive effect of statistical messages: A test of mediating relationships. Communication Studies, 54, 306–321.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Westerman, C. Y. K., Orfgen, T., & 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter, & G. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65–89). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, N., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2013). Outcomes of persuasion: Behavioral, cognitive, and social. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen (Ed.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 53–69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Slusher, M. P., & Anderson, C. A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Silfies, L. N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165–181.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1989). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Whitney, P., & Budd, D. (1996). Think-aloud protocols and the study of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21, 341–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, M. B., Tanner, S. M., & Taylor, A. R. (2013). Processing and representation of arguments in one-sided texts about disputed topics. Discourse Processes, 50, 457–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zebregs, S., Putte, B. van den, Neijens, P., & de Graaf, A. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30, 282–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mawhaw, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar