Attribute degree centrality and attribute tie strength as criteria of argument quality

References

• Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in consumer research ( Vol. 15, pp. 197–202). Association for Consumer Research. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6646/volumes/v15/NA-15
   Google Scholar
• Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boller, G. W., Sway, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argument structure. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 321–328. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/9831/volumes/v17/NA-17
   Google Scholar
• Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The role of consumers’ intuitions in inference making. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 393–407. doi: 10.1086/209406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217. doi: 10.1037/h0047470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, T. M. (1986). Semantic memory: Facts and models. Psychological Bulletin, 99(2), 199–220. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Soto, C. B. (1960). Learning a social structure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 417–421. doi: 10.1037/h0047511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 959–988. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.959
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinauer, L. D., & Fink, E. L. (2005). Interattitude structure and attitude dynamics. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink, E. L., Monahan, J. L., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1989). A spatial model of the mere exposure effect. Communication Research, 16(6), 746–769. doi: 10.1177/009365089016006002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, G. T., & Smith, R. A. (1987). Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: An assessment of alternative processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 363–371. doi: 10.1086/209119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A decade of research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(1), 100–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & McCloskey, M. (1981). Decisions about ignorance: Knowing that you don’t know. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(5), 311–325. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.7.5.311
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., & Hemphill, D. (1991). Question answering in the context of scientific mechanisms. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 186–209. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90003-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207–236. doi: 10.1007/s11229-005-5233-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114(3), 704–732. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, A. J., Hsu, A. S., & Madsen, J. K. (2012). Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 311–343. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.670753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes-Roth, B. (1977). Evolution of cognitive structures and processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 260–278. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henley, N. M., Horsfall, R. B., & De Soto, C. B. (1969). Goodness of figure and social structure. Psychological Review, 76(2), 194–204. doi: 10.1037/h0027358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1191–1206. doi: 10.1037/a0013025
   PubMed 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 & Reasoning, 20(1), 77–98. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.807303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J., & McCann, J. (1982). The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 324–333. doi: 10.2307/3151566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janicik, G. A., & Larrick, R. P. (2005). Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 348–364. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos, K. V., Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2010). The robust beauty of ordinary information. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1259–1266. doi: 10.1037/a0020418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 107–118. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107
   Google Scholar
• Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Rosenzweig, C. (2015). The relationship between motivation, monetary compensation, and data quality among US-and India-based workers on Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 519–528. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0483-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maillat, D. (2013). Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 190–199. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marewski, J. N., & Schooler, L. J. (2011). Cognitive niches: An ecological model of strategy selection. Psychological Review, 118(3), 393–437. doi: 10.1037/a0024143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morley, D. D. (1987). Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Communications Monographs, 54(2), 183–203. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, C. C. (1990). Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 223–232. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory ( Vol. 26, pp. 125–169). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1994, June). Argumentation studies and dual-process models of persuasion. Keynote address, Third International Conference on argumentation, International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• 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(3), 251–274. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments-from consequences: A review and integration. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 109–135. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679128
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pachur, T., Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., Schooler, L., & Goldstein, D. G. (2011). The recognition heuristic: A review of theory and tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, T. (1997). Präsupponieren und Argumentieren: Präsuppositionen als zentraleHinweisreize bei einer elaborierten Verarbeitung von Argumenten [Presupposing and argumentation: Presuppositions as central cues under high argument elaboration]. Sprache und Kognition, 2, 61–77.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, T. (2003). Direkte und indirekte Effekte der Argumentqualität: Der Einfluss der Argumentstärke auf die wahrgenommene Expertise eines Kommunikators [Direct and indirect effects of argument quality: The impact of argument strength on the perceived expertise of a communicator]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 243–255. doi: 10.1024/0044-3514.34.4.243
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, T., Hertwig, R., & Sipek, S. (2012). Probabilistic persuasion: A Brunswikian theory of argumentation. In R. Hertwig, U. Hoffrage & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics in a social world (pp. 33–55). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, T., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2004). The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cognitive Science, 28, 1009–1029. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimer, T., Mata, R., Katsikopoulos, K., & Opwis, K. (2005). On the interplay between heuristic and systematic processes in persuasion. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, and M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1833–1838). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, T., Mata, R., & Stoecklin, M. (2004). The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10(6), 69–83.
   Google Scholar
• Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Bichsel, J., & Hoffman, K. (2002). The influence of accessibility of source likability on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 137–143. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2001.1492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, T., & Reimer, T. (2018). Using semantic networks to define the quality of arguments. Communication Theory, 28(1), 46–68. doi: 10.1093/ct/qty003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, T., & Reimer, T. (2019). Persuasion and semantic network structure: Testing message effects of attribute centrality on decision making under uncertainty. Southern Communication Journal, 84(1), 30–43. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2018.1525618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Sansone, C. (1991). Remembering less and inferring more: Effects of time of judgment on inferences about unknown attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 546–554. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communications Monographs, 53(1), 75–89. doi: 10.1080/03637758609376128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). News framing theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–34). New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Tory Higgins, E., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141–154. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. (2005). Justification for argumentation schemes. Australasian Journal of Logic, 3, 1–13. doi: 10.26686/ajl.v3i0.1769
   Google Scholar
• Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1235–1253. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., & Belli, R. F. (1998). The role of ease of retrieval and attribution in memory judgments: Judging your memory as worse despite recalling more events. Psychological Science, 9(2), 124–126. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch, & K. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar