The impact of normative argument quality variations on claim acceptance: empirical evidence from the US and the UK

References

• Allen, M. 2009. “Meta-Analysis.” Communication Monographs 76 (4): 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, M., and R. W. Preiss. 1997. “Comparing the Persuasiveness of Narrative and Statistical Evidence Using Meta-Analysis.” Communication Research Reports 14 (2): 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388654.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, H. C. 2020. “Towards a Cognitive Science of the Human: Cross-Cultural Approaches and Their Urgency.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24 (8): 620–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J. 2015. “A Meta-Analysis of the ELM’s Argument Quality × Processing Type Predictions.” Human Communication Research 41 (4): 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, S., and B. E. Weeks. 2021. “Effects of Competing Statistical and Testimonial Evidence in Debates about Science.” Environmental Communication 15 (3): 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1837900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, Y., and J. Hornikx. 2022. “Sensitivity to Argument Quality: Adding Turkish Data to the Question of Cultural Variability versus Universality.” Communication Research Reports 39 (2): 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., and E. E. Smith. 1996. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes, D., J. G. Lynch, Jr. and R. G. Netemeyer. 2014. “Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors.” Management Science 60 (8): 1861–1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, U. 2020. “Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24 (5): 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. “The Rationality of Informal Argumentation: A Bayesian Approach to Reasoning Fallacies.” Psychological Review 114 (3): 704–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkness, J. A., F. J. R. Van de Vijver, and P. P. Mohler. 2003. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., J. Hornikx, and Y. Linders. 2020. “The Importance and Use of Normative Criteria to Manipulate Argument Quality.” Journal of Advertising 49 (2): 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1663317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., E. Šorm, and P. J. Schellens. 2014. “Arguing about the Likelihood of Consequences: Laypeople’s Criteria to Distinguish Strong Arguments from Weak Ones.” Thinking & Reasoning 20 (1): 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.807303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J. 2011. “Epistemic Authority of Professors and Researchers: Differential Perceptions by Students from Two Cultural-Educational Systems.” Social Psychology of Education 14 (2): 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9139-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., and J. De Best. 2011. “Persuasive Evidence in India: An Investigation of the Impact of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (4): 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2011.11821750.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., and M. Ter Haar. 2013. “Evidence Quality and Persuasiveness: Germans Are Not Sensitive to the Quality of Statistical Evidence.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 13 (5): 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342105.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., and H. Hoeken. 2007. “Cultural Differences in the Persuasiveness of Evidence Types and Evidence Quality.” Communication Monographs 74 (4): 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701716578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JASP Team. 2023. “JASP (V. 0.17.1).” https://jasp-stats.org.
   Google Scholar
• Karaslaan, H., A. Hohenberger, H. Demir, S. Hall, and M. Oaksford. 2018. “Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 18 (3–4): 358–389. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340035.
   Google Scholar
• Lumer, C. 2022. “An Epistemological Approach Appraisal of Walton’s Argument Schemes.” Informal Logic 42 (1): 203–290. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v42i1.7224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M. 2014. “Normativity, Interpretation, and Bayesian Models.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. 2007. “Potential Conflicts between Normatively-Responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research.” Argumentation 21 (2): 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9046-y.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H. S., T. R. Levine, C. Y. Kingsley Westerman, T. Orfgen, and S. Foregger. 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 (1): 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, T., and T. Reimer. 2018. Using semantic networks to define the quality of arguments. Communication Theory 28 (1): 46–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Vijver, F. J. R, and K. Leung. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Viswanathan, M. 1993. “Measurement of Individual Differences in Preference for Numerical Information.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (5): 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M., R. Azrout, H. Boomgaarden, A. P. Alencar, and P. Sheets. 2017. “Integrating Muslim Immigrant Minorities: The Effects of Narrative and Statistical Messages.” Communication Research 44 (4): 582–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215600490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zebregs, S., B. Van den Putte, P. Neijens, and A. De Graaf. 2015. “The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis.” Health Communication 30 (3): 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar