Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople's criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones
Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople's criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones
复制标题
争论后果的可能性：外行人区分强论点和弱论点的标准
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Schellens
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Hoeken;Ester Šorm;P. Schellens
高质量的论证具有强大而持久的说服力，表明人们能够区分高质量论证和低质量论证。然而，我们对人们采用什么规范来进行区分知之甚少。一些研究表明，在评估后果论证时，人们对这些后果的可取性的差异比这些后果发生的可能性的差异更敏感。这就提出了一个问题，即人们是否缺乏区分高质量和低质量论据的标准来支持此类主张。在一项实验中，196 名未受过论证理论训练的参与者评估了他们对 30 种关于特定行动产生特定结果的可能性的主张的接受程度。这些主张得到了权威论证、因果论证或实例的支持。争论被系统地操纵以违反九项具体标准。九项标准中的七项违反了所支持的索赔的接受度。这些发现表明，人们可以使用论证类型特定标准来区分高质量论证和低质量论证。
High-quality arguments have strong and lasting persuasive effects, suggesting that people can distinguish high- from low-quality arguments. However, we know little of what norms people employ to make that distinction. Some studies have shown that, in evaluating arguments from consequences, people are more sensitive to differences with respect to the desirability of these consequences than to differences in the likelihood that these consequences will occur. This raises the question of whether people lack the criteria to distinguish high-quality from low-quality arguments in support of such claims. In an experiment, 196 participants without any training in argument theory rated their acceptance of 30 claims about the likelihood that a certain outcome would result from a certain action. These claims were supported by an argument from authority, or from cause to effect, or from example. Arguments were systematically manipulated to violate nine specific criteria. For seven out of the nine criteria violation decreased acceptance of the claim supported. These findings show that people can use argument type specific criteria to distinguish high- from low-quality arguments.
影响因子：
22.4
作者：
Glasman, Laura R.;Albarracin, Dolores
通讯作者：
Albarracin, Dolores
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Baumeister, Roy F.;Masicampo, E. J.
通讯作者：
Masicampo, E. J.