An exploratory test of an intuitive evaluation method of perceived argument strength

Q3 Social Sciences Studies in Communication Sciences Pub Date : 2021-12-17 DOI:10.24434/j.scoms.2022.02.003
J. Hornikx, Annemarie Weerman, H. Hoeken
{"title":"An exploratory test of an intuitive evaluation method of perceived argument strength","authors":"J. Hornikx, Annemarie Weerman, H. Hoeken","doi":"10.24434/j.scoms.2022.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to Mercier and Sperber (2009, 2011, 2017), people have an immediate and intuitive feeling about the strength of an argument. These intuitive evaluations are not captured by current evaluation methods of argument strength, yet they could be important to predict the extent to which people accept the claim supported by the argument. In an exploratory study, therefore, a newly developed intuitive evaluation method to assess argument strength was compared to an explicit argument strength evaluation method (the PAS scale; Zhao et al., 2011), on their ability to predict claim acceptance (predictive validity) and on their sensitivity to differences in the manipulated quality of arguments (construct validity). An experimental study showed that the explicit argument strength evaluation performed well on the two validity measures. The intuitive evaluation measure, on the other hand, was not found to be valid. Suggestions for other ways of constructing and testing intuitive evaluation measures are presented.","PeriodicalId":38434,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Communication Sciences","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Communication Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.02.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

According to Mercier and Sperber (2009, 2011, 2017), people have an immediate and intuitive feeling about the strength of an argument. These intuitive evaluations are not captured by current evaluation methods of argument strength, yet they could be important to predict the extent to which people accept the claim supported by the argument. In an exploratory study, therefore, a newly developed intuitive evaluation method to assess argument strength was compared to an explicit argument strength evaluation method (the PAS scale; Zhao et al., 2011), on their ability to predict claim acceptance (predictive validity) and on their sensitivity to differences in the manipulated quality of arguments (construct validity). An experimental study showed that the explicit argument strength evaluation performed well on the two validity measures. The intuitive evaluation measure, on the other hand, was not found to be valid. Suggestions for other ways of constructing and testing intuitive evaluation measures are presented.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
感知论证强度的直观评价方法的探索性测试
根据Mercier和Sperber(2009, 2011, 2017),人们对论点的强度有直接和直观的感觉。这些直观的评价并没有被当前的论证强度评估方法所捕获,然而,它们对于预测人们接受论证所支持的主张的程度可能是重要的。因此,在一项探索性研究中,我们将一种新开发的评估论证强度的直观评估方法与显性论证强度评估方法(PAS量表;Zhao et al., 2011)在预测主张接受度(预测效度)的能力以及对被操纵的论点质量差异的敏感性(构造效度)方面的研究。实验研究表明,显式论证强度评价在两种效度指标上均表现良好。另一方面,直观的评价方法并不有效。提出了构建和测试直观评价测度的其他方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Communication Sciences
Studies in Communication Sciences Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Botlitica: A generative AI-based tool to assist journalists in navigating political propaganda campaigns Iconic image clusters: Significance, structure, and analysis Images, clusters and types – Making sense of (large) image corpora and related practices in and with digital media From party to pandemic – Frames and metaphors in the news coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Austria Image types revisited. A texto-material approach for creating image types
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1