对论点质量的敏感性:将土耳其数据添加到文化可变性与普遍性的问题中

IF 1.9 Q2 COMMUNICATION Communication Research Reports Pub Date : 2022-03-09 DOI:10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930
Y. Demir, J. Hornikx
{"title":"对论点质量的敏感性:将土耳其数据添加到文化可变性与普遍性的问题中","authors":"Y. Demir, J. Hornikx","doi":"10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Empirical research has shown that high-quality arguments according to criteria from argumentation theory lead to higher claim acceptance than low-quality arguments. However, this relationship was not observed in some cultural settings. This leads to the question whether criteria for high-quality arguments are culturally variable or universal. Therefore, adding to existing research on sensitivity to quality criteria for the argument from authority and the argument from generalization conducted mainly in Western cultural contexts, an experiment was run in Turkey (N = 307). Results showed that Turkish participants were sensitive to the quality of arguments: claim acceptance was higher when high-quality variants were used than when low-quality variants were used. While not neglecting potential cultural variability, these data add to the findings that there might be some level of universality in sensitivity to criteria for argument quality.","PeriodicalId":47084,"journal":{"name":"Communication Research Reports","volume":"39 1","pages":"104 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity to argument quality: adding Turkish data to the question of cultural variability versus universality\",\"authors\":\"Y. Demir, J. Hornikx\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Empirical research has shown that high-quality arguments according to criteria from argumentation theory lead to higher claim acceptance than low-quality arguments. However, this relationship was not observed in some cultural settings. This leads to the question whether criteria for high-quality arguments are culturally variable or universal. Therefore, adding to existing research on sensitivity to quality criteria for the argument from authority and the argument from generalization conducted mainly in Western cultural contexts, an experiment was run in Turkey (N = 307). Results showed that Turkish participants were sensitive to the quality of arguments: claim acceptance was higher when high-quality variants were used than when low-quality variants were used. While not neglecting potential cultural variability, these data add to the findings that there might be some level of universality in sensitivity to criteria for argument quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Research Reports\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"104 - 113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Research Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Research Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2022.2045930","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

实证研究表明,根据论证理论的标准,高质量的论证比低质量的论证更能提高索赔接受率。然而,在某些文化环境中没有观察到这种关系。这就引出了一个问题,即高质量论点的标准是文化可变的还是普遍的。因此,在主要在西方文化背景下进行的关于权威论点和概括论点对质量标准敏感性的现有研究的基础上,在土耳其进行了一项实验(N=307)。结果表明,土耳其参与者对论点的质量很敏感:使用高质量变体时,索赔接受率高于使用低质量变体时。虽然没有忽视潜在的文化变异性,但这些数据进一步表明,对论点质量标准的敏感性可能存在一定程度的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sensitivity to argument quality: adding Turkish data to the question of cultural variability versus universality
ABSTRACT Empirical research has shown that high-quality arguments according to criteria from argumentation theory lead to higher claim acceptance than low-quality arguments. However, this relationship was not observed in some cultural settings. This leads to the question whether criteria for high-quality arguments are culturally variable or universal. Therefore, adding to existing research on sensitivity to quality criteria for the argument from authority and the argument from generalization conducted mainly in Western cultural contexts, an experiment was run in Turkey (N = 307). Results showed that Turkish participants were sensitive to the quality of arguments: claim acceptance was higher when high-quality variants were used than when low-quality variants were used. While not neglecting potential cultural variability, these data add to the findings that there might be some level of universality in sensitivity to criteria for argument quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Extending the communication during sexual activity model: what role does sexual communication self-efficacy play? Conflict styles within individualistic, low power distance, and low context nations: a four nation comparison Science terms elicit ideological differences in message processing Development and validation of the commitment to social activism scale using the Thurstone scaling procedure Patient perceptions of healthcare provider (un)helpful approaches to explaining health information
×
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