Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration

Argumentation is pervasive in everyday life. Understanding what makes a strong argument is therefore of both theoretical and practical interest. One factor that seems intuitively important to the strength of an argument is the reliability of the source providing it. Whilst traditional approaches to argument evaluation are silent on this issue, the Bayesian approach to argumentation (Hahn & Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture important aspects of source reliability. In particular, the Bayesian approach predicts that argument content and source reliability should interact to determine argument strength. In this paper, we outline the approach and then demonstrate the importance of source reliability in two empirical studies. These experiments show the multiplicative relationship between the content and the source of the argument predicted by the Bayesian framework.

[1]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  C. Peterson,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY REVISION. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  C. Peterson,et al.  SAMPLE SIZE AND THE REVISION OF SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Conservatism in Complex Probabilistic Inference , 1966 .

[5]  H. Kelman,et al.  Human use of human subjects: the problem of deception in social psychological experiments. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  R. Cattell,et al.  Formal representation of human judgment , 1968 .

[7]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[8]  T. Cook,et al.  The effects of suspiciousness of deception and the perceived legitimacy of deception on task performance in an attitude change experiment1 , 1971 .

[9]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification , 1976 .

[10]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Combining information from sources that vary in credibility , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[11]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment : Bias , Expertise , and the Judge ' s Point of View , 1979 .

[12]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[13]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[14]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion , 1981 .

[15]  D. Schum.  Sorting out the effects of witness sensitivity and response-criterion placement upon the inferential value of testimonial evidence , 1981 .

[16]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Conservatism in human information processing , 1982 .

[17]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hypothesis Evaluation from a Bayesian Perspective. , 1983 .

[18]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 1984 .

[19]  Lola L. Lopes.  Averaging rules and adjustment processes in Bayesian inference , 1985 .

[20]  D. L. Moore,et al.  Time Compression, Response Opportunity, and Persuasion , 1986 .

[21]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Cognitive Mediation of Positive Affect in Persuasion , 1987 .

[22]  F. Kardes,et al.  The Effects of Physiological Arousal on Information Processing and Persuasion , 1988 .

[23]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[24]  Mark T. Keane,et al.  Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook , 1990 .

[25]  D. Kuhn.  THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[26]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective , 1992 .

[27]  John Earman,et al.  Bayes or bust , 1992 .

[28]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[29]  I. Erev,et al.  Simultaneous Over- and Underconfidence: The Role of Error in Judgment Processes. , 1994 .

[30]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Alvin I. Goldman,et al.  Argumentation and Social Epistemology , 1994 .

[32]  Nick Chater,et al.  A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. , 1994 .

[33]  D. Walton.  A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy , 1995 .

[34]  D. Hilton.  THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF REASONING : CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCE AND RATIONAL JUDGMENT , 1995 .

[35]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). , 1995 .

[36]  H. Siegel,et al.  Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies , 1995 .

[37]  N. Chater,et al.  RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE SELECTION TASK , 1996 .

[38]  M. Slater,et al.  How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Belief Change , 1996 .

[39]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  Informal Reasoning and Burden of Proof , 1996 .

[40]  Tim Heysse.  Why Logic Doesn‘t Matter in the (Philosophical) Study of Argumentation , 1997 .

[41]  Andrew S. Glassner,et al.  Circular Reasoning , 1998, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[42]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Reasoning and conversation , 1998 .

[43]  Evan Heit,et al.  A Bayesian Analysis of Some Forms of Inductive Reasoning , 1998 .

[44]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. , 1999 .

[45]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[46]  P. Juslin,et al.  Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: a critical examination of the hard-easy effect. , 2000, Psychological review.

[47]  N. Chater,et al.  Rational models of cognition , 1998 .

[48]  Ralph H. Johnson.  Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument , 2000 .

[49]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[50]  Sarah K. Brem,et al.  Science on the Web: Student Evaluations of Scientific Arguments , 2001 .

[51]  R. Petty,et al.  16. Attitude change: the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion , 2002 .

[52]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[53]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Circular reasoning , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[54]  W. Slob,et al.  How to Distinguish Good and Bad Arguments: Dialogico-Rhetorical Normativity , 2002 .

[55]  D. O’Keefe.  The Potential Conflict Between Normatively-Good Argumentative Practice and Persuasive Success , 2003 .

[56]  Nick Chater,et al.  Conditional Probability and the Cognitive Science of Conditional Reasoning , 2003 .

[57]  Yair Neuman.  Go ahead, prove that God does not exist! On high school students’ ability to deal with fallacious arguments , 2003 .

[58]  Yair Neuman,et al.  The Role of Text Representation in Students’ Ability to Identify Fallacious Arguments , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[59]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[60]  A. Goldman,et al.  An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation , 2004 .

[61]  Kevin B. Korb,et al.  Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy , 2004 .

[62]  Jonathan A. Fugelsang,et al.  Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[63]  M. Oaksford,et al.  A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[64]  D. Noelle,et al.  Explaining purportedly irrational behavior by modeling skepticism in task parameters: an example examining confidence in forced-choice tasks. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[65]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan.  The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[66]  M. Oaksford,et al.  How Convinced Should We Be by Negative Evidence , 2005 .

[67]  M. Oaksford,et al.  Circular arguments, begging the question and the formalization of argument strength , 2005 .

[68]  O. Oha.  Fallacies , 2005 .

[69]  S. Hartmann.  Bayesian Epistemology , 2005 .

[70]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Bayesian Inference : Combining Base Rates With Opinions of Sources Who Vary in Credibility , 2005 .

[71]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies , 2006, Synthese.

[72]  George Boger.  Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable? , 2005 .

[73]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The Slippery Slope Argument – Probability, Utility & Category Reappraisal , 2006 .

[74]  Anne Rogers.  Damned by faint praise? , 2006, Chronic illness.

[75]  Yair Neuman,et al.  The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[76]  C. Tindale.  Fallacies and Argument Appraisal , 2007 .

[77]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Witness testimony evidence - argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law , 2007 .

[78]  D. O’Keefe.  Potential Conflicts between Normatively-Responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research , 2007 .

[79]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. , 2007, Psychological review.

[80]  H. Siegel,et al.  In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation , 2008 .

[81]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008 , 2008 .

[82]  David J. Weiss,et al.  Conservatism in a Simple Probability Inference Task , 2008 .

[83]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications) , 2008 .

[84]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A normative theory of argument strength , 2008 .

[85]  Adam J. L. Harris,et al.  Bayesian rationality in evaluating multiple testimonies: incorporating the role of coherence. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[86]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach , 2009 .

[87]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  "Damned by faint praise": A Bayesian account , 2009 .

[88]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Evaluating science arguments: evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.