Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence?
Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant becau...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Hornikx, Jos [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2008 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Argumentation - Springer Netherlands, 1987, 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:22 ; year:2008 ; number:4 ; day:28 ; month:02 ; pages:555-569 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2062559739 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2062559739 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502210611.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2062559739 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 400 |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 7,11 |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a LING |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hornikx, Jos |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2008 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Actual persuasiveness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Argument quality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Evidence | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Expected persuasiveness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Perceived persuasiveness | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Argumentation |d Springer Netherlands, 1987 |g 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 |w (DE-627)165801050 |w (DE-600)18188-2 |w (DE-576)034177094 |x 0920-427X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2008 |g number:4 |g day:28 |g month:02 |g pages:555-569 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-LING | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2093 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4082 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2008 |e 4 |b 28 |c 02 |h 555-569 | ||
| author_variant |
j h jh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:0920427X:2008----::oprnteculnepceprusvnsoeiectpsogoaeapola |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2008 |
| publishDate |
2008 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Hornikx, Jos verfasserin aut Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 22 2008 4 28 02 555-569 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Hornikx, Jos verfasserin aut Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 22 2008 4 28 02 555-569 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Hornikx, Jos verfasserin aut Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 22 2008 4 28 02 555-569 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Hornikx, Jos verfasserin aut Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 22 2008 4 28 02 555-569 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Hornikx, Jos verfasserin aut Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? 2008 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 22 2008 4 28 02 555-569 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Argumentation 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Argumentation 22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569 volume:22 year:2008 number:4 day:28 month:02 pages:555-569 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness |
| dewey-raw |
400 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Argumentation |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Hornikx, Jos @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2008-02-28T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-sort |
3400 |
| id |
OLC2062559739 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062559739</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210611.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062559739</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hornikx, Jos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Actual persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Argument quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Expected persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Perceived persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2008</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:555-569</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2008</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">555-569</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Hornikx, Jos |
| spellingShingle |
Hornikx, Jos ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc Actual persuasiveness misc Argument quality misc Evidence misc Expected persuasiveness misc Perceived persuasiveness Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| authorStr |
Hornikx, Jos |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)165801050 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0920-427X |
| topic_title |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? Actual persuasiveness Argument quality Evidence Expected persuasiveness Perceived persuasiveness |
| topic |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc Actual persuasiveness misc Argument quality misc Evidence misc Expected persuasiveness misc Perceived persuasiveness |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc Actual persuasiveness misc Argument quality misc Evidence misc Expected persuasiveness misc Perceived persuasiveness |
| topic_browse |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc Actual persuasiveness misc Argument quality misc Evidence misc Expected persuasiveness misc Perceived persuasiveness |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Argumentation |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-tens |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Argumentation |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 |
| title |
Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2062559739 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p |
| title_full |
Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| author_sort |
Hornikx, Jos |
| journal |
Argumentation |
| journalStr |
Argumentation |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2008 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
555 |
| author_browse |
Hornikx, Jos |
| container_volume |
22 |
| class |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Hornikx, Jos |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |
| dewey-full |
400 100 |
| title_sort |
comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: how good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? |
| title_auth |
Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| abstract |
Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
165801050 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:31:51.004Z |
| _version_ |
1803572437066973184 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062559739</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210611.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2008 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062559739</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-007-9067-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hornikx, Jos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people’s considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists’ conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people’s expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443–463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people’s expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Actual persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Argument quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Expected persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Perceived persuasiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2008), 4 vom: 28. Feb., Seite 555-569</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2008</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:28</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:555-569</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9067-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2008</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">28</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">555-569</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3977537 |