Advertisement

Argumentation

, 20:29 | Cite as

The Effectiveness of Argumentative Strategies

  • Taeda Jovičić
Article
  • 189 Downloads

Abstract

In this article, I further analyze the notion of the effectiveness of argumentative strategies, introduced in Jovičić, 2001. The most relevant achievements of the theories of reasonable discussion and the theories of persuasion are called to mind with the aim of explaining the mechanism of the argumentative effectiveness. As a result, a procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of argumentative strategies is suggested.

Keywords

audience cognitive responses communicative interaction communicative stimuli dialogue dialogue agents persuasion the effectiveness of argumentative strategies 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein (eds.): 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review 78: 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson N. H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronson E. (1999). Dissonance, hypocrisy and the self concept. In: Harmon-Jones, E. and Mills, J. (eds) Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, pp. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Axom D., Yates S. and Chaiken S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barth E. and Krabbe E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckmann J. (1985). Dissonance and action control. In: Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J. (eds) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, pp 129–150. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Berlo D., Lemert J. and Mertz R. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly 33: 563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brehm J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52: 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brehm J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehm S. S. and Brehm J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance. A Theory of Freedom and Control. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Brehm J. W. and Cohen A. R. (1962). Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Buller D. (1986). ‘Distraction during persuasive communication. A meta-analytic review’. Communication Monographs 53: 91–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgoon M. (1989). Messages and persuasive effects. In: Bradac, J. (eds) Message Effects in Communication Science, pp 129–164. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Burgoon J., Dunbar N. and Segrin C. (2002a). Nonverbal influence. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 445–473. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Burgoon M., Alvaro E., Grandpre J. and Voulodakis M. (2002b). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance. Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 213–233. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Burgoon M. and Pauls Denning Roberts V. L. (2002c). Language expectancy theory. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 117–137. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. and Morris K. J. (1983). `Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 805–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cacioppo J. T., R. E. Petty and C. D. Stoltenberg: 1985, ‘Processes of social influence. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion', in P. C. Kendall (ed.), Advances in Cognitive-Behavioral Research and Therapy, Vol. 4, pp. 215–274, Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E., Kao C. F. and Rodriguez R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion an individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1032–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cacioppo J. T. and Petty R. E. (1982). The Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cacioppo J. T. and R. E. Petty: 1984, ‘The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion’, in T. C. Kinnear (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 673–675, Association for Consumer Research, Provo UTGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper J. and R. H. Fazio: 1984, ‘A new look at dissonance theory’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 229–264, Academic Press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  24. DeBono K. (1987). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes. Implications for persuasion processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 79–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dillard, J. and A. Meijnders: 2002, ‘Persuasion and the structure of affect’, in Dillard J. and M. Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp. 309–329, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Dillard, J. and M. Pfau (eds.): 2002, The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  27. Donnelly J. H. and Ivancevich J. M. (1970). Post-purchase reinforcement and back-out behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 7: 399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Donohew, H., B. Sypher and E. Higgins (eds.): 1987, Communication, Social Cognition, and Affect, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Donohue W. and Kolt R. (1992). Managing Interpersonal Conflict. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. Eemeren, F. van (ed.): 2002, Advances in Pragma-dialectics, SIC SAT/Vale Press, Amsterdam/Newport News, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Grootendorst R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Grootendorst R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Eemeren F. van and Houtlosser P. (1999). Delivering the goods in critical discussion and William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In: Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. and Willard, Ch. (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, International Center for the Study of Argumentation, pp 163–171. SIC SAT, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Eemeren F. van and Houtlosser P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eemeren F. van and Houtlosser P. (2003a). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: the argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In: Blair, J.A., Willard, C. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp 289–292. SIC SAC, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. Houtlosser P. (2003b). The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation 17: 387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Festinger L., Riecken H. W. and Schachter S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  38. Festinger L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Festinger L. (1964). Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Festinger L. and Carlsmith J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58: 203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Festinger L. and Walster E. (1964). Post-decision regret and decision reversal. In: Festinger, L. (eds) Conflict, Decision and Dissonance, pp 100–110. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. Fishbein M. and Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading. Addison-Wesley, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Fishbein M. (1967a). A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In: Fishbein, M. (eds) Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp 389–400. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Fishbein M (1967b). A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude measurement. In: Fishbein, M. (eds) Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Fishbein M. (1967c). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In: Fishbein, M. (eds) Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, pp 477–492. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Fishbein M. (ed.): 1967, Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Folger J., Poole M. S. and Stutman R. (1993). Working through Conflict. Harper Collins College Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Harmon-Jones E. (1999). Toward an understanding of the motivation underlying dissonance effects. In: Harmon-Jones, E. and Mills, J. (eds) Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, pp 71–99. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Harmon-Jones E. (2002). A cognitive dissonance theory perspective on persuasion. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 99–117. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Harmon-Jones, E. and J. Mills (eds.): 1999, Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Hass R. and Linder D. E. (1972). Counterargument availability and the effects of message structure on persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hocker J. L. and Wilmot W. W. (1985). Interpersonal Conflict. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, IAGoogle Scholar
  53. Hosman L. (2002). Language and Persuasion. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 371–391. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Jovičić T. (2001, appeared in 2004). Authority-based argumentative strategies: a model for their evaluation. Argumentation 18: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jovičić T. (2003a). Evaluation of argumentative strategies. In: F.. van, Eemeren, Blair, J. A., Willard, C. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp 571–580. SIC SAC, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  56. Jovičić, T.: 2002, Authority-based Argumentative Strategies: Three Models for Their Evaluation, dissertation, Uppsala, UniversitetstryckerietGoogle Scholar
  57. Jovičić, T.: 2003b, ‘New concepts for argument evaluation’, in J. Anthony Blair et al. (ed.) Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor ON:OSSA, 2003/CD-ROM, appeared 2004 (also available at the www.uwindsor.ca/ilat25)Google Scholar
  58. Katz D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 24: 163–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kiesler C. and Kiesler S. (1964). Role of forewarning in persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68: 547–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Krabbe E. C. W. (1985). Noncumulative dialectical models and formal dialectics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 14: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Krabbe E. C. W. (1986). A theory of modal dialectics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15: 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Krabbe E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation 6: 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2001, ‘Strategies in dialectic and rhetoric' in Argumentation and its applications (CD-ROM, Proceedings from the Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, May 17–19, 2001, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario)Google Scholar
  64. Krabbe, E. C. W.: 2003, ‘The pragmatics of deductive arguments’, in J. Anthony Blair et␣al. (eds.), Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. Windsor ON: OSSA, 2003/CD-rom, appeared 2004 (also available at www.uwindsor.ca/ilat25)Google Scholar
  65. Krabbe E. C. W. and Walton D. (1994). It’s all very well for you to talk!. Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 15: 79–91Google Scholar
  66. Lavine H. and Snyder M. (1996). Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion. The mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32: 580–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McGuire, W.: 1964, ‘Inducing resistance to persuasion Some contemporary approaches’, in L. Berkowitz, (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1pp. 191–229, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  68. McGuire W. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In: Borgatta, E. and Lambert, W. (eds) Handbook of Personality and Research, pp 1130–1187. Rand McNally, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  69. McGuire W. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp 136–314. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Keefe D. J. (1990). Persuasion. Theory and Research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, London New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  71. O’Keefe D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 329–345. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Papageorgis D. (1968). Warning and persuasion. Psychological Bulletin 70: 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Papageorgis D. and McGuire W. (1961). The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62: 475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Perloff R. (1993). The Dynamics of Persuasion, Hove and London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  75. Petty R., Gleicher F. and Baker S. (1991). Multiple roles for affect in persuasion. In: Forgas, J. (eds) Emotion and Social Judgments, pp 181–200. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  76. Petty R. and Brock T. (1981). Thought disruption and persuasion. Assessing the validity of attitude change experiments. In: Petty, R., Ostrom, T. and Brock, T. (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, pp 55–79. Hillsdale, Lawrenece Erlbaum, NJGoogle Scholar
  77. Petty R. and Cacioppo J. (1979). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 5: 173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Petty R. and Cacioppo J. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion. Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Westview Press, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  79. Petty R. and Cacioppo J. (1986). Communication and Persuasion. Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Petty R. and Wegener D. (1988). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions. Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pratkanis, A., S. Breckler and A. Greenwald (eds.): 1989, Attitude Structure and Function, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  82. Reynolds R. A. and Reynolds J. L. (2002). Evidence. In: Dillard, P. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 427–445. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Roskos-Ewoldsen D. (1997). Attitude accessibility and persuasion. Review and a transactive model. In: Burleson, B. (eds) Communication Yearbook 20, pp 185–225. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  84. Roskos-Ewoldsen D., Arpan-Ralstin L. and St. Pierre J. (2002). Attitude accessibility and persuasion. The quick and the strong. In: Dillard, P. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 39–63. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  85. Shavitt S., Swan S., Lowrey T. and Wänke M. (1994). The interaction of endorser attractiveness and involvement in persuasion depends on the goal that guides message processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology 3(2): 137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shavitt S. and Nelson M. (2000). The social identity function in person perception. Communicated meanings of product preferences. In: Maio, G. and Olson, J. (eds) Why We Evaluate. Function of Attitudes, pp 37–58. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  87. Shavitt S. and Nelson M. (2002). The role of attitude functions in persuasion and social judgment. In: Dillard, P. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 137–155. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Sherif C. W., Sherif M. and Nebregall R. E. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change. The Social Judgment-involvement Approach. W.B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  89. Sherif M. and Hovland C. I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  90. Skolnick P. and Heslin R. (1971). Quality versus difficulty. Alternative interpretations of the relationship between self-esteem and persuasibility. Journal of Personality 39: 242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Snyder M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30: 526–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Snyder M. and DeBono K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality. Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 586–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sopory P. and Dillard J. (2002). Figurative language and persuasion. In: Dillard, P. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 407–427. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  94. Steele C. M., Spencer S. J. and Lynch M. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance: the role of affirmation resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 885–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stone J., Wiegand A. W., Cooper J. and Aronson E. (1997). When exemplification fails: hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 54–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Szabo E. A. and Pfau M. (2002). Nuances in inoculation. Theory and applications. In: Dillard, P. and Pfau, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook. Developments in Theory and Practice, pp 233–259. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  97. Walster E. (1964). The temporal sequence of post-decision processes. In: Festinger, L. (eds) Conflict, Decision and Dissonance, pp 112–127. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  98. Walton D. (1987). Informal fallacies. Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  99. Walton D. (1992). The Place of Emotion in Argument. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  100. Walton D. (1996). Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. University Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  101. Walton D. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  102. Walton D. and Krabbe E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany NYGoogle Scholar
  103. Wicklund R. A. and Brehm J. W. (1976). Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  104. Wood W., Kallgren C. A. and Priesler R. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion. The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 21: 73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Woods J.: 1992, ‘Who cares about the fallacies?’, in van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R., Blair A. and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, pp. 23–48, SIC SAT, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  106. Woods J. (1993). Dialectical blindspots. Philosophy and Rhetoric 26: 251–265Google Scholar
  107. Woods J. (2000). Privatizing death: metaphysical discouragements of ethical thinking. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 24: 199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Woods, J. and D. Walton: 1989, Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1982, Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/ForisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUppsala University75126Sweden

Personalised recommendations