Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 151–163 | Cite as

Potential Conflicts between Normatively-Responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research

Article

Abstract

This article approaches the relationship of normative argumentation studies and descriptive persuasion effects research by pointing to several empirical findings that raise questions or puzzles about normatively-proper argumentative conduct. These findings indicate some complications in the analysis of normatively desirable argumentative conduct – including some ways in which practical persuasive success may not be entirely compatible with normatively-desirable advocacy practices.

Keywords

decision framing message framing pragma-dialectics risk communication risk perception strategic maneuvering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen I. 1991, The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison M. J., Keller C. 2004, Self-Efficacy Intervention Effect on Physical Activity in Older Adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research 26, 31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura A. 1977, Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blok G. A., Morton J., Morley M., Kerckhoffs C. C. J. M. C., Kootstra G., van der Vleuten C. P. M. 2004, Requesting Organ Donation: The Case of Self-eEfficacy. Advances in Health Sciences Education 9, 261–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2000, Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14, 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2001, Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework. Argumentation and Advocacy 37, 150–157Google Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2005, ‹Strategic Manoeuvring’, Studies in Communication Sciences, 23–34Google Scholar
  8. Finocchiaro M. A. 1992, Asymmetries in argumentation and evaluation, in van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R., Blair J. A., Willard C. A. (eds.) Argumentation illuminated. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 62–72Google Scholar
  9. Fishbein M., Yzer M. C. 2003, Using Theory to Design Effective Health Behavior Interventions. Communication Theory 13, 164–183Google Scholar
  10. Glaeser E. L. 2006, Paternalism and Psychology. University of Chicago Law Review 73, 133–156Google Scholar
  11. Guttman N. 1997a, Beyond Strategic Research: A Value-Centered Approach to Health Communication Interventions. Communication Theory 7, 95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guttman N. 1997b, Ethical Dilemmas in Health Campaigns. Health Communication 9, 155–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guttman N., Ressler W. H. 2001, On Being Responsible: Ethical Issues in Appeals to Personal Responsibility in Health Campaigns. Journal of Health Communication 6, 117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jolls C., Sunstein C. R. 2006, Debiasing through Law. Journal of Legal Studies 35, 199–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lundborg P., Lindgren B. 2002, Risk Perceptions and Alcohol Consumption among Young People. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25, 165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lundborg P., Lindgren B. 2004, Do They Know What They Are Doing? Risk Perceptions and Smoking Behaviour among Swedish Teenagers. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28, 261–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luszcynska A. 2004, Change in Breast Self-Examination Behavior: Effects of Intervention on Enhancing Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11, 95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGettigan P., Sly K., O’Connell D., Hill S., Henry D. (1999), The Effects of Information Framing on the Practices of Physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14, 633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moxey A., O’Connell D., McGettigan P., Henry D. 2003, Describing Treatment Effects to Patients: How They Are Expressed Makes a Difference. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18, 948–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Keefe D. J. 1998, Justification Explicitness and Persuasive Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Varying Support Articulation in Persuasive Messages. Argumentation and Advocacy 35, 61–75Google Scholar
  21. O’Keefe D. J. 1999, How to Handle Opposing Arguments in Persuasive Messages: A Meta-Analytic Review of The Effects of One-Sided and Two-Sided Messages. Communication Yearbook 22, 209–249Google Scholar
  22. O’Keefe D. J. 2002, The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation, in: van Eemeren F. H. (ed.) Advances in pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 65–82Google Scholar
  23. O’Keefe D. J., Jensen J. D. 2006, The Advantages of Compliance or The Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages. Communication Yearbook 30, 1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Keefe, D. J. and J. D. Jensen: ‹The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review’. Journal of Health Communication (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Rothman A. J., Salovey P. 1997, Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychological Bulletin 121, 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salovey P., Schneider T. R., Apanovitch A. M. 2002, Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness, in: Dillard J. P., Pfau M. (eds.) The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 391–406Google Scholar
  27. Trout J. D. 2005, Paternalism and Cognitive Bias. Law and Philosophy 24, 393–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van den Putte B., Dhondt G. 2005, Developing Successful Communication Strategies: A Test of an Integrated Framework for Effective Communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35, 2399–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations