Argumentation

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 165–181 | Cite as

On the processing of arguments

  • James F. Voss
  • Rebecca Fincher-Kiefer
  • Jennifer Wiley
  • Laurie Ney Silfies
Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the processing of informal arguments, that is, arguments involving “probable truth.” A model of informal argument processing is presented that is based upon Hample's (1977) expansion of Toulmin's (1958) model of argument structure. The model postulates that a claim activates an attitude, the two components forming a complex that in turn activates reasons. Furthermore, the model holds occurrence of the reason, or possibly the claim and the reason, activates values. Three experiments are described that provide support for the model.

Key words

Argument argumentation pro and con reasons value-based arguments attitude social issues justification argument processing informal reasoning representation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angell, R.B.: 1964,Reasoning and Logic, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, C.C. and Bowers, J.W.: 1984,Handbook of Rhetorical and Communication Theory, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Billig, M.: 1985, ‘Prejudice, Categorization, and Particularization: From a Perceptual to a Rhetorical Approach’,European Journal of Social Psychology 15, 79–103.Google Scholar
  4. Billig, M.: 1987,Arguing and Thinking, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, W.C.: 1974,Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  6. Booth, W.C.: 1979,Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, L.: 1960,The Rhetoric of Aristotle, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Corbett, E.P.J.: 1971,Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (2nd Ed.), New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eiser, J.R. and Monk, A.F.: 1978, ‘Is the Recognition of Attitude Statements Affected by One's Own Opinion?’European Journal of Social Psychology 8, 529–533.Google Scholar
  10. Fazio, R.H.: 1986, ‘How do Attitudes Guide Behavior?’ in R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgns (eds.),The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, pp. 204–243. New York, Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feather, N.T.: 1970, ‘Balancing and Postivity Effects in Social Recall’,Journal of Personality 38, 602–628.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, A.: 1988,The Logic of Real Arguments, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Graesser, A.C. and Riha, J.R.: 1984, ‘An Application of Multiple Regression Techniques to Sentence Reading Times’, in D.E. Kieras and M.A. Just (eds.),New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research, pp. 183–281, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hample, D.: 1977, ‘Testing a Model of Value Argument and Evidence’,Communication Monographs 44, 106–120.Google Scholar
  15. Hoch, S.J.: 1984, ‘Availability and Interference in Predictive Judgment’,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10, 649–662.Google Scholar
  16. Hoch, S.J.: 1985, ‘Counterfactual Reasoning and Accuracy in Predicting Personal Events’,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11, 719–731.Google Scholar
  17. Hofer, M., Fleischmann, T., and Pikowsky, B.: 1991,Adolescents Arguing With Their Mothers: Age Differences in Dialogic Behavior, Paper presented at the annual meeing of the Society for Research on Child Development, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Homer-Dixon, T.F. and Karapin, R.S.: 1989, ‘Graphical Argument Analysis: A New Approach to Understanding Arguments, Applied to a Debate About the Window of Vulnerability’,International Studies Quarterly 33, 389–410.Google Scholar
  19. Judd, C.M. and Kulik, J.A.: 1980, ‘Schematic Effects of Social Attitudes on Information Processing and Recall’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38, 569–578.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, D.: 1991,The Skills of Argument, New York, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. McBurney, J.H. and MIlls, G.E.: 1951,Argumentation and Debate, New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Perelman, C.: 1984, ‘The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments’,The Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 188–196.Google Scholar
  23. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: 1969,New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argument, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  24. Perkins, D.N., Allen, R. and Hafner, J.: 1983, ‘Difficulties in Everyday Reasoning’, in W. Maxwell (ed.),Thinking: The Expanding Frontier, Philadelphia, PA, Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stein, N.L. and Miller, C.A.: 1991, ‘I Win-You Lose: The Development of Argumentative Thinking’, in J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins and J.W. Segal (eds.),Informal Reasoning and Education, pp. 265–290, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Toulmin, S.: 1958,The Uses of Argument, New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Voss, J.F., Engstler-Schooler, T., Fincher-Kiefer, R. and Ney, L.: 1989,On the Evaluation of Arguments, Paper presented at the Psychonomics Society Meeting, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  28. Voss, J.F., Engstler-Schooler, T., Kennet, J., Wolfe, C. and Silfies, L.: 1990,Argument Structures and Argument Generation, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  29. Voss, J.F., Perkins, D.N. and Segal, J.W.: 1991,Informal Reasoning and Education, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Voss, J.F., Tyler, S.W. and Yengo, L.A.: 1983, ‘Individual Differences in the Solving of Social Science Problems’, in R.F. Dillon and R.R. Schmeck (eds.),Individual Differences in Cognition, pp. 205–232, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wallace, K.R.: 1963, ‘The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons’,Quarterly Journal of Speech,49, 239–249.Google Scholar
  32. Zammuner, V.L.: 1987, ‘For or Against: The Expression of Attitudes in Discourse’,Text 7, 411–434.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • James F. Voss
    • 1
  • Rebecca Fincher-Kiefer
    • 1
  • Jennifer Wiley
    • 1
  • Laurie Ney Silfies
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations