From Argumentative Crisis to Critical Arguments: How to Argue in the Face of Danger

Abstract

Building on evidence from the field of risk perception and communication, two key roles of argumentation in crisis management are highlighted: (1) balancing trust construction and persuasive goals in crisis prevention and preparedness, and (2) ensuring time-efficient cross-examination of choice options in group decision making at a time of crisis. The implications for an information fusion approach to crisis management are discussed, suggesting a rich potential for future research.

References

  1. Arvai JL (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal 23(2):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banas JA, Rains SA (2010) A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Commun Monogr 77(3):281–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell HM, Tobin GA (2007) Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk. Environ Hazards 7:302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caminada M, Pigozzi G (2011) On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22(1):64–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castelfranchi C (2000) Affective appraisal versus cognitive evaluation in social emotions and interactions. In: Paiva A (ed) Affective interactions. Springer, Berlin, pp 76–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2010) Trust theory: a socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley, ChichesterMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cionea I, Hample D, Paglieri F (2011) A test of the argument engagement model in Romania. In: Zenker F (ed) Argumentation: cognition & community. Proceedings of OSSA 2011. CD-ROM. Windsor, OSSA, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  10. Cohen D (2005) Arguments that backfire. In: Hitchcock D (ed) The uses of argument. Proceedings of OSSA 2005. OSSA, Hamilton, pp 58–65Google Scholar
  11. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Covello VT, von Winterfeldt D, Slovic P (1986) Communicating risk information to the public. Risk Abstracts 3(4):1–14Google Scholar
  13. Covello VT, Peters R, Wojtecki J, Hyde R (2001) Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health 78(2):382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Covello VT, Sandman PM (2001) Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst A (ed) Solutions to an environment in peril. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 164–178Google Scholar
  15. Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48(4):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Das TK, Teng BS (2004) The risk-based view of trust: a conceptual framework. J Bus Psychol 19(1):85–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91(2):280–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269(1498):1307–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5):736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 7:321--357Google Scholar
  23. Earle TC (2012) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Eisend M (2007) Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychol Mark 24(7):615–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faulkner H, Mc Carthy S, Tunstall S (2011) Flood risk communication. In: Pender G, Faulkner H (eds) Flood risk science and management. Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 386–406Google Scholar
  26. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foddy M, Platow MJ, Yamagishi T (2009) Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychol Sci 20(4):419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  30. Hample D (2005) Arguing: exchanging reasons face to face. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  31. Hample D, Benoit P, Houston J, Purifoy G, Vanhyfte V, Wardwell C (1999) Naive theories of argument: avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argum Advocacy 35:130–139Google Scholar
  32. Hample D, Dallinger J (1990) Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hample D, Dallinger J (1992) The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argum Advocacy 28:109–122Google Scholar
  34. Hample D, Paglieri F, Na L (2012) The costs and benefits of arguing: predicting the decision whether to engage or not. In: van Eemeren F, Garssen B (eds) Topical themes in argumentation theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hample D, Werber B, Young D (2009) Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation 23:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hovland C, Lumsdaine A, Sheffield F (1949) Experiments in mass communication. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Infanti J, Sixsmith J, Barry MM, Núñez-Córdoba J, Oroviogoicoechea-Ortega C, Guillén-Grima F (2013) A literature review on effective risk communication for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Europe. ECDC, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Nuclear imagery and regional stigma: testing hypotheses of image acquisition and valuation regarding Nevada. University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  39. Joffe H (2003) Risk: from perception to social representation. Br J Soc Psychol 42(1):55–73MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson RH (2003) The dialectical tier revisited. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard CA, Snoeck Henkemans AF (eds) Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson RH (2007) Anticipating objections as a way of coping with dissensus. In: Hansen HV, Tindale CW, Blair JA, Johnson RH (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground (CD-ROM). OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  43. Karau SJ, Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J Exp Soc Psychol 28:542–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kasperson RE (1986) Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Anal 6(3):275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48(4):161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (1991) Risk communication: the evolution of attempts. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (eds) Communicating risk to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1342–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelly JR, McGrath JE (1985) Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:395–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelly JR, Jackson JW, Hutson-Comeaux SL (1997) The effects of time pressure and task differences on influences modes and accuracy in decision-making groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelly JR, Lovig TJ (2004) Time pressure and group performance: exploring underlying processes in the Attentional Focus Model. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(2):185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kruglanski AW, Webster DM (1991) Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lenard PT (2008) Trust your compatriots, but count your change: the roles of trust, mistrust and distrust in democracy. Polit Stud 56(2):312–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lion R (2001) Security or opportunity: the effects of individual and situational factors on risk information preference. Universal Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  55. Marsh S, Dibben MR (2005) Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust—an exploration of the dark(er) side. In: Herrmann P, Issarny V, Shiu S (eds) Trust management. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):709–734Google Scholar
  57. McGuire WJ (1961) The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. Sociometry 24:184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nooteboom B (1996) Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model. Organ Stud 17:985–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven NG (1997) Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Acad Manage J 40(2):308–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Keefe DJ (1999) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In: Roloff ME (ed) Communication yearbook 22. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 209–249Google Scholar
  61. O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  62. Ouerdane W, Dimopoulos Y, Liapis K, Moraitis P (2011) Towards automating decision aiding through argumentation. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 18:289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paglieri F (2007) No more charity, please! Enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence. In: Hansen H, Tindale C, Johnson R, Blair J (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proceedings of OSSA 2007. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  64. Paglieri F (2009) Ruinous arguments: escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing. In: Hansen H, Tindale C, Johnson R, Blair J (eds) Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  65. Paglieri F (2013a) Choosing to argue: towards a theory of argumentative decisions. J Pragmat 59(B):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paglieri F (2013b) Argumentation, decision and rationality. In: Mohammed D, Lewinsky M (eds) Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of OSSA 2013. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  67. Paglieri F (2015) Arguments, conflicts and decisions. In: Poggi I, D’Errico F, Vincze L, Vinciarelli A (eds) Conflict and negotiation: social research and machine intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  68. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2010) Why arguing? Towards a costs-benefits analysis of argumentation. Argum Comput 1(1):71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C, da Costa Pereira C, Falcone R, Tettamanzi A, Villata S (2014) Trusting the message and the messenger: feedback dynamics from information quality to source evaluation. Comput Math Organ Theory 20(2):176–194Google Scholar
  70. Paglieri F, Woods J (2011a) Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese 178:461–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Paglieri F, Woods J (2011b) Enthymemes: from reconstruction to understanding. Argumentation 25(2):127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Parsons S, Atkinson K, Li Z, McBurney P, Sklar E, Singh M, Haigh K, Levitt K, Rowe J (2014) Argument schemes for reasoning about trust. Argum Comput 5(2–3):160–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pelling M (2007) Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters 31(4):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear Power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26(16):1427–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pfau M (1992) The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising messages. Commun Q 40(1):26–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pfau M (1997) The inoculation model of resistance to influence. In: Boster FJ, Barnett G (eds) Progress in communication sciences, vol 13. Ablex, Norwood, pp 133–171Google Scholar
  77. Pidgeon N (1992) The psychology of risk. In: Blockley DI (ed) Engineering safety. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, pp 167–185Google Scholar
  78. Primiero G, Kosolosky L (2013) The semantics of untrustworthiness. Topoi.doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9227-2 Google Scholar
  79. Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  80. Reed C, Norman T (eds) (2004) Argumentation machines. Kluwer, DordrechtMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (eds) Communicating risk to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 175–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev 23(3):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rowan KE, Botan CH, Kreps GL, Samoilenko S, Farnsworth K (2009) Risk communication education for local emergency managers: using the CAUSE model for research, education, and outreach. In: Heath RL, O’Hair HD (eds) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, pp 168–191Google Scholar
  84. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sitkin SB, Roth NL (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ Sci 4(3):367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13(6):675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701Google Scholar
  89. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Steger MAE, Witt SL (1989) Gender differences in environmental orientations: a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the US. West Polit Q 42:627–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Turner ME, Pratkanis AR (1998) Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 73(2–3):105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1127–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I (2008) Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob Environ Chang 18(1):165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35:2705–2714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van Eemeren F, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  96. Visschers VH, Siegrist M (2008) Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: a review of the literature. Risk Manage 10(3):156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Walton D (1995) A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  98. Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  99. Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  100. Walton D (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  101. Walton D (2000) Scare tactics. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Walton D (2002) Legal argumentation and evidence. Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  103. Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  104. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Weyman AK, Kelly CJ (1999) Risk perception and risk communication: a review of literature. HSE Contract Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  106. Yamagishi K (1997) When 12.86 mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Bonelli
    • 1
  • Silvia Felletti
    • 1
  • Fabio Paglieri
    • 2
  1. 1.Theory & Technology group (T3), Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome & Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Goal-Oriented Agents Lab (GOAL), Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations