Social values as arguments: similar is convincing
نویسندگان
چکیده
Politicians, philosophers, and rhetors engage in co-value argumentation: appealing to one value in order to support another value (e.g., "equality leads to freedom"). Across four experiments in the United Kingdom and India, we found that the psychological relatedness of values affects the persuasiveness of the arguments that bind them. Experiment 1 found that participants were more persuaded by arguments citing values that fulfilled similar motives than by arguments citing opposing values. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated this result using a wider variety of values, while finding that the effect is stronger among people higher in need for cognition and that the effect is mediated by the greater plausibility of co-value arguments that link motivationally compatible values. Experiment 4 extended the effect to real-world arguments taken from political propaganda and replicated the mediating effect of argument plausibility. The findings highlight the importance of value relatedness in argument persuasiveness.
منابع مشابه
DiaLaw: Levels, Dialog Trees, Convincing Arguments
DiaLaw is a dialogical model of legal justification. An important characteristic of the formal and implemented model DiaLaw is that both logic-based arguments and mere convincing statements can be modelled. The support of both structural (logic-based) arguments and procedural arguments (mere convincing statements) is expressed by different levels in the dialog. In this paper so-called dialog tr...
متن کاملSelf-generated persuasion: effects of the target and direction of arguments.
Previous research has revealed that self-persuasion can occur either through role-playing (i.e., when arguments are generated to convince another person) or, more directly, through trying to convince oneself (i.e., when arguments are generated with oneself as the target). Combining these 2 traditions in the domain of attitude change, the present research investigated the impact on self-persuasi...
متن کاملDisease mongering in psychiatry: fact or fiction?
Disease mongering starts at the top of recent accusations being hurled at psychiatry. It is used to refer to the attempts by pharmaceutical companies or others who have similar interests, to enlarge the market for a treatment by convincing people that they are sick and need medical intervention. This paper critically analyses the 'for' and 'against' arguments of disease mongering in psychiatric...
متن کاملThe great slippery-slope argument.
Whenever some form of beneficent killing--for example, voluntary euthanasia--is advocated, the proposal is greeted with a flood of slippery-slope arguments warning of the dangers of a Nazi-style slide into genocide. This paper is an attempt systematically to evaluate arguments of this kind. Although there are slippery-slope arguments that are sound and convincing, typical formulations of the Na...
متن کاملPromoting productive argumentation through students' questions
Questions are important in facilitating the thinking process that leads to learning. There are many research studies examining the use of students’ questions as scaffolds to facilitate argument construction but more needs to be done to understand how these questions are used in generating productive arguments. As such, in this research, we investigate (1) the types of students’ questions genera...
متن کامل