Comparing the Actual and Expected Persuasiveness of Evidence Types: How Good are Lay People at Selecting Persuasive Evidence?

Abstract

Whereas there are many publications in which argumentation quality has been defined by argumentation theorists, considerably less research attention has been paid to lay people's considerations regarding argument quality. Considerations about strong and weak argumentation are relevant because they can be compared with actual persuasive success. Argumentation theorists' conceptions have to some extent been shown to be compatible with actual effectiveness, but for lay people such compatibility has yet to be determined. This study experimentally investigated lay people's expectations about the persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence, and compared these expectations with the actual persuasiveness of these evidence types. Dutch and French participants (N = 174) ranked four types of evidence in terms of their expected persuasiveness for eight different claims. Both cultural groups expected statistical evidence to be the most persuasive type of evidence to other people, followed by expert, causal, and, finally, anecdotal evidence. A comparison of these rankings with the results of Hornikx and Hoeken (Communication Monographs 74, 443-463, 2007, Study 1) on the actual persuasiveness of the same evidence types reveals that people's expectations are generally accurate: How relatively persuasive they expect evidence types to be often corresponded with their actual persuasiveness.

Evidence Quality and Persuasiveness: Germans Are Not Sensitive to the Quality of Statistical Evidence

“…The study of persuasive evidence has focused on the extent to which types of data affect people's adherence to factual claims that describe (future) events, such as "Listening to classical music helps students to absorb a lot of knowledge in a short period of time". Four types of evidence have generally been compared: statistical and anecdotal evidence in most cases (see Reinard, 1988;Allen and Preiss, 1997), but also causal evidence (providing an explanation for the claim), and expert evidence (in which an expert underscores the claim) (e.g., Hoeken, 2001;Hornikx and Hoeken, 2007). In these comparisons, people Judge the probability of different claims, which are supported by different types of evidence.…”

“…In these comparisons, people Judge the probability of different claims, which are supported by different types of evidence. Research has shown that statistical evidence, which is based on a large number of cases, is generally more persuasive than anecdotal evidence, which is based on a small number of cases (see reviews by Allen and Preiss, 1997;Hornikx, 2005). Studies in this domain give us insights into what kind of data are most likely to change people's beliefs about the phenomena described in claims.…”

“…For the argument fi-om expert opinion, one of the critical questions addresses the relevance of the field of expertise in relation to the topic of the claim (Walton, 1997). In the study of persuasive evidence, variations in the quality of a given type of evidence have been compared (e.g., Hornikx and Hoeken, 2007;Hoeken and Hustinx, 2009;Hoeken et al, 2012). In Hornikx and Hoeken (2007, Study 2), for instance, the persuasiveness of high-quality expert evidence (the field of expertise was relevant to the claim's topic) was compared to that of low-quality expert evidence (the expert's field of expertise was irrelevant to the topic of the claim).…”

“…Recently, evidence research has started taking a cross-cultural perspective by comparing the extent to which audiences from different cultural backgrounds are sensitive to evidence quality (e.g., Hornikx and Hoeken, 2007;Hornikx and De Best, 2011). Such research adds to our knowledge about the extent to which normative argument quality is important for persuasive suecess, and also deepens our insights into what quahty criteria matter or do not matter in different cultures.…”

Introduction: Recording and Explaining Cultural Differences in Argumentation

“…Evolutionary psychologists inquire about the function and origin of our argumentative abilities (Mercier and Sperber,2ou). Cognitive psychologists open up the narrow range of arguments that has been the focus ofthe psychology of reasoning and model underlying psychological mechanisms (Corner, Hahn and Oaksford, 2ou;Hahn and Oaksford, 2007;Hoeken, Timmers and Schellens, 2012;Hornikx, 2008). A special issue 0Ï Thinking and Reasoning, the flagship journal ofthe psychology of reasoning, on the topic of argumentation bears witness to this growing trend (Hornikx and Hahn, 2012).…”