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

Abstract

For a long time, research in communication and argumentation has investigated which kinds of evidence are most effective in changing people's beliefs in descriptive claims. For each type of evidence, such as statistical or expert evidence, high-quality and low-quality variants exist, depending on the extent to which evidence respects norms for strong argumentation. Studies have shown that participants are sensitive to such quality variations in some, but not in all, cultures. This paper expands such work by comparing the persuasiveness of high-and low-quality statistical and expert evidence for participants from two geographically close cultures, the Dutch and the German. Study 1, in which participants (Af= 150) Judge a number of claims with evidence, underscores earlier findings that high-quality is more persuasive than low-quality evidence for the Dutch, and -surprisingly -also shows that this is less the case for the Germans, in particular for statistical evidence. Study 2 with German participants (JV=64) shows that again they are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence, and rules out that this finding can be attributed to their understanding ofthe rules of generalisation. Together, the findings in this paper underline the need to empirically investigate what norms people from different cultures have for high-quality evidence, and to what extent these norms matter for persuasive success.

Judging the plausibility of arguments in scientific texts: a student–scientist comparison

“…As another example, Hornikx and Hoeken (2007) found that a claim was perceived as more persuasive by their participants when it was supported by high-quality data (e.g., statistical evidence), although this effect was observed only in Dutch but not French students. In another study (Hornikx & ter Haar, 2013), the same effect was observed in Dutch but not German students.…”

“…As another example, Hornikx and Hoeken (2007) found that a claim was perceived as more persuasive by their participants when it was supported by high-quality data (e.g., statistical evidence), although this effect was observed only in Dutch but not French students. In another study (Hornikx & ter Haar, 2013), the same effect was observed in Dutch but not German students.Although lay readers engage in argument evaluations to some extent, various studies show that they are not always accurate in their evaluations. For example, van Eemeren, Garssen, and Meuffels (2012) found that ad hominem attacks were rejected by students as unreasonable, but were perceived as more reasonable when they were presented as if they were critical questions regarding authority argumentation.…”

“…Finally, the study should be replicated in other countries, because culture-specific effects cannot be ruled out in the current findings (cf. Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007;Hornikx & ter Haar, 2013).…”

Cross-Cultural Differences in Informal Argumentation: Norms, Inductive Biases and Evidentiality

“…So, procedural norms, being based on social conventions, may be expected to vary across cultures.1 In contrast, epistemic norms, being based on, presumably universal, mathematical laws, may be expected not to vary between cultures. However, research looking at the effects of levels of evidence quality on argumentation, presumably underpinned by epistemic norms, has revealed differences (e.g., Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007;Hornikx & ter Haar, 2013).…”

The Role of Tutorials in Improving the Argumentative Skills of Secondary School Students

“…The decisive role of social interactions in brainbuilding is theoretically and experimentally substantiated, and the specifics of argumentation in the situations of collective problem solving are investigated (Inglis & Mejia-Ramos, 2009;Ravenscroft & McAlister, 2008;Rapanta, 2018). The argument is considered as a social and cultural resource (Rigotti & Morasso, 2010;Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008;Karaslaan, Hohenberger, Demir, Hall & Oaksford, 2018;Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007;Hornikx & ter Haar, 2013), as a means of activating the educational process in the system of secondary and higher education (Albano & Dello, 2019;Ragonis & Shilo, 2018;Schwarz & Baker, 2016;Albe 2008;Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006).…”