Evaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience
Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):365 - 378 (2012)
| Abstract | In studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically focused on logical form and content. This emphasis has masked an important yet underappreciated aspect of everyday argument evaluation: social cues to argument strength. Here we focus on the ways in which observers evaluate arguments by the reaction they evoke in an audience. This type of evaluation is likely to occur either when people are not privy to the content of the arguments or when they are not expert enough to appropriately evaluate it. Four experiments explore cues that participants might take into account in evaluating arguments from the reaction of the audience. They demonstrate that participants can use audience motivation, expertise, and size as clues to argument quality. By contrast we find no evidence that participants take audience diversity into account | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesNancy Green, Rachael Dwight, Kanyamas Navoraphan & Brian Stadler (2011). Natural Language Generation of Biomedical Argumentation for Lay Audiences. Argument and Computation 2 (1):23 - 50.
James O. Young (2010). Art and the Educated Audience. Journal of Aesthetic Education 44 (3):29-42.
Douglas Walton (1999). Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments From Ignorance. Argumentation 13 (1):53-71.
Nick Zangwill (1999). Art and Audience. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (3):315-332.
Moti Mizrahi (2013). Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments. Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens (2012). Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument? Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
Aidan Feeney & Evan Heit (2011). Properties of the Diversity Effect in Category-Based Inductive Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (2):156 - 181.
Christian George (1999). Evaluation of the Plausibility of a Conclusion Derivable From Several Arguments with Uncertain Premises. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (3):245 – 281.
Hugo Mercier (2011). What Good is Moral Reasoning? Mind and Society 10 (2):131-148.
Moti Mizrahi (2012). A Decision Procedure for Evaluating Natural Language Arguments. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy 12 (1):11-12.
Brian Kierland & Philip Swenson (forthcoming). Ability-Based Objections to No-Best-World Arguments. Philosophical Studies.
Hugh M. Culbertson (1989). Should Journalists Follow or Lead Their Audiences?: A Study of Student Beliefs. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 4 (2):193 – 213.
Marianne Doury (2012). Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees? Argumentation 26 (1):99-114.
Julie E. Maybee (2011). Audience Matters: Teaching Issues of Race and Racism for a Predominantly Minority Student Body. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (8):853-873.
Elizabeth Fricker (2012). Stating and Insinuating. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 86 (1):61-94.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-06-13Total downloads3 ( #203,804 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
