5 found
Order:
  1.  36
    Arguing About Desirable Consequences: What Constitutes a Convincing Argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  2.  27
    Arguing About the Likelihood of Consequences: Laypeople's Criteria to Distinguish Strong Arguments From Weak Ones.Hans Hoeken, Ester Šorm & Peter Jan Schellens - 2014 - Thinking and Reasoning 20 (1):77-98.
    High-quality arguments have strong and lasting persuasive effects, suggesting that people can distinguish high- from low-quality arguments. However, we know little of what norms people employ to make that distinction. Some studies have shown that, in evaluating arguments from consequences, people are more sensitive to differences with respect to the desirability of these consequences than to differences in the likelihood that these consequences will occur. This raises the question of whether people lack the criteria to distinguish high-quality from low-quality arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  34
    Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures.Peter Jan Schellens & Menno de Jong - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (3):295-323.
    Many public information documents attempt to persuade the recipients that they should engage in or refrain from specific behaviour. This is based on the assumption that the recipient will decide about his or her behaviour on the basis of the information given and a rational evaluation of the pros and cons. An analysis of 20 public information brochures shows that the argumentation in persuasive brochures is often not marked as such. Argumentation is presented as factual information, and in many instances (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  4.  11
    Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?Peter Jan Schellens, Ester Šorm, Rian Timmers & Hans Hoeken - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):681-703.
    Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  1
    Finding Irony: An Introduction of the Verbal Irony Procedure.Christian Burgers, Margot van Mulken & Peter Jan Schellens - 2011 - Metaphor and Symbol 26 (3):186-205.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations