Measures of Argument Strength: A Computational, Large-Scale Analysis of Effective Persuasion in Real-World Debates

References

• Alfano, M., Iurino, K., Stey, P., Robinson, B., Christen, M., Yu, F., Lapsley, D., & Tractenberg, R. E. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility. (2017). PloS One, 12(8), e0182950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.640199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araque, O., Gatti, L., & Kalimeri, K. (2022). LibertyMFD: A Lexicon to assess the moral foundation of liberty. Proceedings of the Conference on Information Technology for Social Good, 2, 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524458.3547264
   Google Scholar
• Atari, M., Omrani, A., & Dehghani, M. (2023). Contextualized construct representation: Leveraging psychometric scales to advance theory-driven text analysis. PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m93pd
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2021). Value-based Argumentation. Journal of Applied Logics -IfColog Journal of Logics and Their Application, 8(6), 1543–1588. http://collegepublications.co.uk/ifcolog/?00048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baesler, E. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21(5), 582–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021005002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D. (1975). Rational processing or rationalization? The effect of disconfirming information on stated religious belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, B. A., Ferron, J. M., & Kromrey, J. D. (2008). Cluster size in multilevel models: The impact of sparse data structures on point and interval estimates in two-level models. JSM Proceedings: Section on Survey Research Methods, 1122–1129. http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2008f.html
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. J. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A. (2012). Argumentation as rational persuasion. Argumentation, 26(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9235-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, J. A., & Johnson, F. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127118
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, V., Janardhan, N. K. N., & Janardhan, N. (2019). A comprehensive study on lexicon based approaches for sentiment analysis. Asian Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 8(S2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.51983/ajcst-2019.8.S2.2037
   Google Scholar
• Boote, A. S. (1981). Market segmentation by personal values and salient product attributes. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(1), 29–35. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-22299-001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borah, P. (2014). The hyperlinked world: A look at how the interactions of news frames and hyperlinks influence news credibility and willingness to seek information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosius, H. B. (2000). Toward an exemplification theory of news effects. Document Design, 2(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.2.1.03bro
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carpenter, C. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality× processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1959). Atmosphere effect re-examined. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041961
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2008a). Influence. Science and practice. Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2008b). Turning persuasion from an art into a science. In P. Meusburger, M. Welker, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Clashes of knowledge (pp. 199–209). Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, P. (2008). When can group level clustering be ignored? Multilevel models versus single-level models with sparse data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(8), 752–758. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.060798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, P., & Wheaton, B. (2007). Addressing data sparseness in contextual population research using cluster analysis to create synthetic neighborhoods. Sociological Methods & Research, 35(3), 311–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124106292362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046
   Google Scholar
• Durmus, E., & Cardie, C. (2019). Exploring the role of prior belief for argument persuasion. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.11301
   Google Scholar
• Dutta, S., Das, D., & Chakraborty, T. Changing views: Persuasion modeling and argument extraction from online discussions. (2020). Information Processing & Management, 57(2), 102085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, M. A. (2004). Emotion, argumentation, and informal logic. Informal Logic, 24(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v24i3.2147
   Google Scholar
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habernal, I., & Gurevych, I. (2016). Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM. In A. van den Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.1589–1599). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P16-1150/
   Google Scholar
• Hahn, U. (2020). Argument quality in real world argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 24(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 316(5827), 998–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137651
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). A cognitive dissonance theory perspective on persuasion. In J. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 99–116). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Heit, E., & Rotello, C. M. (2012). The pervasive effects of argument length on inductive reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 244–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.695161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hitchcock, D. (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In D. Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic (pp. 101–129). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H. (2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15(4), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012075630523
   Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.669986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, J. A. L., & van Vugt, M. (2016). The biased use of argument evaluation criteria in motivated reasoning: Does argument quality depend on the evaluators’ standpoint? In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion (pp. 197–210). College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hopp, F. R., Fisher, J. T., Cornell, D., Huskey, R., & Weber, R. (2021). The extended Moral Foundations Dictionary (eMFD): Development and applications of a crowd-sourced approach to extracting moral intuitions from text. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01433-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, F. R., & Weber, R. (2021). Reflections on extracting moral foundations from media content. Communication Monographs, 88(3), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1963513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701716578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web & Social Media, 8(1), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. D., King, A. J., Carcioppolo, N., & Davis, L. (2012). Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. T., Maio, G. R., & Smith McLallen, A. (2005). Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 617–669). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. A., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2009). Enhancing perceived credibility of citizen journalism websites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalkhoff, W., & Barnum, C. (2000). The effects of status-organizing and social identity processes on patterns of social influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, C. (1972). Can men find the meaning of “meaning?. ETC: Areview of general semantics, 29(3), 251–255. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42576447
   Google Scholar
• Kodapanakkal, R. I., Brandt, M. J., Kogler, C., & van Beest, I. (2022). Moral frames are persuasive and moralize attitudes; nonmoral frames are persuasive and de-moralize attitudes. Psychological Science, 33(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211040803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodal. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL100201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, M., Stranisci, M. A., Bosco, C., Damiano, R., & Patti, V. (2021). HaMor at the profiling hate speech spreaders on Twitter. Proceedings of the Working Notes of CLEF 2021 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, 2936, 2047–2055. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2936/paper-178.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Li, C. Y. (2013). Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, H., Liu, H., & Zhang, Z. (2020). Online persuasion of review emotional intensity: A text mining analysis of restaurant reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102558. Article 102558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukin, S. M., Anand, P., Walker, M., & Whittaker, S. (2017). Argument strength is in the eye of the beholder: Audience effect in persuasion. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1708.09085
   Google Scholar
• Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., & Xu, M. (2017). Replicating and fixing failed replications: The case of need for cognition and argument quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luu, K., Tan, C., & Smith, N. A. (2019). Measuring online debaters’ persuasive skill from text over time. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7, 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00281
   Google Scholar
• Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
   Google Scholar
• Matsuo, A., Sasahara, K., Taguchi, Y., Karasawa, M., & Gruebner, O. (2019). Development and validation of the Japanese moral foundations dictionary. PLoS One, 14(3), article e0213343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormack, K. C. (2014). Ethos, pathos, and logos: The benefits of aristotelian rhetoric in the courtroom. Washington University Jurisprudence Review, 7(1), 131–155. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/wujurisre7&i=136
   Google Scholar
• Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213479404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive‐functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00172.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noelle‐Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1995). Argumentation studies and dual-process models of persuasion. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (pp.3–17). SIC SAT.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation & Advocacy, 35(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1998.11951621
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & research. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J., & Jackson, S. (1995). Argument quality and persuasive effects: A review of current approaches. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceeding of the 9thSCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Annandale, Virginia, United States (pp. 88–92). Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, H., & Thelwall, M. (2003). Hyperlink analysis of the world wide web: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00223.x
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
   Google Scholar
• Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H.-P., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. Q. (2005). Informational length and order of presentation as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priniski, J., & Horne, Z. (2018). Attitude Change on Reddit’s Change My View. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 40, 2276–2281. https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0437/0437.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
   Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A., Levine, T. R., & Weber, R. (2018). Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: Lessons from 149 meta-analyses. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1446350
   Google Scholar
• Rezapour, R., Dinh, L., & Diesner, J. (2021). Incorporating the measurement of moral foundations theory into analyzing stances on controversial topics. In O. Conloan & E. Herder (Eds.). Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 177–188). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475112
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1970). Homophily-heterophily: Relational concepts for communication research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1086/267838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, A. J., Desmarais, K. J., & Lenne, R. L. (2020). Moving from research on message framing to principles of message matching: The use of gain-and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior. Advances in Motivation Science, 7, 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Rustam, F., Khalid, M., Aslam, W., Rupapara, V., Mehmood, A., Choi, G. S., & Mumtaz, W. (2021). A performance comparison of supervised machine learning models for Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis. PloS One, 16(2), article e0245909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, T. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samples, J. (2019). Why the government should not regulate content moderation of social media. Cato Institute Policy Analysis, 865. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3502843
   Google Scholar
• Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, H. W., Berkowitz, N. N., & Moyer, R. J. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2018). Think again. How to reason and argue. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23(2), 210–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solovyev, V. (2021). Concreteness/Abstractness concept: State of the art. In B. M. Velichkovsky, P. M. Balaban, V. L. Ushakov, & L. V (Eds.), Advances in cognitive research, artificial intelligence and neuroinformatics (pp. 275–283). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71637-0_33
   Google Scholar
• Stavraki, M., Lamprinakos, G., Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., Karantinou, K., & Díaz, D. (2021). The influence of emotions on information processing and persuasion: A differential appraisals perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, 104085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strohminger, N., & Nichols, S. (2014). The essential moral self. Cognition, 131(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamborini, R. (2011). Moral intuition and media entertainment. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, & Applications, 23(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000031
   Google Scholar
• Tan, C., Niculae, V., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2016). Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussion. In J. Bourdeau, J. A. Hendler, & R. N. Nkambou (Eds.), WWW’ 16:Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on the World Wide Web (pp. 613–624). IW3C3. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883081
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., & Walton, D. N. (2009). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Villata, S., Cabrio, E., Jraidi, I., Benlamine, S., Chaouachi, M., Frasson, C., & Gandon, F. (2017). Emotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation. Argument & Computation, 8(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachsmuth, H., Naderi, N., Habernal, I., Hou, Y., Hirst, G., Gurevych, I., & Stein, B. (2017). Argumentation quality assessment: Theory vs. practice. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 250–255. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2039
   Google Scholar
• Wachsmuth, H., Naderi, N., Hou, Y., Bilu, Y., Prabhakaran, V., Thijm, T. A., Hirst, G., & Stein, B. (2017). Computational Argumentation Quality Assessment in Natural Language. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1, 76–187. https://aclanthology.org/E17-1017
   Google Scholar
• Wall, J. D., & Warkentin, M. (2019). Perceived argument quality’s effect on threat and coping appraisals in fear appeals: An experiment and exploration of realism check heuristics. Information & Management, 56(8), 103157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., Yang, X., & Xi, W. (2018). Effects of group arguments on rumor belief and transmission in online communities: An information cascade and group polarization perspective. Information & Management, 55(4), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watt, S. E., Maio, G. R., Haddock, G., & Johnson, B. T. (2008). Attitude functions in persuasion: Matching, involvement, self-affirmation, and hierarchy. In R. Prislin & W. Crano (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 189–211). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, R., Huskey, R., Mangus, J. M., Westcott-Baker, A., & Turner, B. (2015). Neural predictors of message effectiveness during counterarguing in antidrug campaigns. Communication Monographs, 82(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.971414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi, M. Y., Yoon, J. J., Davis, J. M., & Lee, T. (2013). Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in web-based health information: The roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.01.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., & Cappella, J. N. (2016). Perceived argument strength. In D. K. Kim & J. Dearing (Eds.), Health communication research measures (pp. 119–126). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2010.547822
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5
   Google Scholar