=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0025
|storemode=property
|title=Highlighting Effect: The Function of Rebuttals in Written Argument
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0025.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/OnodaMA15
}}
==Highlighting Effect: The Function of Rebuttals in Written Argument==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0025.pdf
Highlighting Effect: The Function of Rebuttals in Written Argument
Ryosuke Onoda (ndrysk62@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Department of Educational Psychology, Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Satoko Miwa (miwatoko@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Department of Educational Psychology, Graduate School of Education
The University of Tokyo, Japan
Kiyomi Akita (kakita@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Division of Professional Development of Teachers, Graduate School of Education
The University of Tokyo, Japan
Abstract generations of rebuttals are practiced in instructional
A rebutting counterargument is considered a very effective
situations as well, such as elementary schools (Ferretti et al.,
strategy to make one’s own argument more persuasive; 2000; 2009; Onoda, in press) and colleges (Nussbaum &
however, the possible reasons behind this are not clear. In this Kardash, 2005). In both experimental and daily situations,
study, we investigated the effects of rebutting rebuttals could strengthen the robustness of logics; however,
counterarguments on
persuasiveness in written arguments. the reason rebuttals are persuasive has not yet been revealed.
One hundred undergraduate students were assigned randomly
to two conditions: a “non-rebuttal condition” and a “rebuttal
condition.” The participants in the non-rebuttal condition read
The Effects of Rebuttals on Persuasiveness
written arguments that included three my-side reasons, and Toulmin (1958) suggested that arguments simply including
those in the rebuttal condition read written arguments with my-side reasons are inadequate to be persuasive. The true
my-side reason, a counterargument, and a rebuttal. To persuasive arguments are those taking account of the other-
determine the persuasiveness of the rebuttals in the written side’s point of view.
arguments, we investigated three points: 1) reader’s direct
evaluations toward counterarguments and rebuttals, 2) how
However, Baron (1995) found that the persuasiveness of
the contents of arguments last in readers’ minds, and 3) the written arguments with both my-side and other-side reasons
relations between the first two points. As a result, we found have not always been evaluated better than arguments
that the participants in the rebuttal condition perceived consisting only of my-side reasons. This suggests that
counterarguments (other-side information) themselves to be referencing counterarguments are insufficient to increase
needless, so the act of rebutting them was important for them persuasiveness. To write persuasive arguments, the
and evaluated as being persuasive. Moreover, the participants preceding studies suggest that not only mentioning
in the rebuttal condition remembered my-side reasons better
than the non-rebuttal condition. These results suggest that counterarguments but rebutting them is essential (e.g., Allen,
rebuttal has the function of “highlighting” my-side reasons. 1991; Hale, Mongeau, & Thomas, 1991). For example,
Wolfe et al. (2009) controlled the way in which
Keywords: Written Arguments; Rebuttal; Persuasiveness;
counterarguments were responded to in written arguments
Recognition of Sentence
(Ex. rebuttal, dismissal, and concession) and asked
participants in each condition to rate their agreement with
Introduction the claim, the quality of the argument, and their impression
This study investigates the effects of rebutting of the author. As a result, rebuttals led to significantly
counterarguments on persuasiveness in written arguments. higher agreement, quality, and impression ratings than
We use the term “rebutting” to describe the act of arguments with no counterargument. Overall, in a meta-
justifying my-side claims by countering the other-side’s analysis, O’Keefe (1999) found that readers judge rebutting
reasons (we call these reasons counterarguments). Rebutting texts to be more persuasive than texts that do not.
is considered one of the most effective strategies to improve Although many studies emphasize importance of
the quality of written arguments (e.g., Ferretti, Lewis, & rebutting in written arguments, the mechanism of how
Andrews-Weekerly, 2009; Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, rebuttals affect a reader’s evaluation is unclear. For further
2000; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005; Onoda, in press; Wolfe research, we need to investigate the effects of rebutting by
& Britt, 2008; Wolfe, Britt, and Butler, 2009; see Nussbaum, focusing on the following three points.
2011 for a review). In one experimental study, for example, First, we must clarify reader’s direct evaluation toward
Ferretti et al. (2009) gave fourth- and sixth-grade students counterarguments and rebuttals. The evaluations toward
an elaborated goal including prompts of rebuttal generation whole written arguments, including counterarguments (and
to improve the quality of their writings, and Nussbaum and rebuttals) and one excluding them, were used as “evaluation
Kardash (2005) also instructed college students to rebut in toward counterargument or rebuttal texts (or my-side only
their written arguments. The instructions of encouraging
175
texts)” in previous research, but not the evaluations toward participants’ remembrance of what was written in written
counterarguments and rebuttals themselves (e.g., Baron, arguments.
1995; Wolfe et. al., 2009). The whole arguments themselves
contain multiple elements such as the contents of claims, Methods
sentence structure, and quantity of information, and each of
them interacts with one another. This makes it difficult to Participants and Experimental Design
clarify the effects of rebuttals by comparing the difference
The participants were 100 (41 males and 59 females)
between evaluations toward whole arguments with and
Japanese students from an introductory psychology class at
those without rebuttals. Needless to say, the persuasiveness
a university. They participated voluntarily in the study. The
of written arguments should be judged from evaluations of
participants were randomly assigned to one of two
whole arguments, but to examine the functions of
conditions: the non-rebuttal condition (n = 48) or the
counterarguments and rebuttals on persuasiveness, we need
rebuttal condition (n = 52).
to clarify readers’ direct evaluation toward each sentence.
Second, the effects of a rebuttal on a whole argument
Materials
should be re-examined in a between-subjects design. Wolfe
et al. (2009) revealed that written arguments with Arguments Four brief arguments, chosen from the written
counterarguments and rebuttals were evaluated higher by arguments used in Wolfe et al. (2009), were used as
readers than arguments with no rebuttals in within-subjects materials. Some arguments’ topics were unfamiliar to
design. In within-subject designs, participants read both Japanese students (for example, topics about gun control
types of arguments, so they might have judged written and presidential term are not familiar in Japan), so the
arguments with rebuttals relatively better than simple my- researchers and four Japanese undergraduate students chose
side arguments. This makes it difficult to determine whether eight arguments that are familiar to Japanese students. Each
arguments with rebuttals are good independently or participant received four randomly chosen arguments from
relatively better than simple my-side arguments. Therefore, these eight brief arguments and rated items below.
we need to examine whether readers evaluate arguments
including rebuttals as being persuasive, even if they read the Structure of Arguments Participants in each condition read
arguments independently. different structured written arguments. Differences in the
Finally, we need to develop a method of measuring argument structure between both conditions are shown in
readers’ evaluation toward sentences. Previous studies have Table 1.
focused on immediate evaluations of participants soon after
reading arguments (e.g., Baron, 1995; Wolfe et. al., 2009). Table 1 Argument Structure in the Non-Rebuttal and
However, some persuasive arguments require time to take Rebuttal Condition
effect and need to last in readers’ minds. For example, the
Contents
famous sleeper effect shows a delayed increase in the Sentence
Non-rebuttal Rebuttal
message’s persuasiveness from a minimally reliable source
Claim Claim
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kelman & Hovland, 1953). The
Sentence 1 My-side reason 1 My-side reason 1
persuasiveness might increase as time advances, so it is
Sentence 2 My-side reason 2 Counterarguments
important to determine whether the contents of arguments
Sentence 3 My-side reason 3 Rebuttal
are remembered by readers. A true persuasive argument
should remain in readers’ minds. According to this
The same sentences were used for both conditions’ claim
presumption, it is essential to carry the task, such as a
recognition task, to see how strong the contents of and my-side reason 1. Also, the same sentences were used
arguments last in readers’ minds. in my-side reason 3 and the rebuttal, but there was a
conjunction difference that my-side reason 3 started with “in
addition,” and the rebuttal began with the word “however.”
The Purpose of this Study
Examples of brief arguments are shown in Appendix 1. To
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of control order effects, arguments were presented to
rebutting on persuasiveness in written arguments. Previous participants in two counterbalanced orders.
studies suggest the importance of rebutting, but the exact
role of rebutting is not clarified. More specifically, whether Evaluation Task Sentences were presented one after
rebuttals themselves are persuasive or the structure another in each page, and participants were asked to rate
including rebuttals is persuasive is not clear enough. each item shown below on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly
Therefore, we asked participants to evaluate not only whole disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
written arguments but also each sentence to clarify readers’ On the first page, we presented the claim and asked
direct evaluations toward each sentence. This also enables participants to rate their agreement with the claim.
us to see how each rating is related to evaluations of whole On the second, third, and fourth pages, we presented
arguments. Lastly, we used a recognition task to see Sentence 1, Sentence 2, and Sentence 3 and asked
176
participants to rate “importance,” “interest,” Procedure
“persuasiveness,” and “needlessness” in each sentence. In the evaluation task, we obtained participants’ informed
On the last page, we showed the whole written arguments consent and randomly presented four written arguments.
to participants and asked them to rate the persuasiveness of Participants were asked to read and rate sentences on each
whole arguments. page and asked not to return to previous page. This task was
completed in 15 min.
Recognition Task A week after the evaluation task, the
A week after the evaluation task, the recognition task has
same participants were assigned to recognition task that done. Sixteen sentences were shown to the participants, and
were composed of 16 sentences. Eight of them were “true” they were asked to rate their assurance about their
sentences taken directly from the evaluation task (Sentence remembrance of each sentence in 10 min. Before the task,
1 and Sentence 3), and other eight were technically “false” participants were told that this task is done to investigate the
sentences which are similar to true sentences but have not correctness of their memory and there are filler items that
appeared in the evaluation task. Participants were asked to were not written in the evaluation task.
rate their recognition assurance on a 4-point scale from 1
At the end of the study, they were thanked and debriefed.
(have never seen it before for certain) to 4 (have seen it
before for certain). Examples of sentences are shown in
Results and Discussion
Appendix 2.
We did not show Sentence 2 (my-side reason 2 /
counterargument) in the recognition task, because the
Evaluation of Each Sentence
contents of this sentence were different among conditions Figure 1 shows the average score of each item of Sentence 1
(see Appendix A). (my-side reason 1), Sentence 2 (my-side reason 2 /
4$ 4$
Average'of'Importance
Non$ Non$
Average'of'Interest
3.8$ Reb$ 3.8$ Reb$
3.6$ 3.6$
3.4$ 3.4$
3.2$ 3.2$
3$
3$
2.8$
2.8$
Sentence$1$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$3$ Sentence$1$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$3$
1$
(My>side$reason1)$ 2$
(My>side$reason2$ 3$
(My>side$reason3$ sentence$1$
(My>side$reason1)$ sentence$2$
(My>side$reason2$ sentence$3$
(My>side$reason3$
/$Counterargument)$ /$RebuFal)$ /$Counterargument)$ /$RebuFal)$
Sentence' Sentence'
1.$Average$Score$of$Importance.$ 2.$Average$Score$of$Interest.$
4$ 3$
Average'of'Needlessness
Average'of'Persuasiveness
Non$ Non$
3.8$ Reb$ 2.8$ Reb$
3.6$ 2.6$
3.4$ 2.4$
3.2$ 2.2$
3$ 2$
2.8$ 1.8$
Sentence$1$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$3$ Sentence$1$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sentence$3$
sentence$1$
(My>side$reason1)$ $
sentence$2$
(My>side$reason2$ sentence$3$
(My>side$reason3$ sentence$1$
(My>side$reason1)$ sentence$2$
(My>side$reason2$ sentence$3$
(My>side$reason3$
/$Counterargument)$ /$RebuFal)$ /$Counterargument)$ /$RebuFal)$
Sentence' Sentence'
3.$Average$Score$of$Persuasiveness.$ 4.$Average$Score$of$Needlessness.$
Figure 1. Average Score of Each Items in the Evaluation Task. Error bars represent standard errors. Points are offset horizontally so
that error bars are visible.
177
counterargument), and Sentence 3 (my-side reason 3 / Evaluation of a Whole Argument
rebuttal), and Table 2 shows the average scores of the To compare the rating score of persuasiveness between the
evaluation and recognition tasks. non-rebuttal and rebuttal conditions, agreement score on
The degree of agreement toward claims might affect each claim was used as covariate in ANCOVA test. There was no
rating score, and there was concern of this becoming a significant difference in persuasiveness ratings (t (97) =
confounding variable when we compared the rating score 0.78, n.s.). As shown in this result, participants’ evaluations
between the two conditions. Therefore, the agreement rating of persuasiveness have not changed in spite of the presence
on claims was used as covariate to compare two conditions’ or absence of counterarguments and rebuttals in the
average values in an ANCOVA test. As a result of the immediate evaluation task.
analysis, we found a significant difference on “needlessness” Correlation analysis
has
done
to
investigate
in Sentence 2 (t (97) = 3.31, p < .01). “Needlessness” whether
persuasiveness
of
whole
argument
has
toward counterarguments (M = 2.70, SD = 0.85) was rated relevance
to persuasiveness of each sentence. We
significantly higher than my-side reason 2 (M = 2.20, SD = calculated the partial correlation coefficient that removed
0.79). Contrary to expectations, the information shown in the effects of the agreement score on claims to control the
the counterargument style was evaluated as less necessary effects of participants’ degrees of agreement toward claims.
information than when it was shown as a supporting reason. In the non-rebuttal condition, there were significant positive
There were no differences between other average scores in correlations between the whole argument persuasiveness
Sentence 2. and “persuasiveness” of the Sentence1 (rp = .53, p < .01)
On the other hand, there were significant differences on and Sentence 2 (rp = .37, p < .05). On the other hand, there
“importance” (t (97) = 2.16, p < .05) and “persuasiveness” (t were significant positive correlations between the whole
(97) = 2.16, p < .05) in Sentence 3 (see Table 2). argument persuasiveness and “persuasiveness” of the
“Importance” and “persuasiveness” of rebuttals were rated Sentence 1 (rp = .59, p < .01), Sentence2 (rp = .53, p < .01),
significantly higher than my-side reasons. Participants and “importance” of Sentence 1 (rp = .32, p < .05) in the
perceived rebuttals themselves as being persuasive and also rebuttal condition.
important. There were no differences between the other To investigate the relevance of Sentence 3 (my-side
average sores in Sentence 3. reason 3 / rebuttal), whole argument persuasiveness, and
These results suggest that counterarguments themselves recognition score, we also calculated the partial correlation
are disruptive for readers, so they perceive the act of coefficient that removed the effects of the agreement score
countering such obstacles by rebuttals as important and (Table 2). There were significant positive correlations
persuasive. between the “persuasiveness” of Sentence 3 and whole
argument persuasiveness in both conditions. On the other
Table 2Summary of Partial Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scores on the Sentence 3 and Whole Argument in the
Evaluation Task and Recognition Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean SD
Sentence 3
1. Importance .34 * .52 ** -.20 .20 .18 .30 * 3.31 0.69
** *
2. Interests .42 .32 .10 .01 -.05 .02 3.32 0.68
** ** *
3. Persuasiveness .50 .53 .04 .35 -.01 .23 2.95 0.68
*
4. Needlessness -.22 -.23 -.34 -.03 -.10 .22 2.59 0.77
Whole argument
5. Persuasiveness .28 * .33 * .52 ** -.05 -.01 .38 * 3.32 0.75
Recognition task
6. Recognition for Sentence 1 .30 * .03 .28 * -.24 .20 .48 ** 2.81 0.66
* * **
7. Recognition for Sentence 3 .35 .12 .34 -.16 .23 .39 3.07 0.71
Mean 3.50 3.09 3.20 2.69 3.41 3.21 2.97
SD 0.68 0.82 0.60 0.73 0.69 0.72 0.71
Note. Partial correlation coefficients between variables when the controlled variables were agreement rating. Partial correlations for
non-rebuttal condition participants (n = 48) are presented above the diagonal, and partial correlations for rebuttal condition
participants (n = 52) are presented below the diagonal. Means and standard deviations for non-rebuttal condition participants are
presented in the vertical columns, and means and standard deviations for rebuttal condition participants are presented in the
horizontal rows. * p < .05. ** p < .01
178
hand, the “importance” and “interest” of Sentence 3 This might be related to the fact of participants perceiving
positively correlated with whole argument persuasiveness in counterarguments themselves as needless information.
the rebuttal condition. These results suggest that the Rebutting counterarguments might make needless
evaluation of rebuttals is associated with the evaluation of information into considerable one that support my side
whole arguments, so presenting powerful and attractive claim, so participants evaluated rebuttals as important and
rebuttals will be important for increasing the persuasiveness persuasive sentences. This easily links to the result of the
of whole arguments. evaluation of rebuttals being positively correlated with
whole argument evaluation. In addition, rebuttal ratings
Tendency of Recognition correlated significantly with the recognition assurance of
To check the accuracy of recognition assurance, we my-side reasons.
compared the rating score between the true and technically These results may suggest us two possible hypotheses.
false sentences. If participants distinguished the true One is that the participants in rebuttal condition were able to
sentences clearly from false sentences, the former rating memorize my-side reasons better than non-rebuttal
score would be higher than the latter. As a result of the conditions, because the structure of material shown was
analysis, we found a significant difference (t (99) = 8.05, p clearer than materials used in non-rebuttal conditions. In the
< .01). The average scores of recognition in true sentences non-rebuttal condition, the participants read three premises
(M = 3.02, SD = 0.59) were significantly higher than false supporting a writer’s position, but this structure might
sentences (M = 2.32, SD = 0.77). This result suggests that obscure target my-side sentences. However, if this
participants distinguished true sentences clearly from false hypothesis is true, the participants in rebuttal condition
ones. should also remember rebutting sentences too, but they were
Participants who evaluated the importance of Sentence 1 not, so this hypothesis may be dismissed. The other
(my-side reason 1) as being high might memorize Sentence hypothesis is that rebuttals made my-side information more
1 better than participants who did not evaluate the memorable. In other words, rebuttals themselves are
importance of Sentence 1 as being high. The same can be persuasive and also have the function of emphasizing and
said of Sentence 3 (my-side reason 3 / rebuttal). According instilling my-side reasons in readers’ minds. Not only
to this presumption, the average scores of “importance,” responding to possible counterarguments in advance, but it
“interest,” and “persuasiveness” in Sentence 1 and Sentence also highlights my-side reasons, so generating a rebuttal is
3 were used as covariates in each ANCOVA test, and the considered an effective strategy to improve the quality of
average scores of recognition between non-rebuttal and written arguments. This “highlighting effect” is interesting
rebuttal conditions were compared. As a result, there was a finding, and we are able to provide new insight into written
significant difference between the average scores of argument studies.
recognition in Sentence 1 (t (97) = 2.97, p < .01). Contrary to our expectations, no difference was seen in
Participants in the rebuttal condition remember my-side the persuasion evaluations of the whole arguments between
reason 1 more than in the non-rebuttal condition, but there the two conditions. This result is different from previous
was no significant difference between the average scores of studies’ findings revealing that arguments with rebuttals are
recognition in Sentence 3 (t (97) = -1.18, n.s.). That is to say, more persuasive than arguments with only my-side reasons
participants who read arguments including rebuttals (e.g., O’Keefe, 1999; Wolfe et al., 2009). This could be
remember my-side reason 1 well. explained in terms of the experimental design. In Wolfe et al.
(2009), for example, participants compared arguments with
Relevance of Rebuttal and Recognition rebuttals and those with only my-side reasons in a within-
subjects design, but our study used a between-subjects
Partial correlation coefficients between the evaluation of design to prevent participants from making a relativistic
Sentence 3 and recognition scores are shown in Table 2. evaluation.
There were significant correlations between “importance”
In within-subject designs, a whole argument’s
and recognition scores of Sentence 3 in both conditions. As persuasiveness might be evaluated by comparing it to other
the participants rated the importance of Sentence 3 higher, written arguments. The participants in previous studies
they remembered Sentence 3 better. Interestingly, the rating might have not judged arguments including rebuttals
scores of “importance” and “persuasiveness” in Sentence 3 themselves as persuasive, but evaluated them as “relatively-
were positively correlated with the recognition score of better” than my-side only arguments. On the other hand, a
Sentence 1 in the rebuttal condition. This suggests that between-subjects design could prevent participants from
rebuttals highlight my-side reasons and impress information being able to compare to others, and extract more pure
that supports my-side claims on readers. evaluation toward each argument. In this design, we found
that there were no differences between the non-rebuttal and
General Discussion rebuttal conditions in immediate evaluation; however, the
power of rebuttals appeared a week later. The rebuttals had
The main finding of this study is that rebuttal itself was the power to highlight my-side reasons and make them last
rated significantly high on importance and persuasiveness. in participants’ minds. In daily life, we evaluate the
179
persuasiveness of a written argument independently and effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E.
hardly compare it with other written arguments before Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 22, 209-249.
evaluating the target argument (unless we wanted to read it Onoda, R. (in press). The Effects of goal instructions with
more critically). Therefore, our finding is consistent with the strategies and role assignment on reducing “My-side bias”
reality of daily situation. during writing. Japanese Journal of Educational
In future research, we should note that the materials used Psychology.
in our studies were brief arguments, so it is not clear Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY:
whether these findings are capable of adapting to long Cambridge University Press.
written arguments. We need to examine whether we could Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). Locus of the myside
obtain the same outcomes using long arguments like essays bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14,
as materials. In addition, we should have to focus on the 1-27.
intrapersonal correlations of ratings toward each sentence Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009).
and whole argument to determine the functions of rebuttals Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written
more accurately. argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209.
Acknowledgments Appendix 1: Examples of Brief Arguments
We would like to thank Christopher R. Wolfe at Miami Used in the Evaluation Task
University for providing the research materials. We would
also like to thank Mariko Miyata at The University of Animal Rights (Non-rebuttal condition)
Tokyo for preparing the experiments. [Claim]
We should prohibit research experiments on animals.
References [Sentence 1; My-side reason 1]
Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the
Because animals lack the ability to provide informed
persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. consent for painful procedures.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404. [Sentence 2; My-side reason 2]
Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion.
Some people say both human and animals are living
Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221-235. things, and their lives are equally precious.
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis,W. E., & Andrews-Wekerly, S. (2009). [Sentence 3; My-side reason 3]
Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative
In addition, today destructive animal testing is conducted
writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, with high doses of harmless drugs and even cosmetics.
101, 577–589.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). Animal Rights (Rebuttal condition)
The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive [Claim]
writing of students with learning disabilities and their
We should prohibit research experiments on animals.
normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational [Sentence 1; My-side reason 1]
Psychology, 92, 694-702.
Because animals lack the ability to provide informed
Hale, J., Mongeau, P.A., & Thomas, R. M. (1991). consent for painful procedures.
Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive [Sentence 2; Counterargument]
messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55,
Some people say it is better to use animals for dangerous
380-389. new drugs than humans because animals’ lives are worth
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source less than humans.
credibility on communication effectiveness. Public [Sentence 3; Rebuttal]
Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-680.
However, today destructive animal testing is conducted
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of with high doses of harmless drugs and even cosmetics.
the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion
change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, Appendix 2: Examples of Sentences Used in the
327-335.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory,
Recognition Task
and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for
argumentation research in education. Educational Animal Rights
Psychologist, 46, 84-106. [Sentence 1; My-side reason 1]
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of
Animals lack the ability to provide informed consent for
goal instructions and text on the generation of painful procedures.
counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational [Sentence 3; My-side reason 3 or Rebuttal]
Psychology, 97, 157-169.
Today destructive animal testing is conducted with high
O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments doses of harmless drugs and even cosmetics.
in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the
180