Effects of Counterarguments and Refutations on Evaluations of Written Arguments:

Variability of Theme and Evaluation Method

Abstract

  The present study examined effects of written counterarguments and refutations on evaluations of written arguments, focusing on variability across themes and evaluation methods. In Study 1, undergraduate students (N=41) evaluated 3 different written arguments: (a) one-sided arguments without counterarguments or refutations, (b) both-sides arguments without refutations, and (c) both-sides arguments with counterarguments and refutations. The results from mixed-effect models showed that the students evaluated the persuasiveness of both-sides arguments with counterarguments and refutations higher than the other 2 arguments, and the persuasiveness of both-sides arguments without refutations lower than the other 2 arguments. In Study 2, undergraduate students (N=123)evaluated arguments in 3 different conditions: (a') one-sided condition: the students evaluated one-sided arguments, (b') counterarguments condition: the students evaluated both-sides arguments without refutations, and (c') counterarguments and refutations condition: the students evaluated both-sides arguments with counterarguments and refutations. The results from mixed-effect models showed no significant effect of argument structure. However, the effects of argument structure differed across the variety of themes in the arguments. In other words, in some themes, there were no significant effects of argument structure, whereas in others, the effects of argument structure could be either positive or negative. These findings suggest that the effects of counterarguments and refutations may differ, depending on the theme and evaluation method.