Ricco Robert B
Department of Psychology, California State University, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Apr;61(4):641-64. doi: 10.1080/17470210701282618.
The present study explored the extent to which lay adults consider aspects of argument structure in judging the strength and function of informal arguments and in constructing arguments to meet specific adequacy goals. Across two experiments, college students were presented with base (one-premise) arguments, which were then expanded into convergent, coordinate, and subordinate arguments closely matched in terms of content, believability, and strength. Coordinate arguments were associated with the greatest gains in argument strength via their construction and the greatest loss in strength when one of their premises was falsified. To some degree, the argument types were also judged to perform different functions and to serve different goals. The construction of convergent arguments was associated with building independent lines of support while the construction of subordinate arguments was associated with providing justification for premises. Expansion into a coordinate argument was seen as the best way to improve an argument's persuasiveness. The construction of both coordinate and subordinate arguments was associated with building relevance, explicating assumptions, and completing the meaning of a base argument. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation theory and research.
本研究探讨了普通成年人在判断非正式论证的强度和功能以及构建论证以实现特定充分性目标时，在多大程度上考虑论证结构的各个方面。在两项实验中，向大学生呈现基础（单前提）论证，然后将其扩展为在内容、可信度和强度方面紧密匹配的收敛型、并列型和从属型论证。并列型论证在构建过程中论证强度提升最大，而当其一个前提被证伪时强度损失也最大。在某种程度上，这些论证类型也被判断为执行不同的功能并服务于不同的目标。收敛型论证的构建与建立独立的支持路线相关，而从属型论证的构建与为前提提供理由相关。扩展为并列型论证被视为提高论证说服力的最佳方式。并列型和从属型论证的构建都与建立相关性、阐明假设以及完善基础论证的意义相关。将根据论证理论和研究对结果进行讨论。
