This chapter addresses one aspect of the relationship between argumentation studies and social-scientific persuasion effects research. Persuasion effects research aims at understanding how and why persuasive messages have the effects they do; that is, persuasion effects research has descriptive and explanatory aims. Argumentation studies, on the other hand, is at its base animated by normative concerns; the broad aim is to articulate conceptions of normatively desirable argumentative practice, both in the abstract and in application to particular instances, with a corresponding pedagogical aim of improving discourse practices. Thus one of these enterprises is dominated by descriptive and explanatory concerns and the other by normative interests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Allison, M. J., & Keller, C. (2004). Self-efficacy intervention effect on physical activity in older adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 26, 31–46.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Blok, G. A., Morton, J., Morley, M., Kerckhoffs, C. C., Kootstra, G., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2004). Requesting organ donation: The case of self-efficacy. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9, 261–282.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (1992). Asymmetries in argumentation and evaluation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (pp. 62–72). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164–183.
Glaeser, E. L. (2006). Paternalism and psychology. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 133–156.
Guttman, N. (1997a). Beyond strategic research: A value-centered approach to health communication interventions. Communication Theory, 7, 95–124.
Guttman, N. (1997b). Ethical dilemmas in health campaigns. Health Communication, 9, 155–190.
Guttman, N., & Ressler, W. H. (2001). On being responsible: Ethical issues in appeals to personal responsibility in health campaigns. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 117–136.
Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Debiasing through law. Journal of Legal Studies, 35, 199–241.
Lundborg, P., & Lindgren, B. (2002). Risk perceptions and alcohol consumption among young people. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 165–183.
Lundborg, P., & Lindgren, B. (2004). Do they know what they are doing? Risk perceptions and smoking behaviour among Swedish teenagers. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28, 261–286.
Luszcynska, A. (2004). Change in breast self-examination behavior: Effects of intervention on enhancing self-efficacy. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 95–104.
McGettigan, P., Sly, K., O’Connell, D., Hill, S., & Henry, D. (1999). The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 633–642.
Moxey, A., O’Connell, D., McGettigan, P., & Henry, D. (2003). Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 948–959.
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 and Advocacy, 35, 61–75.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook, 22, 209–249.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 65–82). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). The potential conflict between normatively-good argumentative practice and persuasive success: Evidence from persuasion effects research. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation (pp. 309–318). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1–43.
O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
Salovey, P., Schneider, T. R., & Apanovitch, A. M. (2002). Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 391–406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trout, J. D. (2005). Paternalism and cognitive bias. Law and Philosophy, 24, 393–434.
van den Putte, B., & Dhondt, G. (2005). Developing successful communication strategies: A test of an integrated framework for effective communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2399–2420.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation, 14, 293–305.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2001). Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 150–157.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Strategic manoeuvring. Studies in Communication Sciences, 23–34.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Keefe, D.J. (2009). Normatively Responsible Advocacy: Some Provocations from Persuasion Effects Research. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9165-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)