Evidence Quality and Persuasiveness: Germans Are Not Sensitive to the Quality of Statistical Evidence

in Journal of Cognition and Culture
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



For a long time, research in communication and argumentation has investigated which kinds of evidence are most effective in changing people’s beliefs in descriptive claims. For each type of evidence, such as statistical or expert evidence, high-quality and low-quality variants exist, depending on the extent to which evidence respects norms for strong argumentation. Studies have shown that participants are sensitive to such quality variations in some, but not in all, cultures. This paper expands such work by comparing the persuasiveness of high- and low-quality statistical and expert evidence for participants from two geographically close cultures, the Dutch and the German. Study 1, in which participants (N=150) judge a number of claims with evidence, underscores earlier findings that high-quality is more persuasive than low-quality evidence for the Dutch, and – surprisingly – also shows that this is less the case for the Germans, in particular for statistical evidence. Study 2 with German participants (N=64) shows that again they are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence, and rules out that this finding can be attributed to their understanding of the rules of generalisation. Together, the findings in this paper underline the need to empirically investigate what norms people from different cultures have for high-quality evidence, and to what extent these norms matter for persuasive success.

Evidence Quality and Persuasiveness: Germans Are Not Sensitive to the Quality of Statistical Evidence

in Journal of Cognition and Culture



AllenM.PreissR. W. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis Communication Research Reports 1997 14 125 131

BrislinR. W. TriandisH. C.BerryJ. W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology 1980 Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon 389 444

GarssenB. J. Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek (Argumentation schemes in pragmadialectical perspective: A theoretical and empirical study) 1997 Amsterdam IFOTT

HarknessJ. A.van de VijverF. J. R.MohlerP.Ph. Cross-cultural survey methods 2003 Hoboken, NJ Wiley

HastingsA. C. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation 1962 Evanston, IL Northwestern University Unpublished dissertation

HoekenH. Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness Argumentation 2001 15 425 437

HoekenH.HustinxL. When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type Human Communication Research 2009 35 491 510

HoekenH.TimmersR.SchellensP. J. Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking and Reasoning 2012 18 394 416

HofstedeG. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values 1980 Beverly Hills, CA Sage

HofstedeG. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values behaviors institutions and organizations across nations 2001 2nd edn Thousand Oaks, CA Sage

HornikxJ. A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence Studies in Communication Sciences 2005 5 205 216

HornikxJ. Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation 2008 22 555 569

HornikxJ. Epistemic authority of professors and researchers: Differential perceptions by students from two cultural-educational systems Social Psychology of Education 2011 14 169 183

HornikxJ.de BestJ. Persuasive evidence in India: An investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality Argumentation and Advocacy 2011 47 246 257

HornikxJ.HahnU. Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation Thinking and Reasoning 2012 18 225 243

HornikxJ.HoekenH. Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality Communication Monographs 2007 74 443 463

KatzavJ.ReedC. A. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments Argumentation 2004 18 239 259

KienpointnerM. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern (Everyday logic: Structure and function from a sample of arguments) 1992 Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt Friedrich Frommann

MacIntyreA. Whose justice? Which rationality? 1988 Notre Dame, IN University of Notre Dame Press

MatsumotoD.YooS. H. Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research Perspectives on Psychological Science 2006 1 234 250

McCroskeyJ. C. A summary of experimental research on the effects of evidence in persuasive communication Quarterly Journal of Speech 1969 55 169 176

McKerrowR. E. McKerrowR. E. Overcoming fatalism: Rhetoric/argument in postmodernity Argument and the postmodern challenge: Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation 1990 Annandale, VA Speech Communication Association 119 121

MercierH. On the universality of argumentative reasoning Journal of Cognition and Culture 2011 11 85 113

NelsonJ. D. Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact and information gain Psychological Review 2005 112 979 999

NeubergS. L.NewsomJ. T. Personal need for structure: individual differences in the desire for simple structure Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993 65 113 131

O’KeefeD. J. Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research Communication Theory 2003 13 251 274

O’KeefeD. J. Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research Argumentation 2007 21 151 163

PengK.NisbettR. E.WongN. Y. C. Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions Psychological Methods 1997 2 329 344

PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change 1986 New York, NY Springer

PettyR. E.RuckerD. D.BizerG. Y.CacioppoJ. T. SeiterJ. S.GassG. H. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion Perspectives on persuasion social influence and compliance gaining 2004 Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon 65 89

ReinardJ. C. The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research Human Communication Research 1988 15 3 59

ReynoldsR. A.ReynoldsJ. L. DillardJ. P.PfauM. Evidence The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice 2002 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage 427 444

ShuperP. A.SorrentinoR. M.OtsuboY.HodsonG.WalkerA. M. A theory of uncertainty orientation: Implications for the study of individual differences within and across cultures Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2004 35 460 480

SiegelH. Argument quality and cultural difference Argumentation 1999 13 183 201

SmithP. B.SchwartzS. H. BerryJ. W.SegallM. H.KagitçibasiC. Values Handbook of cross-cultural psychology 1997 Vol. 3 2nd edn Boston, MA Allyn and Bacon 77 118

van EemerenF. H.GrootendorstR. Argumentation communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective 1992 Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

ViswanathanM. The measurement of individual differences in preference for numerical information Journal of Applied Psychology 1993 78 741 752

ViswanathanM. Individual differences in need for precision Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1997 23 717 735

WaltonD. N. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority 1997 University Park, PA Pennsylvania State University Press

WaltonD. N.ReedC.MacagnoF. Argumentation schemes 2008 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

ZillmannD.CallisonC.GibsonR. Quantitative media literacy: Individual differences in dealing with numbers in the news Media Psychology 2009 12 394 416


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 5
Full Text Views 151 151 66
PDF Downloads 9 9 0
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0