Finds that the subjective probability model continues to provide some degree of prediction for beliefs (of an individual for circumstances of a single event with multiple causes) prior to the exposure to a message, but that after exposure to a persuasive message, the model did not maintain the same level of accuracy of prediction. Offers several…

Explores the worth of high impact/low probability arguments as "real world" policy arguments. Evaluates four National Debate Tournament (NDT) final round disadvantages by students using the subjective probability model. Finds that although NDT disadvantages were perceived to be a technically sound form of argumentation, they were not…

Describes a meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Demonstrates that a two-sided message with refutation is more persuasive than a one-sided message, whereas a one-sided message is more persuasive than a two-sided message without refutation. (SR)

Demonstrates that people examine an argument and determine whether to assent based on the quality of the justification provided. Shows that these justifications do not reside in the structure of the argument but in the content of the argument and the interaction of the content with the belief system of the message receiver. (SR)

Responds to an analysis by D. O'Keefe (in the same issue of this journal) of a research study by the author. States that most of what O'Keefe suggests contains merit but that acceptance of the suggestions still generates a conclusion that two-sided refutational messages constitute the most persuasive form of message. (SR)

Uses meta-analysis to test three models of the "sleeper" effect (a theory proposing that in the long term low credible sources may actually attain greater attitude change in message recipients than high credible sources). Concludes that the sleeper effect does exist, and offers suggestions for practitioners and theorists. (SR)

Compares the persuasiveness of using statistical versus narrative evidence (case studies or examples) across 15 investigations. Indicates that when comparing messages, statistical evidence is more persuasive than narrative evidence. (PA)