An Elaboration Likelihood Explanation for Structures of Written Arguments on a Controversial Issue

Transcription

1 Japanese Journal of Communication Studies Vol.46 No.1, doi: /comm.46.1_5 An Elaboration Likelihood Explanation for Structures of Written Arguments on a Controversial Issue SUZUKI Shinobu (Hokkaido University) Abstract. Based on the concept of elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), this study constructs a best-fitting model that explains the structures of written arguments made by individuals in the context of text-based computer-mediated communication on a controversial issue. More specifically, this study explores how motivational and ability factors affect the structures of written arguments. Data were collected from Japanese college students (N=200) who participated in an online survey. As a result of testing two competing models the simple main effects model and the intertwined model the latter has demonstrated reasonable fit to the data. The results have been discussed and implications offered. 1. Introduction Arguments on controversial issues are ubiquitous in our lives and can take different forms: written, spoken, or visual. In particular, written arguments have been increasingly used online over the last few decades. The study of written arguments has thus become even more important; the present study focuses on written arguments, with a focus on those on a controversial issue. One of the most important issues in the study of written arguments is the question of why people argue in the ways that they do. Previous research has found that different factors influence the structures of written arguments. For example, past research found that age (Scardamalia & Paris, 1985), expertise (Crammond, 1998), targeted audience (Hays & Brandt, 1992), and culture (Suzuki, 2010) affect the overall structure of written arguments. These previous studies have focused on either single or only a few factors, thus have generally been short of predictive power. There has also been a relative paucity of research focusing on cognitive factors that explain structures of written arguments. Considering that individuals write arguments as a cognitive response to a given stimulus, it is important to explore cognitive factors relevant to explaining structures of written arguments within a theoretical framework. To address these issues, this study focuses on individuals cognitive factors relevant to writing arguments to formulate a best-fitting model that incorporates motivational and ability factors, pursuing a theoretical explanation of the structures of written arguments. The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to construct a theory-based cognitive model that 5

2 explains the structures of written arguments. This study makes two major contributions to the study of communication. The first contribution is theoretical; constructing an explanatory model, this study tests whether the premise of the elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) is applicable to explaining the structures of written arguments, extending the trait and state perspectives on argumentative communication (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). The second contribution is pedagogical; this study has implications for the method and practice of teaching argumentative communication. By identifying specific factors that affect the structures of written arguments, we will gain insight into how we may help learners construct more effective arguments in public discussions. In following sections, I will outline the present study s approach to describing argument structures, review literature on the concept of the elaboration likelihood continuum to explore factors that can help to explain the structures of written arguments. I propose two competing models to explain argument structures and offer hypotheses before presenting an empirical study to test the hypotheses Describing Argument Structures To examine the structure of a written argument, this study describes an argument based on the functional relations between units of the argument following the descriptive framework used in past research (Suzuki, 2010, 2011a, 2011b). Some of the relations between the units can be horizontal, which are extending or expanding relations, whereas others can be vertical, which are reason-giving activities. The descriptive framework also allows us to obtain values of three structural indicators for each argument such as: (a) the argument s anticlimacticity, which concerns the location of the central claim relative to the argument length, (b) the number of reasons supporting the argument s central claim, and (c) the total number of units in each argument. This framework is designed to represent the two dimensions of the stylistic modes of verbal communication that Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) proposed; the direct-indirect and elaborate-succinct dimensions. Based on previous research (Suzuki, 2010, 2011a, 2011b), structural indicator (a) is supposed to represent values on the direct-indirect dimension, whereas indicators (b) and (c) are supposed to represent values on the elaborate-succinct dimension. Suzuki (2011b) has found that Japanese college students generally give higher quality ratings to direct and elaborate structures of arguments than to indirect and succinct structures of arguments; the findings are mostly consistent with those obtained from studies conducted in Western cultures (e.g., Campbell & Huxman, 2003; Kuhn & Amsel, 1998; Wolfe, Britt, & Butler, 2009) The Elaboration Likelihood Continuum To explore cognitive factors to be included in the explanatory models for this study, the concept of an elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which is a part of a cognitive model of persuasion, is relevant. Elaboration involves scrutinizing message content and generating 6

3 an individual s own cognitive response to a given message in the context of persuasion. Individuals are assumed to vary on the continuum of elaboration likelihood when they face persuasive messages. On a higher end of the continuum, an individual is more active in generating his or her cognitive responses to a given message. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) argue that an individual s elaboration likelihood is influenced by his or her motivation and ability to generate thoughts. It is likely that those who are more active in generating their own thoughts are more willing to make arguments. That is because an individual cannot generate and express his or her opinion without thinking about a given message and making a cognitive response to it after scrutinizing the contents of the message. Therefore, two general factors of motivation and ability that influence individuals elaboration likelihood should be effective in predicting structures of arguments. Referring to past research on the concept of elaboration likelihood, three specific factors are to be included to represent the general factor of motivation in the present study: argumentativeness, involvement, and belief strength. Also, one specific factor is included in the model of the present study to represent the general factor of ability. The following will explain these factors in order. Motivational factor 1: Argumentativeness. The amount of thinking individuals are likely to apply in constructing written arguments depends on their motivation. Motivation is likely to consist of different components in the theory of elaboration likelihood. First, individuals personal disposition toward critical thinking is a necessary component (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p.74). This study, therefore, examines the effects of argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982) on the structures of written arguments. Rancer and Avtgis (2014), in their discussion of the trait perspective on argumentative communication, suggest that individual communicative traits account for the way people behave in the context of argumentative communication. According to Infante and Rancer (1982), argumentativeness is a generally stable trait which predisposes the individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues, and to attack verbally the positions which other people take on these issues (p.72). Argumentativeness consists of two dimensions: an individual s motivation to approach argument (ARGap) and his or her motivation to avoid argument (ARGav). ARGap and ARGav are not the opposite sides of the same coin; ARGap represents the extent to which an individual enjoys arguments and is active and competent in communicating his or her point, whereas ARGav represents an individual s dislike of and anxiety about arguing. From the trait perspective on argumentative communication, the study by Onyekwere, Rubin, and Infante (1991) has found that highly argumentative people from the US are perceived to be more competent communicators by their opponents in dyadic arguments; the study did not examine the specific characteristics of the participants arguments. Suzuki (2011a) has examined the relationship between argumentative traits (ARGap and ARGav) and the structures of arguments written by Japanese college students. She has found that ARGap, but not ARGav, has significant main effects on the use of an anticlimactic (as opposed to climactic) macro-structure and indirect effects on the 7

4 use of a vertical, or reason-based, argument macro-structure as opposed to a horizontal, or nonreason-based argument macro-structure 1). It makes sense that a person who is motivated to approach arguments would be more likely to favor direct approaches to structuring arguments, stating his or her claim earlier (i.e., using an anticlimactic macro structure) and by providing specific reasons for the claim (i.e., using vertical, reason-based argument macro-structure); these approaches make arguments more to the point. Unlike ARGap, ARGav s failed to be a significant predictor of argument structures. Individuals appear to construct direct and elaborate arguments regardless of the negative sentiment they have toward arguments, particularly when they are not making arguments faceto-face. The present study will thus incorporate ARGap, but not ARGav, as a predictor of argument structures into the models to be tested. The following hypothesis is offered: H1: Greater ARGap will lead to more direct and elaborate argument structures. Motivational factor 2: involvement. The second component of motivation that affects the amount of critical thinking that individuals apply to writing arguments is involvement (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). Involvement refers to the significance that an individual attaches to a given issue (Abelson, 1988). Rancer and Avtgis (2014) concur that an individual s involvement with a given issue affects their argumentative communication behavior, increasing saliency of the argument topic to each individual. Wegman (1994) has examined the written arguments of college students in the Netherlands to test the effects of involvement on the use of factual evidence in arguments. He has found that involvement affects the use of factual evidence depending on whether the participant belongs to a majority or a minority group and the position he or she takes on the issue. Suzuki (2011a) has also found that involvement has significant main effects on an individual s use of elaborate reasoning structures for Japanese college students. Based on this review of past research, the present study will examine the effects of involvement on the structures of written arguments. The following hypothesis is offered: H2: Greater involvement will lead to more direct and elaborate argument structures. Motivational factor 3: belief strength. The final motivational factor to be included in the model of the structures of written arguments is belief strength. The content of a belief usually describes the object as something that is correct or incorrect, good or bad, moral or immoral, and so forth (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003, p.12). Individuals beliefs about an issue thus vary in strength. A person who holds a strong belief about a given issue should be willing to make the effort to construct arguments to support that belief. Such an individual is likely to develop direct and elaborate structures of argument. The following hypothesis is offered: H3: Greater belief strength will lead to more direct and elaborate argument structures. Ability factor: evaluation accuracy. Individuals ability also influences their amount of critical thinking and should be effective in predicting structures of arguments. The present study examines the effects of evaluation accuracy on the structures of written arguments. Evaluation accuracy refers to an individual s ability to differentiate between strong and weak structural qualities 8

5 Figure 1. Simple main effects model of arguments. Evaluation accuracy is expected to increase an individual s ability to elaborate on a message by enhancing his or her message comprehensibility. An individual s motivation to argue may not be enough to ensure the construction of strong arguments; he or she must first be able to distinguish strong structural qualities from less strong ones. Greater evaluation accuracy is likely to lead to stronger, i.e. direct and elaborate, structures of arguments. H4: Greater evaluation accuracy will lead to more direct and elaborate argument structures. The above four factors, which include ARGap, involvement, belief strength, and evaluation accuracy have been hypothesized to influence argument structures. One model to conceptualize the relationship between the set of factors and argument structures is the simple main effects model, in which the four factors have direct influence on argument structures, independent of one another (see Figure 1). Petty and Cacioppo (1986) do not refer to the possibility of different factors relating to one another to affect elaboration likelihood. However, it is possible to construct a different model, the intertwined model, incorporating interrelationships among the predictor variables and their indirect effects on argument structures (see Figure 2). That is, if the model consists of two general factors of motivation and ability, it seems reasonable to take interrelationships among specific factors within each general factor into consideration. Therefore, the present study tests two competing models to explore which model better fits the relationship between the proposed set of factors and argument structures. Suzuki (2011a), for example, has found that involvement mediates the effects of ARGap on the use of reason-based or vertical macro-structure as opposed to non-reason-based or horizontal macro-structure. However, evidence regarding such mediation effects as well as inter-relationships among the predictor variables is not sufficient. Therefore, the following research question is offered: RQ1: Which model better fits the data, the simple main effects model or the intertwined model? The intertwined model incorporates the following relationships between the predictor vari- 9

6 Figure 2. Intertwined model Note. H6 (mediation): ARGap Involvement Argument Structures H8 (mediation): Involvement Belief Strength Argument Structures ables. First, based on the evidence obtained from previous research (Suzuki, 2011a), it is likely that ARGap affects involvement. That is, if an individual is highly motivated to approach arguments, he or she may be attentive to controversial topics in general that people discuss. If this is the case, there is a reason to believe that ARGap affects involvement. If this relationship holds, it is also possible that ARGap has indirect, in addition to direct, effects on argument structures via involvement; involvement is a likely mediator of the association between ARGap and argument structures. The following hypotheses are offered: H5: Greater ARGap will lead to greater involvememt. H6: Involvement will mediate the association between ARGap and argument structures. Second, an individual who is more involved with a given issue is likely to have greater belief strength. That is, it is plausible that an individual who is highly involved with a given issue holds a stronger belief because he or she attaches greater significance to a given issue. If this relationship holds, it is possible that involvement has indirect, in addition to direct, effects on argument structures; belief strength is a likely mediator of the association between involvement and argument structures. Based on the reasoning, the following hypotheses are offered: H7: Greater involvement will lead to greater belief strength. H8: Belief strength will mediate the association between involvement and argument structures. To test the hypotheses and the research question, the present study compares the overall fit of the two competing models the simple main effects model and the intertwined model along with the significance of the hypothesized relationships. 10

7 2. Method 2.1. Participants Japanese college students voluntarily participated in this study. The students were drawn from a nationally representative panel of survey respondents maintained by a private research company headquartered in Tokyo. The sample (N=200) consisted of 100 men and 100 women aged between 18 and 22, from 38 different prefectures in Japan. The average age of the participants was years old (SD=0.91). The sample had no missing data Procedure The respondents were invited to participate in a Web-based survey written in the Japanese language. The data were collected in accordance with the standards of human subjects review board at the researcher s institution. Once the respondents logged into the Web-based survey, they read an online cover letter explaining about the purpose of the survey, which was to explore how people expressed their ideas on public issues, and the procedure for participating in the survey, followed by the description of the survey s adherence to ethical guidelines. Those who agreed to participate in the survey first answered demographic questions. They then answered other questions, many of which were related to the issue of retaining capital punishment in Japan. After answering the questions, they were asked to explain, write down, and submit their own opinions on the issue. There was no time limit set for answering the questions. The questions are detailed below. Measuring belief strength. After reading the cover letter and answering the demographic questions, the respondents were asked to respond to the statement Capital punishment should be retained in Japan. by answering the following questions regarding their belief strength. The strength of each respondent s beliefs was measured by 2 items on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree with the statement; 5=strongly agree with statement: 1=do not accept the statement; 5=totally accept the statement). With a mid-point s score of 3 (=my position is neutral) being recoded as 1, the scores on the scales were recoded to represent each respondent s belief strength in either agreement or disagreement on the issue; the scores of points 1 and 5 were recoded as 3, whereas those of points 2 and 4 were recoded as 2. The Cronbach s α for this 2-item scale was.86. Measuring trait to approach argument (ARGap). Next, the respondents general trait to approach argument was measured using ten items taken from Infante and Rancer s Argumentativeness Scale (1982). Past research has provided evidence to support the scale s reliability and validity (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). The scale includes such items as: Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence. ; I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue. Each response was measured on a 5-point scale (1=the description hardly ever applies; 5=the description almost always applies). The Japanese version of this scale was used by Suzuki and Rancer (1994) in their study. The Cronbach s α for the 10-item scale was.90 in this study. See Appendix for the items to measure ARGap. Measuring involvement. Next, the respondents involvement with the given issue was mea- 11

8 sured using three items taken from the scale developed by Abelson (1988). Suzuki (2011a) added minor modifications to this English scale, also translating it into Japanese. This study used the same Japanese version of the scale. The questions were as follows: How often do you think about the issue of capital punishment? (1=almost never; 7=very often), How concerned are you about the issue of capital punishment? (1=not at all; 7=a great deal), and How important do you consider the issue of capital punishment? (1=not at all important; 7=very important). The Cronbach s α for the 3-item scale was.81 in this study. Measuring evaluation accuracy. After answering all of the questions above, the respondents were asked to imagine that they were invited to participate in an online discussion with four ostensible partners on the same given issue. They were asked to read their ostensible partners arguments A, B, C, and D and to rate on a 7-point scale the quality of each argument in terms of its strength (1=very weak; 7=very strong), convincingness (1=not at all convincing; 7=very convincing), and relevance (1=not at all relevant; 7=very relevant), following Lee (2008) and Munch and Swasy (1988). The Cronbach s α for the 3-item scale for the four arguments ranged from.92 to.96. The four arguments were presented to the respondents in varied orders. The respondents evaluation accuracy, or their ability to differentiate between strong (as well as relevant and convincing) and weak argument structures, was measured by their responses to two sets of arguments: a set of strong structures of arguments (A and B) and a set of weak structures of arguments (C and D), created by means of a pretest 2). The researcher reasoned that the greater the difference in the mean quality rating between the first set (arguments A and B) and the second set (arguments C and D), the greater a respondent s ability to differentiate the structural qualities of arguments. Measuring the structures of the respondents arguments. Next, the respondents were asked to take time to explain their opinion on the statement, Capital punishment should be retained in Japan in a given space. The written arguments were downloaded, segmented into units of analysis, and coded following the procedure and the coding scheme used by Suzuki (2006, 2010, 2011a). The unit of analysis was a thought unit, which basically corresponded to an independent clause. More specifically, it is basically an independent clause in which the subject and predicate may be expressed or implied (Hatfield & Weider-Hatfield, 1978, p.46). After identifying units, the researcher assigned a number to each unit in ascending order, coded each unit, and specified the unit to which each coded unit was linked. The codes included: (a) the argument s nuclear claim (NC); (b) a horizontally continuing (HC) clause, extending or expanding another statement that is connected to it; (c) a vertically subordinate (VS) clause, supporting another statement by means of reasoning; and (d) a non-relevant (NR) clause. Coding the units of an argument in this manner revealed how the units were interrelated to create an argument. One argument consists of its nuclear claim (NC) and other components such as HC, VS, and/or NR. No respondents made more than one argument. The researcher unitized and coded all the arguments. Also, an independent coder who was not informed of the hypotheses of this study unitized and coded 20% of the data that had been 12

9 randomly selected. The independent coder started to work on the unitizing and coding task after going through several hours of training sessions with the researcher. The unitizing reliability (Auld & White, 1956) for the data was found to be.95. As for the coding reliability, Cohen s kappa for the four main categories of NC, HC, VS, and NR was found to be.94. Once the coding task was completed, the researcher found the values for structural indicators for each argument. This study selected three structural indicators of arguments, drawn from a review of previous studies (Suzuki, 2010, 2011a, 2011b). They were: (a) the argument s anticlimacticity; (b) the number of reasons supporting the argument s nuclear claim; and (c) the argument s length. Indicator (a) was designed to represent values on the direct-indirect dimension, whereas indicators (b) and (c) were designed to represent values on the elaborate-succinct dimension. These two dimensions were among the four stylistic modes of verbal communication proposed by Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988). First, the climactic macro-structure makes its central claim (NC) near the end, whereas the anticlimactic macro-structure makes its NC earlier in the argument. Because the introduction of the main claim is delayed, the climactic macro-structure is considered an indirect way of structuring arguments, whereas the anticlimactic macro-structure is direct (Okabe, 1983; Suzuki, 2011a, 2011b). The extent to which an argument was direct or anticlimactic was measured by the total number of units divided by the order in which the NC appeared in the argument. Second, the researcher counted the number of reasons supporting the central claim, using this figure to measure the extent to which the argument was elaborately constructed. Finally, argument length corresponded to the number of units in each argument, excluding non-relevant (NR) statements. Scores for the three indicators were calculated to measure the structures of each argument. In doing this, it was necessary to check for any overlap or redundancy in meaning or underlying dimensions among the three indicators. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the unweighted least squares extraction method. Only one factor emerged with an eigenvalue of 1.96, accounting for 65.43% of the total variance. The three indicators factor loadings on this single factor were:.96 for argument length,.76 for the number of reasons, and.69 for macrostructure s climacticity. With the scores standardized for each indicator, Cronbach s alpha for the set of three structural indicators was.84. Given the results, it was decided to consolidate the three indicators to make a composite indicator of argument structures, rather than treating them separately as independent of one another. The composite indicator was interpreted as representing the degree to which an argument was direct and elaborate as opposed to indirect and succinct Analysis All the hypotheses were tested using LISREL 8.72 structural equation modeling (SEM). The LISREL program allows us to analyze simultaneously the entire system of variables and to deter- 13

10 mine the extent to which the hypothesized model is consistent with the data. The degree to which the data fit the hypothesized model is assessed through consultation with multiple fit indices. The program also provides parameter estimates for the individual paths included in the model and tests whether they are the statistically significant. The proposed models have been tested by a two-step approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). That is, the fit and construct validity of the proposed measurement model were tested in the first step. Once the measurement model was found to be acceptable, the structural models have been tested in the second step. 3. Results Table 1 presents correlations and descriptive statistics for the variables included in the predicted structural equation model: an individual s general trait to approach argument (ARGap), involvement, belief strength, evaluation accuracy, and argument structures. The alpha level for the tests was set at the.05 level Testing the Measurement Model In the first step, the measurement model was tested with CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) for the purpose of establishing validity for the constructs included in the models, prior to testing the structural models. The fit of each individual model throughout this study was evaluated using Hu and Bentler s (1999) dual criteria of (a) a comparative fit index (CFI) value of.96 or higher and (b) a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value of 0.10 or lower. This set of criteria is a recommended combination when the sample size is moderate (N 250) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) was examined to compare nonnested models as in the case of the present study. The smaller the AIC value, the better the overall fit. The individual paths were also examined for statistical significance. LISREL presents the standardized parameter estimates along with the t-values. Given the alpha level of.05, the test statistic had to be greater than Table 1. Correlations coefficients and descriptive statistics of variables Variables Argumentativeness (ARGap).24*** * 2. Involvement.13.14*.23*** 3. Evaluation accuracy.01.29*** 4. Belief strength.23*** 5. Argument structures a Mean Standard deviation Note. N=200. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. a. A composite variable of that consists of three structural indicators: (a) the argument s anticlimacticity, (b) the number of reasons supporting the argument s nuclear claim and (c) the argument s length. The scores for each indicator were standardized and summed to make the composite variable. 14

11 1.96 in its absolute value to reject a null hypothesis. As a result of testing the measurement model, the χ 2 value was (df=174, p<.001). The CFI value was 1.00, higher than the cutoff value of.96 and thus acceptable. The SRMR value for the measurement model was 0.075, which was lower than the cutoff value of 0.10 and thus acceptable. Overall, the proposed measurement model indicated a reasonable fit to the data. The validity of all the constructs included in the structural model has thus been established Testing the Structural Models In the next step, global tests of the fit of the two structural models to the data were conducted. In the simple main effects model, ARGap, involvement, belief strength, and evaluation accuracy were all specified as exogenous variables antecedent to argument structures (see Figure 1). In the intertwined model, ARGap was specified as an exogenous variable antecedent to both argument structures and involvement, which was antecedent to belief strength, which in turn was hypothesized to predict argument structures. Evaluation accuracy was also an exogenous variable predicting argument structures (see Figure 2). In testing the structural models, the sample size of 200 was used. As a result of testing the simple main effects model, the χ 2 value was The χ 2 value was significant (df=148, p<.001). The CFI value was 1.00, higher than the.96 cutoff and thus acceptable. The SRMR value for the model was.11, which was over the 0.10 cutoff, demonstrating a poor fit. Overall, the predicted structural model did not meet the criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999), although all the hypothesized (H1 through H4) path estimates were significant (see Figure 3). The Figure 3. Path estimates for the simple main effects model Note. N=200. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Standardized path coefficients are reported. Fit indices: χ 2 = (df=148, p<.001), CFI=1.00, SRMR=.11, AIC=

12 Figure 4. Path estimates for the intertwined model Note. Mediation effects: (H6) ARGap Involvement Argument Structures***; (H8) Involvement Belief Strength Argument Structures*** N=200. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. Standardized path coefficients are reported. Fit indices: χ 2 = (df=146, p<.001), CFI=1.00, SRMR=.082, AIC= AIC value for this model was For the intertwined model, the χ 2 value was The χ 2 value was significant (df=146, p<.001). The CFI value was 1.00, higher than the.96 cutoff and thus acceptable. The SRMR value for the model was.082, which was lower than the 0.10 cutoff and thus acceptable. Overall, the predicted structural model met Hu and Bentler s criteria (1999), and the estimates of all the hypothesized direct paths (H1 through H5, and H7) were significant (see Figure 4). The AIC value for this model was The model fit indices provide evidence that the intertwined model better fits the sample data (RQ1). Given that, the results of testing the hypotheses (H1-H8) are reported based on the intertwined model in the following (see Figure 4). The results provided evidence to support H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and H7, indicating that all of the hypothesized direct paths were significant. The remaining hypotheses (H6 and H8) that concern mediation effects have also been tested, using the product of coefficient approach (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). This method of testing the mediation effects has been adopted because MacKinnon et al., as a result of comparing 14 methods to test statistical significance of the intervening variable effect, have reported that the product of coefficient approach has accurate Type I error rates with reasonable statistical power. H6 predicted that involvement would mediate the association between ARGap and argument structures. The product of the standardized parameter estimates was ( ), which in- 16

13 dicated that the mediation effects were significant (p<.001). H8 predicted that belief strength would mediate the association between involvement and argument structures. The mediation effects were significant ( =13.32, p<.001). The results provided evidence to support H6 and H8. 4. Discussion 4.1. General Discussion Based on the concept of elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), this study proposed and tested competing models the simple main effects model and the intertwined model that explain the structures of written arguments. A composite variable representing argument structures was derived using three indicators. As a result of a SEM analysis, the intertwined model demonstrated a better overall fit to the data than the simple main effects model. In the intertwined model, all the hypothesized direct effects (H1 through H5, and H7) as well as the hypothesized indirect effects (H6 and H8) were found to be significant. The intertwined model has been successful in accounting for a substantial amount of variance (24%) of argument structures. Consistent with the premise of the elaboration likelihood continuum and with the evidence from previous research (Suzuki, 2011a), an individual s general trait to approach argument (ARGap) was found to have significant direct effects (H1) on argument structures; the greater an individual s ARGap, the more direct and elaborate the structure of his or her argument. In addition, ARGap was found to influence involvement (H5) and have indirect effects on argument structures via involvement (H6). The findings suggest that individuals argumentative personality contributes to shaping argument structures both directly and indirectly. Greater involvement with a given issue was found to lead to more direct and elaborate arguments (H2). The finding is also consistent with the premise of the elaboration likelihood continuum; greater involvement with a given issue is likely to positively affect an individual s motivation to actively engage in self-generated thoughts and active construction of arguments. Involvement with a given issue, as a motivation factor in the framework of elaboration likelihood continuum, has also been found to affect the strength of his or her belief. It is reasonable that an individual who is greatly involved with a given issue, because he or she attaches greater significance to the issue, holds a strong belief about the issue (H7), which in turn will affect his or her argument structures (H8). That is, those who hold a strong belief about the issue may work harder to make stronger arguments that are direct and elaborate because he or she is motivated to do so. As the results indicate, involvement appears to influence argument structures directly as well as indirectly via belief strength. An individual s evaluation accuracy was found to directly affect his or her argument structures (H4). This finding is consistent with the prediction derived from the concept of elaboration likelihood continuum; evaluation accuracy, as an ability factor, affects an individual s likelihood of elaboration and willingness to construct arguments. That is, an individual who has ability (i.e., has greater evalu- 17

14 ation accuracy) to engage in self-generated thinking should be capable of constructing direct and elaborate arguments Implications, Limitations, and Future Research Overall, the intertwined model has been found to be reasonably successful in explaining individuals argument structures, underscoring the importance of motivational and ability factors derived from the elaboration likelihood continuum. In particular, it is important that motivational factors are interrelated to affect argument structures; those factors do not work in isolation. The findings of this study have implications for the theory of argumentative communication. This study has applied the concept of the elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Persuasion researchers have considered motivation and ability as important because they affect an individual likelihood of elaboration. The present study suggests that the two elements are also important in the study of written arguments. The findings of this study suggest that focusing on cognitive factors based on ability and motivation appear to be one promising approach to account for individual differences in the structures of written arguments. This study also has pedagogical value in two respects. First, the results of this study suggest that those learners who are intrinsically more willing to approach argument (high in ARGap) have some advantages over others in making direct and elaborate arguments, which generally receive higher quality ratings. However, it is true that involvement with a given issue, a non-intrinsic factor, is also important because it directly influences argument structures, and indirectly influences them via strengthening their belief on the issue. That means that it is possible for instructors to help unwilling and non-argumentative learners to construct well-structured arguments. For example, they may help such learners develop the structures of their written arguments by providing opportunities to think about a given issue to increase involvement with it. Second, this study suggests that one s ability to evaluate argument structures influences his or her manner of generating arguments. Based on the finding, instructors may also help learners by teaching them how to differentiate between strong and weak argument structures, thus strengthening their ability to evaluate the structure of arguments, which will help them construct well-structured arguments. Finally, it is necessary to mention the limitations of this study, which dealt with the single issue of capital punishment. Other topics should be explored in future research to test the generalizability of the findings of this study. In addition, the present study s participants shared the same nationality. Participants from other cultures should be included in future to ensure the external validity of this study. Notes 1 ) According to this author, horizontal macro-structure is conceptualized as a type of argument structure, which is exclusively composed of horizontal, or extending and expanding functions, with no support for the main 18

15 claim by reasoning, whereas vertical macro-structure is composed of the main claim supported by one or more reasons. The present study follows this conceptualization of argument structures. 2 ) A pretest was conducted in the Japanese language to develop a set of arguments as a stimulus for measuring the respondents ability to accurately evaluate the structural qualities of arguments. College students (N=34) in Japan voluntarily responded to a questionnaire. Based on Suzuki (2011a), the researcher wrote a pair of strong arguments (arguments A and B, with an elaborate reasoning-based vertical macro-structure) and a pair of weak arguments (arguments C and D, with a non-reasoning-based horizontal macro-structure) in Japanese, whose positions were against retaining capital punishment in Japan. The arguments of the same length were written as single paragraphs. In the pretest, the respondents were asked to rate on a 7-point scale the strength (1=very weak; 7=very strong), convincingness (1=not at all convincing; 7=very convincing), and relevance (1=not at all relevant; 7=very relevant) of each argument, following Lee (2008) and Munch and Swasy (1988). The Cronbach s alphas for the argument quality scales for arguments A, B, C, and D ranged from.91 to 96 in this study. The mean score was 4.06 and 4.86 for strong arguments A and B (SD=1.74 and 1.48), and 2.73 and 2.92 for weak arguments C and D (SD=1.39 and 1.21). The average score for the strong and weak argument structures were compared using a t-test, indicating that the two sets of arguments (A and B versus C and D) were significantly different in their mean scores (M=1.64, t=6.89, df=33, p<.001). Based on the results, the two sets of arguments were included in the Web-based survey. The following are samples of the coded scripts of the English translation of argument A (a strong argument) and argument C (a weak argument). NC signifies the nuclear statement or the central claim, HC a horizontally continuing (i.e., extending or expanding) clause, a vertically subordinate (i.e., supporting another statement by reasoning), and NR a non-relevant clause. The parenthesized number that follows each category code signifies the location of the statement to which the target statement is linked. Argument A*: (1) I disagree with retaining death penalty. [NC] (2) I admit that committing a terrible crime should not be excused. [HC-(3)] (3) However, executing a convict is itself a murder. [VS-(4)] (4) So, death penalty is an intolerable violation of human rights. [VS-(1)] (5) I think we should introduce an alternative kind of punishment to death penalty. [HC-(1)] *Argument A s macro-structure is vertical (reason-based), with a supporting reason [VS] (4) which is further supported by a reason [VS] (3). Statement (5) expands on the main claim [NC] (1). Argument C**: (1) Although murdering innocent people should not tolerated, [HC-(2)] (2) I do not agree with retaining capital punishment. [NC] (3) I think that a criminal who committed a very serious crime should not live. [HC-(2)] (4) Also, the victim s family would hate to see the criminal again. [HC-(2)] (5) I admit that executing the convict may alleviate the pain of the victim s family. [HC-(2)] (6) However, I do not think that capital punishment is a good idea. [HC-(2)] **The macro-structure of Argument C is horizontal; no reason supports the main claim [NC] (2). The [HC] statements (1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) extend or expand on the main claim. References Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, doi: doi.org/ / x Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, doi: /BF Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, doi: doi.org/ / Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 42, doi: / Campbell, K. K., & Huxman, S. S. (2003). The rhetorical act (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, doi: / Gudykunst, W., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hatfield, J. D., & Weider-Hatfield, D. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction 19

16 analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, doi: doi.org/ / Hays, J. N., & Brandt, K. S. (1992). Socio-cognitive development and students performance on audience-centered argumentative writing. In M. Secor & D. Charney (eds.) Constructing rhetorical education (pp ). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, doi: / Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, doi: /s jpa Kuhn, D., & Amsel, E. (1998). The evaluation of evidence. In D. Kuhn, E., Amsel & M. O Loughlin (eds.) The development of scientific thinking skills (pp.37-56). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lee, E. (2008). When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments: Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, doi: / Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, doi: // X Munch, J. M., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). Rhetorical question, summarization frequency, and argument strength effects on recall. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, doi: doi.org/ / Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of east and west: Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (ed.) Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp.21-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B., & Infante, D. A. (1991). Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement. Communication Quarterly, 39, doi: / Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2014). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang. Scardamalia, M., & Paris, P. (1985). The function of explicit discourse knowledge in the development of text representations and composing strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, doi: /s xci0201_1 Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2003). Persuasive communication (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Suzuki, S. (2006). Gender-linked differences in informal argument: Analyzing arguments in an online newspaper. Women s Studies in Communication, 29, doi: / Suzuki, S. (2010). Forms of arguments: A comparison between Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, doi: /j.ijintrel Suzuki, S. (2011a). Trait and state approaches to explaining argument structures. Communication Quarterly, 59, doi: / Suzuki, S. (2011b). Perceptions of the qualities of written arguments by Japanese students. Written Communication, 28, doi: / Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, doi: / Wegman, C. (1994). Factual argumentation in private opinions: Effects of rhetorical context and involvement. Text, 14, doi: /text Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written communication. Written Communication, 26, doi: /

17 Appendix Scale to Measure Trait to Approach Argument (ARGap) 1. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence. 2. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue. 3. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument. 4. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue. 5. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue. 6. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue a controversial issue. 7. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge. 8. I feel refreshed and satisfied after an argument on a controversial issue. 9. I have the ability to do well in an argument. 10. I feel excitement when I expect that a conversation I am in is leading to an argument. Note. These items were taken from the 20-item Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982). The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which each statement is true for them on a five-point scale (1= The description hardly ever applies. ; 5= The description almost always applies. ). A respondent s tendency to approach argumentative situations or ARGap was computed by adding scores on these ten items. The Japanese version of this scale was borrowed from the work by Suzuki and Rancer (1994). 21