Written Arguments About Vaccination: Experimental Studies in the United States and China

Christopher R. Wolfe Miami University ; Hongli Gao Xinxiang Medical University ; Junjie Wu Central China Normal University ; Yizhu Wang Xinxiang Medical University ; Josselyn E. Marroquín Miami University ; Wylie Brace Miami University

Abstract

Guided by argumentation schema theory, we conducted five psychological studies in the United States and China on arguments about vaccination. Study 1 replicated research about arguments on several topics, finding that agreement judgments are weighted toward claims, whereas quality judgments are weighted toward reasons. However, consistent with recent research, when this paradigm was extended to arguments about vaccination (Study 2), claims received more weight than reasons in judgments about agreement and quality. Studies 3 and 4 were conducted in the United States and China on how people process counterarguments against anti-vaccination assertions. Rebuttals did not influence agreement but played a role in argument quality judgments. Both political position (in the United States) and medical education (in China) predicted differences in argument evaluation. Bad reasons lowered agreement (Study 5), especially among participants studying health care. Political polarization apparently heightens the impact of claim side in the argumentation schema, likely to the detriment of public discourse.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2023-10-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883231179935
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Poroi
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. Written Communication
Also cites 20 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191728
  2. 10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8
  3. 10.1080/01638530701739207
  4. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305869
  5. 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
  6. 10.2196/19504
  7. 10.2196/jmir.4153
  8. 10.1353/con.2017.0020
  9. 10.1080/09581596.2018.1546825
  10. 10.1080/08964289.2019.1619511
  11. 10.1007/s10461-020-02925-y
  12. 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.025
  13. 10.5744/rhm.2018.1010
  14. 10.1007/s10912-014-9278-4
  15. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.004
  16. 10.1371/journal.pone.0264019
  17. 10.1007/s10503-005-4419-6
  18. 10.1002/acp.3894
  19. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.004
  20. 10.3758/s13428-022-01840-5
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →