Why redo what has already been done? The information is out there – we need but someone to read and summarize them. A ten-minute search yielded the following:
Wow, nice start! Unfortunately none of your citations, except maybe those behind paywalls, seem to address our main issue directly. They do, however, provide much useful background about the emotional and interpersonal dimensions of persuasion and deconversion. Streib’s book, for example, uses personality tests (the 5-factor measure, a measure of “well-being and growth”, and such) to study deconversion. Jacobs writes that “severing of socio-emotional bonds to the religious leader” is important in deconversion. And Ullman writes that “Emotional factors were more closely associated with religious conversion” than cognitive personality features like tolerance of ambiguity. Max Heirich disputes the emotions-and-relationships focus however.
Cobb and Kuklinski do examine argument styles for effectiveness, but the only dimensions they study are Pro/Con and Easy/Hard (to comprehend). From other browsing, I got the impression that Hard to Comprehend means that the arguer actually explains how the policy will lead to great or terrible things, rather than simply asserting that it will. Ah, democracy!
It occurred to me that political argument is probably better studied than religious argument, and is similar enough, dynamically, that an argument tone effective in one area is probably comparably effective in the other. That search led me to:
Arceneaux finds that exploiting in-group bias and loss aversion make for effective political arguments. Croft cites psychologist and political consultant Drew Westen for the claim, among others, that tone matters, and that in particular, condescension or know-it-all attitudes are trouble. However, Croft does not cite specific studies or explain any findings.
Nice, I like the Arceneaux paper. (Published version and online supporting material.) It cites a lot of papers too, so given its recency, it’d make an excellent base for a backward citation search.
What this debate about the strategically best tone needs is some experiments. Are there any social scientists in the LW house?
Why redo what has already been done? The information is out there – we need but someone to read and summarize them. A ten-minute search yielded the following:
H Gardner. 2006. Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds.
M Cobb and J Kuklinski. 1997. “Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion.”
L Rambo and E Farhadian (eds.). Pre-print. Oxford Handbook on Religious Conversion. (Notable article: H Streib, “Deconversion.”)
H Streib et al. 2009. Deconversion: Qualitative and quantitative results from cross-cultural research in Germany and the United States of America.
H Streib and B Keller. 2004. “The variety of deconversion experiences: Contours of a concept in respect to empirical research.”
B Kim. 1979. “Religious deprogramming and subjective reality.”
J Jacobs. 1987. “Deconversion from religious movements: An analysis of charismatic bonding and spiritual commitment.”
M Heirich. 1977. “Change of heart: A test of some widely held theories about religious conversion.”
C Ullman. 1982. “Cognitive and emotional antecedents of religious conversion.”
M Khalil and M Bilici. 2007. “Conversion out of Islam: A study of conversion narratives of former Muslims.”
J Druckman and A Lupia. 2000. “Preference formation.”
Someone willing to put in a day’s work would surely be able to find better and much more studies and reviews.
Wow, nice start! Unfortunately none of your citations, except maybe those behind paywalls, seem to address our main issue directly. They do, however, provide much useful background about the emotional and interpersonal dimensions of persuasion and deconversion. Streib’s book, for example, uses personality tests (the 5-factor measure, a measure of “well-being and growth”, and such) to study deconversion. Jacobs writes that “severing of socio-emotional bonds to the religious leader” is important in deconversion. And Ullman writes that “Emotional factors were more closely associated with religious conversion” than cognitive personality features like tolerance of ambiguity. Max Heirich disputes the emotions-and-relationships focus however.
Cobb and Kuklinski do examine argument styles for effectiveness, but the only dimensions they study are Pro/Con and Easy/Hard (to comprehend). From other browsing, I got the impression that Hard to Comprehend means that the arguer actually explains how the policy will lead to great or terrible things, rather than simply asserting that it will. Ah, democracy!
It occurred to me that political argument is probably better studied than religious argument, and is similar enough, dynamically, that an argument tone effective in one area is probably comparably effective in the other. That search led me to:
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science, 56 (2): 271-85.
JamesCroft, 2012, “The Freethinkers’ Political Textbook – Logos, Ethos, Pathos”
Arceneaux finds that exploiting in-group bias and loss aversion make for effective political arguments. Croft cites psychologist and political consultant Drew Westen for the claim, among others, that tone matters, and that in particular, condescension or know-it-all attitudes are trouble. However, Croft does not cite specific studies or explain any findings.
Nice, I like the Arceneaux paper. (Published version and online supporting material.) It cites a lot of papers too, so given its recency, it’d make an excellent base for a backward citation search.