Your assumptions about the research interest are incorrect (although likely no fault of your own, as I was being vague intentionally). The actual experiment tests different argumentative techniques on certain kinds of positions, depending on the initial level of background support that a position has (contrarian or conventional).
See the comment I made at the top of the thread:
“To be clear: this study is about testing different argumentative techniques on different kinds of positions (conventional vs contrarian). It’s not about the overarching reasons why someone who already subscribes to a contrarian position might have been persuaded by it in the first place.”
How do you propose to separate the effects of argumentative techniques from the effects of “the overarching reasons why someone who already subscribes to a contrarian position might have been persuaded by it in the first place”? That is, how would you correct for this clearly quite serious confounding factor?
I identify individuals who don’t currently subscribe to a contrarian belief. I give a random half of them one kind of argument for this position, and the other another kind of argument for the position. I compare belief change in either camp. There are more components to the study, but I’m not interested in defending the research methodology.
Your assumptions about the research interest are incorrect (although likely no fault of your own, as I was being vague intentionally). The actual experiment tests different argumentative techniques on certain kinds of positions, depending on the initial level of background support that a position has (contrarian or conventional).
See the comment I made at the top of the thread:
“To be clear: this study is about testing different argumentative techniques on different kinds of positions (conventional vs contrarian). It’s not about the overarching reasons why someone who already subscribes to a contrarian position might have been persuaded by it in the first place.”
How do you propose to separate the effects of argumentative techniques from the effects of “the overarching reasons why someone who already subscribes to a contrarian position might have been persuaded by it in the first place”? That is, how would you correct for this clearly quite serious confounding factor?
This seems fairly easy by randomizing the types of arguments and the positions, no?
I identify individuals who don’t currently subscribe to a contrarian belief. I give a random half of them one kind of argument for this position, and the other another kind of argument for the position. I compare belief change in either camp. There are more components to the study, but I’m not interested in defending the research methodology.