Search results

This study aims to address the credibility effects of refutational versus non-refutational two-sided messages. Additionally, it aims to unravel the moderating role of issue ambivalence and argument type.

A 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experimental design (N = 853 adolescents) investigates the effect of eight anti-binge drinking and anti-marijuana messages on source and message credibility.

The results show that refutation increases credibility compared to non-refutation. Additionally, a three-way interaction effect is found: credibility depends on the ambivalence of the issue and the argument type.

First, this study clarifies the inconsistencies found in previous literature regarding (non-)refutational two-sided messages by addressing two important (and so far neglected) moderating variables. Second, we provide useful new insights for health practitioners who develop campaigns to prevent drug abuse among adolescents.

This paper aims to examine a two-way interaction between social influencers’ number of followers (micro vs meso) and argument quality (weak vs strong) on consumers’ self-reported and brain responses to advertising posts on Instagram. Further, drawing upon source credibility theory and contemporary theories of persuasion, the Instagram users’ perceptions of the influencer’s credibility are predicted to mediate the hypothesized effects.

Through an online (N = 192) and a lab study (N = 112), the authors examined Instagram users’ responses to an advertising post from Instagram influencers in terms of perceived source credibility and electronic word-of-mouth intention, using validated multi-item scales from existing literatures and electroencephalogram (EEG) measures. The hypotheses were tested with a 2 (type of influencer: micro vs meso) × 2 (argument quality: weak vs strong) between-subject design using mediated moderated linear regression analysis.

The results highlight that meso-influencers are perceived as a credible source of information only when their product-related post provides strong argument quality. Moreover, this process involves an increase in users’ cognitive work (measured with EEG), with possible implications on marketing communication strategies and online message design.

The limitations of the work can serve as ideas for future research. First, this study did not account for the influencer’s relevance and resonance. Second, the authors studied consumer responses to online communication produced by Instagram influencers within a single product category. Another important product type distinction that requires further attention is between hedonic and utilitarian products. Finally, the two studies only used positive review content. Further research should study how consumers evaluate the source credibility of a micro- vs meso-influencer when they are exposed to negative reviews containing weak vs strong arguments.

The results suggest that marketers should carefully consider Instagram influencers based on the trade-offs between credibility and reach. Specifically, micro-influencers are perceived as more credible sources of information than meso-influencers, which means that they have greater potential to affect Instagram users’ behavior. Moreover, the results suggest that meso-influencers should leverage argument quality to enhance their credibility and draw greater positive outcomes for the products and brands they endorse.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate how the interaction between the type of social media influencer and the argument quality affects consumers’ self-reported and brain responses to advertising posts on Instagram. Moreover, using neuroscience, this study aims to shed light on the neurophysiological processes that drive consumer responses to product-related communication posted by different influencer types.

The present article deals with the topic of migrants’ exclusion from welfare benefits in European host countries from the angle of the research on the so-called “welfare chauvinism” (Andersen and Bjørklund 1990, p. 212). More specifically, it explores the political justifications behind welfare chauvinism in the policy debate surrounding some recent chauvinist-oriented social policies. Drawing on that, the article develops a theoretical argument to generate expectations about how politicians use different types of justifications. The fundamental proposition is that the chauvinistic arguments used are shaped by the different types of social programs, i.e. either universal or means-tested programs.

Qualitative content analysis of several selected parliamentary debates in the period 2017–2019 in Austria is carried out. In order to improve the efficiency of the research, the author relies on MAXQDA, an advanced piece of software for qualitative data analysis, to code the qualitative data and analyze them. The author prefers this to other similar programs as it is considered a valid and reliable tool within the academic research world.

The article points out that programs design works as an explanatory factor to highlight variations of welfare chauvinist arguments.

It develops for the first time a theoretical argument explaining the presence and variation of welfare chauvinist arguments based on social programs design.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate practices of argumentation on Twitter discussions about climate change.

Conversational threads were collected from the Twitter API. Fundamental concepts from argumentation theory and linking practices were operationalised through a coding schema for content analysis. Tweets were analysed in the context of the discussions and coded according to their argumentative approach, interaction type and argumentation stage. Linked and embedded sources were analysed in order to find how they were used in arguments, the plausibility and soundness of the message, the consistency and trustworthiness of the linked source and its adequacy with the target audience.

Among the interactions between arguers, this study found five typical practices and several patterns involving the dynamics of the conversations, the strategy of the argumentation and the linking practices. Although the rhetorical approach was prominent, the agreement was rarely achieved. The arguers used a variety of sources to justify or support their positions, often embedding non-textual content. These linking practices, together with the strategy adopted and the topics discussed, suggest the involvement of a multiple audience engaged in discussing ad lib scientific artefacts, topics and outputs.

While Twitter has been the focus for many research papers, the conversational threads have been given little attention so far. With the Twitter API making conversations more accessible for research, this paper does not only give insight into multiple audience group argumentation dynamics but also provides a method to study the conversations from an argumentation theory perspective.

This study aims to distinguish between service arguments and communication arguments within a home-sharing review and to investigate their roles in consumer purchase decision-making.

Based on the setting of Airbnb, a 3 (service argument valence: positive, neutral, and negative) × 3 (communication argument valence: positive, neutral, and negative) online experiment was conducted. Data collected from 379 participants were used to test the hypotheses.

The three main determinants of purchase intention: perceived host service quality, perceived facility service quality, and perceived social value, are affected by both service arguments and communication arguments. Service arguments positively influence perceived host service quality and perceived facility service quality, while communication arguments contribute significantly to perceived host service quality and perceived social value. However, perceived facility service quality is affected by the combination of service arguments and communication arguments rather than by the service arguments only, because service argument trustworthiness, a factor influencing the effect of service arguments, varies across the combination of two types of arguments.

This research helps home-sharing platform managers to understand how to facilitate transaction success through displaying different review arguments needed by consumers. Additionally, the dual role of communication arguments emphasizes a necessity for hosts to encourage positive communication arguments and provide additional cues on the facility service quality.

The service arguments and communication arguments in home-sharing reviews are distinguished, and their distinct roles in consumers' purchase intention have been uncovered.

The current method of information retrieval used for bibliographic and full‐text databases of journal articles assumes a semantic representation together with stemming, Boolean connectives and so on. This requires searchers to have a well‐defined idea of what it is that they are searching for. This is unhelpful for many categories of searcher, in particular expert browsers and non‐expert searchers. An alternative method is developed in this paper, based on the idea that articles advance an argument and that this argumentation can be represented in a manner which enables flexible and robust searching to be carried out.

Current indexing methods used in automated bibliographic and full text information retrieval assume that knowledge can be adequately represented as a semantic network which is manipulable by means of Boolean operators. However, this semantic approach requires the user to state formally what it is that he wants to find. This paper presents an alternative argumentation‐based method. It involves representing a learned article by means of rhetorical structure rather than by a semantic representation of content.

Important to the performance of interactive systems is the ability of its members to establish valid arguments. The type of arguments discussed here contains a premiss of form A of the Aristotelian logic, a second premiss and the conclusion, and the deductive process involves the predicate logic. Knowledge structures for storing the meanings of the arguments are based on principles for general automata and are in the form of graphs. After recognizing the knowledge structures for the premisses by a computer, determining conclusions and storing the meanings of the conclusions become a standard procedure.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns on consumer purchase behavior among French millennials contrasted with their international counterparts. Based on the regulatory-focus theory, the influence of the types of arguments and products is tested on French millennials’ attitudes, intentions and behaviors in the context of CRM campaigns.

Three experimental studies among French millennials examine the effects of a CRM campaign vs non-CRM one on purchase behavior (study 1) through varying the formulation of the argument (promotion or prevention – study 2) and the nature of the advertised product (utilitarian or hedonic – study 3).

The results reveal French millennials’ favorable attitude and greater purchase intention for products carrying CRM messages, displaying similarities with American and Dutch millennials. When exposed to CRM advertising with promotion messages for hedonic products, French millennials, similarly to their South African and American counterparts, show greater purchase intentions, exhibiting cause sensitivity with hedonic products to reach aspirational goals.

Inconsistent findings related to French millennials’ willingness to pay are linked to possible message formulation and product nature biases. The study contributes to the CRM literature by bridging regulatory focus and product type in a CRM campaign context, while contrasting millennials’ perceptions from diverse countries.

To improve CRM effectiveness toward millennials, firms must ensure the consistency between the causes, types of messages and products.

CRM campaign efficiency is enhanced when promoted by brands, thereby increasing millennials’ engagement toward the causes.

This paper is the first to explore, in a single study, CRM campaign regulatory focus and product type among French millennials compared with their international counterparts.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the unaccusative verb in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) within the framework of MP in order to answer the research question: How does the single argument of an unaccusative verb, that carries the theme theta role and is generated in the object position, receive a nominative case without moving to the [Spec, vP], which is the base subject position?

The analysis in the paper was based on the framework of Minimalist Program (MP) which was proposed by Chomsky (2000). MP concerns economy, simplicity and efficiency in the connection between sound and meaning. Essentially, Chomsky (2000) proposes that faculty of language (FL) contains a computational system that interfaces with external systems, sensorimotor systems and systems of thought. The computational system is based on three operations. The first operation is merge, which combines two syntactic objects to form a new one. It is presented in binary branches that project a hierarchical level. The second operation is agree which establishes syntactic relation for case assignment and agreement. The final operation is move, which composes merge and agree.

The analysis demonstrated that the sole argument of an accusative verb receives the nominative case in situ. This is due to Locality of Matching in which the agreement holds between the [nom] case on T and NP in internal argument of VP. This is because there is no intervening NP between T and the sole argument in internal argument of VP, which is a base object position.

This research shows that the single argument of the unaccusative verb receives the nominative case in situ. This analysis observes the economic considerations of MP as well as respects the UTAH hypothesis, which rules out the structures where the theme asymmetrically appears as a specifier or a complement.