A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity

Area of Science:

• Health Communication
• Persuasion Research
• Psychological Measurement

Background:

• Traditional methods like thought-listing assess argument strength in persuasive messages.
• Thought-listing has limitations with non-adults and sensitive health topics.
• A need exists for alternative methods to measure perceived argument strength in these contexts.

Purpose of the Study:

• To introduce and validate a novel self-reported scale for assessing perceived argument strength.
• To evaluate the scale's utility in health communication scenarios, including anti-drug and anti-smoking PSAs.
• To explore the scale's convergence with the established thought-listing technique.

Main Methods:

• Development of a multi-dimensional self-reported scale measuring perceived argument strength.
• Assessment of the scale's reliability and validity in studies involving adolescents and adults.
• Comparison of scale results with the thought-listing technique using classical arguments.

Main Results:

• The self-reported scale demonstrated reliability and validity in assessing perceived argument strength.
• Evidence of convergence was found between the new scale and the thought-listing method.
• The scale effectively measures perceived argument strength beyond simple positive/negative thought elicitation.

Conclusions:

• The developed self-reported scale offers a practical and valid alternative to thought-listing.
• This new tool is particularly useful for research involving sensitive topics and diverse age groups.
• The scale enhances the assessment of persuasive message effectiveness in health communication.