Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Fusion Methodologies in Crisis Management pp 365–387Cite as

From Argumentative Crisis to Critical Arguments: How to Argue in the Face of Danger

  • Chapter

Abstract

Building on evidence from the field of risk perception and communication, two key roles of argumentation in crisis management are highlighted: (1) balancing trust construction and persuasive goals in crisis prevention and preparedness, and (2) ensuring time-efficient cross-examination of choice options in group decision making at a time of crisis. The implications for an information fusion approach to crisis management are discussed, suggesting a rich potential for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Several attempts have been made to clarify the different meanings and interrelations between trust, distrust, and mistrust, both in cognitive psychology (Castelfranchi 2000), political studies (Lenard 2008), computer science (Marsh and Dibben 2005), and philosophical logic (Primiero and Kosolosky 2013). These taxonomies often do not align on the technical definitions of distrust and mistrust, although there is a tendency to consider the former stronger than the latter (a notable exception is Castelfranchi 2000, who claims the opposite): here we will adopt the convention of using distrust to indicate the active suspicion of the other’s intention to cause harm (or at least prevent good) to the interested party, as opposed to a merely cautious attitude towards someone or something that is not considered entirely trustworthy (mistrust, according to Lenard 2008).

  2. 2.

    The following are the URLs for each of these systems, in the order in which they are mentioned in the text: http://rationale.austhink.com/, http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk/doku.php, http://carneades.github.io/carneades/Carneades/, http://compendiuminstitute.net/about.htm, http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/aaa/argumed3.htm

References

  • Arvai JL (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal 23(2):281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banas JA, Rains SA (2010) A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Commun Monogr 77(3):281–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell HM, Tobin GA (2007) Efficient and effective? The 100-year flood in the communication and perception of flood risk. Environ Hazards 7:302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caminada M, Pigozzi G (2011) On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22(1):64–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi C (2000) Affective appraisal versus cognitive evaluation in social emotions and interactions. In: Paiva A (ed) Affective interactions. Springer, Berlin, pp 76–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2010) Trust theory: a socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cionea I, Hample D, Paglieri F (2011) A test of the argument engagement model in Romania. In: Zenker F (ed) Argumentation: cognition & community. Proceedings of OSSA 2011. CD-ROM. Windsor, OSSA, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D (2005) Arguments that backfire. In: Hitchcock D (ed) The uses of argument. Proceedings of OSSA 2005. OSSA, Hamilton, pp 58–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT, von Winterfeldt D, Slovic P (1986) Communicating risk information to the public. Risk Abstracts 3(4):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT, Peters R, Wojtecki J, Hyde R (2001) Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health 78(2):382–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT, Sandman PM (2001) Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: Wolbarst A (ed) Solutions to an environment in peril. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 164–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48(4):21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Teng BS (2004) The risk-based view of trust: a conceptual framework. J Bus Psychol 19(1):85–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91(2):280–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269(1498):1307–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2:265–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5):736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 7:321--357

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle TC (2012) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisend M (2007) Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychol Mark 24(7):615–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner H, Mc Carthy S, Tunstall S (2011) Flood risk communication. In: Pender G, Faulkner H (eds) Flood risk science and management. Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 386–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foddy M, Platow MJ, Yamagishi T (2009) Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychol Sci 20(4):419–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample D (2005) Arguing: exchanging reasons face to face. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample D, Benoit P, Houston J, Purifoy G, Vanhyfte V, Wardwell C (1999) Naive theories of argument: avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argum Advocacy 35:130–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample D, Dallinger J (1990) Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4:153–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample D, Dallinger J (1992) The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argum Advocacy 28:109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample D, Paglieri F, Na L (2012) The costs and benefits of arguing: predicting the decision whether to engage or not. In: van Eemeren F, Garssen B (eds) Topical themes in argumentation theory. Springer, Berlin, pp 307–322

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hample D, Werber B, Young D (2009) Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation 23:21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland C, Lumsdaine A, Sheffield F (1949) Experiments in mass communication. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Infanti J, Sixsmith J, Barry MM, Núñez-Córdoba J, Oroviogoicoechea-Ortega C, Guillén-Grima F (2013) A literature review on effective risk communication for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Europe. ECDC, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Nuclear imagery and regional stigma: testing hypotheses of image acquisition and valuation regarding Nevada. University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy, Albuquerque, NM

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe H (2003) Risk: from perception to social representation. Br J Soc Psychol 42(1):55–73

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RH (2003) The dialectical tier revisited. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard CA, Snoeck Henkemans AF (eds) Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 41–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RH (2007) Anticipating objections as a way of coping with dissensus. In: Hansen HV, Tindale CW, Blair JA, Johnson RH (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground (CD-ROM). OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Karau SJ, Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J Exp Soc Psychol 28:542–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE (1986) Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Anal 6(3):275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Soc Issues 48(4):161–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (1991) Risk communication: the evolution of attempts. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (eds) Communicating risk to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 1–12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1342–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR, McGrath JE (1985) Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:395–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR, Jackson JW, Hutson-Comeaux SL (1997) The effects of time pressure and task differences on influences modes and accuracy in decision-making groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 23:10–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR, Lovig TJ (2004) Time pressure and group performance: exploring underlying processes in the Attentional Focus Model. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(2):185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski AW, Webster DM (1991) Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenard PT (2008) Trust your compatriots, but count your change: the roles of trust, mistrust and distrust in democracy. Polit Stud 56(2):312–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lion R (2001) Security or opportunity: the effects of individual and situational factors on risk information preference. Universal Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh S, Dibben MR (2005) Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust—an exploration of the dark(er) side. In: Herrmann P, Issarny V, Shiu S (eds) Trust management. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire WJ (1961) The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. Sociometry 24:184–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B (1996) Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model. Organ Stud 17:985–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven NG (1997) Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Acad Manage J 40(2):308–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe DJ (1999) How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In: Roloff ME (ed) Communication yearbook 22. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 209–249

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouerdane W, Dimopoulos Y, Liapis K, Moraitis P (2011) Towards automating decision aiding through argumentation. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 18:289–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F (2007) No more charity, please! Enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence. In: Hansen H, Tindale C, Johnson R, Blair J (eds) Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proceedings of OSSA 2007. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F (2009) Ruinous arguments: escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing. In: Hansen H, Tindale C, Johnson R, Blair J (eds) Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 2009. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F (2013a) Choosing to argue: towards a theory of argumentative decisions. J Pragmat 59(B):153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F (2013b) Argumentation, decision and rationality. In: Mohammed D, Lewinsky M (eds) Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of OSSA 2013. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F (2015) Arguments, conflicts and decisions. In: Poggi I, D’Errico F, Vincze L, Vinciarelli A (eds) Conflict and negotiation: social research and machine intelligence. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2010) Why arguing? Towards a costs-benefits analysis of argumentation. Argum Comput 1(1):71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C, da Costa Pereira C, Falcone R, Tettamanzi A, Villata S (2014) Trusting the message and the messenger: feedback dynamics from information quality to source evaluation. Comput Math Organ Theory 20(2):176–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F, Woods J (2011a) Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese 178:461–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paglieri F, Woods J (2011b) Enthymemes: from reconstruction to understanding. Argumentation 25(2):127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons S, Atkinson K, Li Z, McBurney P, Sklar E, Singh M, Haigh K, Levitt K, Rowe J (2014) Argument schemes for reasoning about trust. Argum Comput 5(2–3):160–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M (2007) Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters 31(4):373–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear Power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26(16):1427–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfau M (1992) The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising messages. Commun Q 40(1):26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfau M (1997) The inoculation model of resistance to influence. In: Boster FJ, Barnett G (eds) Progress in communication sciences, vol 13. Ablex, Norwood, pp 133–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N (1992) The psychology of risk. In: Blockley DI (ed) Engineering safety. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, pp 167–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Primiero G, Kosolosky L (2013) The semantics of untrustworthiness. Topoi.doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9227-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed C, Norman T (eds) (2004) Argumentation machines. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PM (eds) Communicating risk to the public: international perspectives. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 175–217

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev 23(3):393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowan KE, Botan CH, Kreps GL, Samoilenko S, Farnsworth K (2009) Risk communication education for local emergency managers: using the CAUSE model for research, education, and outreach. In: Heath RL, O’Hair HD (eds) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, pp 168–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin SB, Roth NL (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ Sci 4(3):367–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13(6):675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Steger MAE, Witt SL (1989) Gender differences in environmental orientations: a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the US. West Polit Q 42:627–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner ME, Pratkanis AR (1998) Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 73(2–3):105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1127–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I (2008) Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob Environ Chang 18(1):165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Horst D (2007) NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35:2705–2714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren F, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Visschers VH, Siegrist M (2008) Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: a review of the literature. Risk Manage 10(3):156–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1995) A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2000) Scare tactics. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2002) Legal argumentation and evidence. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Weyman AK, Kelly CJ (1999) Risk perception and risk communication: a review of literature. HSE Contract Research Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi K (1997) When 12.86 mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the PON research project CLoud plAtform and smart underground imaging for natural Risk Assessment (CLARA), funded by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR). We are grateful to Rino Falcone, Cristiano Castelfranchi, and the members of the Trust: Theory & Technology group (T3) and the Goal-Oriented Agents Lab (GOAL) at the ISTC-CNR for insightful discussion on the topics of this chapter, and to Galina Rogova for providing useful feedback on a previous version of it. All remaining mistakes and omissions are our sole responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Theory & Technology group (T3), Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome & Department of Psychology, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

    Laura Bonelli & Silvia Felletti

  2. Goal-Oriented Agents Lab (GOAL), Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy

    Fabio Paglieri

Authors
  1. Laura Bonelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Felletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio Paglieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Bonelli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA

    Galina Rogova

  2. State University of New Yorkat Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA

    Peter Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bonelli, L., Felletti, S., Paglieri, F. (2016). From Argumentative Crisis to Critical Arguments: How to Argue in the Face of Danger. In: Rogova, G., Scott, P. (eds) Fusion Methodologies in Crisis Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22527-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22527-2_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22526-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22527-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation