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.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 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.
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
Banas JA, Rains SA (2010) A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Commun Monogr 77(3):281–311
Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
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
Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge
Caminada M, Pigozzi G (2011) On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22(1):64–102
Castelfranchi C (2000) Affective appraisal versus cognitive evaluation in social emotions and interactions. In: Paiva A (ed) Affective interactions. Springer, Berlin, pp 76–106
Castelfranchi C, Falcone R (2010) Trust theory: a socio-cognitive and computational model. Wiley, Chichester
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
Cohen D (2005) Arguments that backfire. In: Hitchcock D (ed) The uses of argument. Proceedings of OSSA 2005. OSSA, Hamilton, pp 58–65
Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication. National Academies Press, Washington
Covello VT, von Winterfeldt D, Slovic P (1986) Communicating risk information to the public. Risk Abstracts 3(4):1–14
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
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
Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48(4):21–37
Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New York
Das TK, Teng BS (2004) The risk-based view of trust: a conceptual framework. J Bus Psychol 19(1):85–116
De Dreu CKW (2003) Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 91(2):280–295
DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269(1498):1307–1312
Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2:265–279
Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME (2005) Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(5):736
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
Earle TC (2012) Trust in cooperative risk management: uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Routledge, London
Eisend M (2007) Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychol Mark 24(7):615–640
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
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
Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108
Foddy M, Platow MJ, Yamagishi T (2009) Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychol Sci 20(4):419–422
Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
Hample D (2005) Arguing: exchanging reasons face to face. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
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
Hample D, Dallinger J (1990) Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4:153–169
Hample D, Dallinger J (1992) The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argum Advocacy 28:109–122
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
Hample D, Werber B, Young D (2009) Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation 23:21–37
Hovland C, Lumsdaine A, Sheffield F (1949) Experiments in mass communication. Princeton University Press, Princeton
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
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
Joffe H (2003) Risk: from perception to social representation. Br J Soc Psychol 42(1):55–73
Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
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
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
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
Kasperson RE (1986) Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Anal 6(3):275–281
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
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
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
Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1342–1354
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
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
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
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
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
Lion R (2001) Security or opportunity: the effects of individual and situational factors on risk information preference. Universal Maastricht, The Netherlands
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
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):709–734
McGuire WJ (1961) The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. Sociometry 24:184–197
Nooteboom B (1996) Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model. Organ Stud 17:985–1010
Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven NG (1997) Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Acad Manage J 40(2):308–338
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
O’Keefe DJ (2002) Persuasion: theory and research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Ouerdane W, Dimopoulos Y, Liapis K, Moraitis P (2011) Towards automating decision aiding through argumentation. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 18:289–309
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
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
Paglieri F (2013a) Choosing to argue: towards a theory of argumentative decisions. J Pragmat 59(B):153–163
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
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
Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C (2010) Why arguing? Towards a costs-benefits analysis of argumentation. Argum Comput 1(1):71–91
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
Paglieri F, Woods J (2011a) Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese 178:461–501
Paglieri F, Woods J (2011b) Enthymemes: from reconstruction to understanding. Argumentation 25(2):127–139
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
Pelling M (2007) Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters 31(4):373–385
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
Pfau M (1992) The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising messages. Commun Q 40(1):26–44
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
Pidgeon N (1992) The psychology of risk. In: Blockley DI (ed) Engineering safety. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, pp 167–185
Primiero G, Kosolosky L (2013) The semantics of untrustworthiness. Topoi.doi: 10.1007/s11245-013-9227-2
Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin
Reed C, Norman T (eds) (2004) Argumentation machines. Kluwer, Dordrecht
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
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
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
Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720
Sitkin SB, Roth NL (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ Sci 4(3):367–392
Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285
Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13(6):675–682
Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352
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
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
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1127–1131
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
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
Van Eemeren F, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
Walton D (1995) A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Walton D (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Walton D (2000) Scare tactics. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Walton D (2002) Legal argumentation and evidence. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New York
Weyman AK, Kelly CJ (1999) Risk perception and risk communication: a review of literature. HSE Contract Research Report
Yamagishi K (1997) When 12.86 mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:495–506
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)