Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Much of our knowledge comes from other people. In considering how argument quality and source reliability influences message persuasiveness, we conduct a comparison of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion and the Bayesian Model of Argumentation, which are based on different assumptions. Participants were asked to judge a fictitious character’s degree of belief in a claim given evidence. To test competing predictions, we manipulate the character’s elaboration level, the argument’s quality, and the source’s reliability. The elaboration did not moderate the main effects of argument quality and source reliability, as they both were integral to the overall message strength in both high and low elaboration conditions. Bayesian predictions have better fit with the observed data, whilst ELM predictions did not align well. Overall, the BM is supported, but we discuss how this model could be further improved while the ELM is contested.