A Qualitative Analysis of the Persuasive Properties of Argumentation Schemes

Argumentation schemes are generalised patterns that provide a way to (partially) dissociate the content from the reasoning structure of the argument. On the other hand, Cialdini’s principles of persuasion provide a generic model to analyse the persuasive properties of human interaction (e.g., natural language). Establishing the relationship between principles of persuasion and argumentation schemes can contribute to the improvement of the argument-based human-computer interaction paradigm. In this work, we perform a qualitative analysis of the persuasive properties of argumentation schemes. For that purpose, we present a new study conducted on a population of over one hundred participants, where twelve different argumentation schemes are instanced into four different topics of discussion considering both stances (i.e., in favour and against). Participants are asked to relate these argumentation schemes with the perceived Cialdini’s principles of persuasion. From the results of our study, it is possible to conclude that some of the most commonly used patterns of reasoning in human communication have an underlying persuasive focus, regardless of how they are instanced in natural language argumentation (i.e., their stance, the domain, or their content).