The effects of proportion,strength and value orientation of arguments on decision-making

Presented 120 males and 300 females with a summary of arguments concerning a court case. The information varied in the proportion and strength of arguments for either the defense or the prosecution. Based on the relevant arguments version of the cultural value hypothesis, it was predicted that: (a) proportion of arguments is directly related to subjects' ratings of probability of guilt; (b) fewer arguments are needed to move subjects toward innocence than toward guilt; (c) strong minority defense arguments ate more effective than weak ones in allowing subjects to adhere to their initial value; and (d) strong prosecution arguments result in higher probability of guilt ratings than do weak prosecution arguments. Data supported each of these hypotheses.