| Abstract: | A theoretical model for analysing persuasive attempts in discussions with special emphasis on exchanges of political opinions where alleged facts play a salient role, is outlined. It is suggested that alleged facts put forward in a discussion can be categorized according to the degree of correspondence between the participants' judgments. A discussion which revolves around the validity of facts is characterized as an interactive sequence of mutual attempts to either transfer facts or obstruct the transfer of facts, to a category consisting of commonly accepted, reliable and relevant information. The model is applied to the politically delicate controversy over the causes for the stranding of a Soviet submarine near a Swedish naval base in 1981. The contending sides were shown to be extremely unwilling to accept facts introduced in the debate by each other, as both reliable and relevant. Results are discussed by reference to the role of preexisting beliefs in considerations of factual information. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
