Do Superdiffusers Argue Differently? an Analysis of Argumentation Style as a Function of Diffusion Ability

Abstract

Boster et al.'s (2006) dimensions of diffusion ability were used to determine if the argumentation of superdiffusers of health information (those who are well-connected, persuasive, and knowledgeable about healthy lifestyles) is different from those who are not. In Study 1, 164 undergraduates completed the measures of diffusion ability. They were then asked how they would try to persuade a target either to lose weight or to avoid smoking. The scenario they were given was either simple or complex. For the participants who responded to the avoiding smoking scenario a 2 (superdiffuser or not) X 2 (scenario complexity: simple or complex) interaction was found such that superdiffusers who responded to the complex scenario produced more arguments, more overall themes in their arguments, and addressed more elements of the scenario than any of the other three groups. Superdiffusers produced more arguments when they responded to the weight loss scenario. A second study was conducted with 35 participants who were interviewed about their beliefs on dieting. Their responses were coded for argument complexity. Superdiffusers produced more complex arguments than non-superdiffusers. In sum, results indicated that superdiffusers argue in ways that would facilitate the effective diffusion of health information.