Study title

Argument Quality Evaluation Study 2018

Dataset ID Number

FSD3587

Persistent identifiers

https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD3587
https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd3587

Data Type

Quantitative

Authors

• Herne, Kaisa (Tampere University)
• Kestilä-Kekkonen, Elina (Tampere University)
• Mattinen, Laura (Tampere University)
• Sipinen, Josefina (Tampere University)

Abstract

The argument quality evaluation survey examined the effect of an argument's source on the respondents' assessment of the credibility of the argument. The topics of the arguments included protection of employees against dismissal, wind power, income disparity, and licenses to shoot wolves. The data were collected as part of two Academy of Finland projects: Consortium of Trust Research: Pathways to Political Trust (CONTRE, 2015-2019) and Participation in Long-Term Decision-Making (PALO, 2017-2022, ID: 326662).

The respondents were randomly divided into four groups. Depending on the group, the person presenting the argument was described to the respondents either as a partial, impartial, or reluctant source, or the arguments were presented without a source. The following arguments were included in the survey: "Protection of employees against dismissal should be decreased in companies with less than 20 employees, because it would reduce the economic risks of these companies", "More wind plants must be built because increasing the use of renewable energy sources is an effective way to curb climate change", "The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels because low income disparities increase everybody's well-being", and "The number of shooting licenses for wolves should be increased, because it would strengthen the sense of security of the people living near areas with a high number of wolves". The sources of the arguments included, for example, owners and employees of different-sized companies, people living close to wind farms, people with low, medium, or high incomes, and people living close to a wolf pack or members of a wildlife conservation NGO. The respondents were asked to evaluate the credibility of the argument, the expertise and trustworthiness of the argument's source, and the level of interest the argument's source would show towards the argument topic.

Finally, the respondents' own opinions on the topics of the arguments were surveyed. A number of items from the Big Five Inventory (John et al.) and a test of Machiavellianism were also presented to the respondents. Additionally, the respondents' political party preference, left-right political self-placement, interest in societal issues, and trust in other people and institutions were examined.

Background variables included the respondent's gender, age, mother tongue, region of residence, level of education, and household income.

Keywords

attitudes; evaluation; personality; politics; trust

Topic Classification

• Social sciences (Fields of Science Classification)
• Political behaviour and attitudes (CESSDA Topic Classification)
• Social behaviour and attitudes (CESSDA Topic Classification)

Series

Decision-Making Laboratory Experiments and Surveys

Distributor

Finnish Social Science Data Archive

Access

The dataset is (A) openly available for all users without registration (CC BY 4.0).

Data Collector

• Bilendi

Time Period Covered

2018

Collection Dates

2018-05-01 – 2018-06-30

Nation

Finland

Geographical Coverage

Finland

Analysis/Observation Unit Type

Individual

Event/Process/Activity

Universe

People aged over 18 living in mainland Finland

Time Method

Cross-section

Sampling Procedure

Mixed probability and non-probability

The Bilendi respondent panel contains approximately 80,000 people living in Finland. A random sample was first drawn by Bilendi from among the panel members, after which a representative sample was formed based on age, gender, and region of residence.

Collection Mode

Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based (CAWI)

Research Instrument

Structured questionnaire

Data File Language

Downloaded data package may contain different language versions of the same files.

The data files of this dataset are available in the following languages: Finnish.

FSD translates quantitative data into English on request, free of charge. More information on ordering data translation.

Data Version

1.0

Related Datasets

FSD3692 Deliberative Mini-Public on the Satakunta 2050 Regional Plan

Completeness of Data and Restrictions

To prevent identification of respondents, the open-ended option "other, please specify" was removed from the variable denoting the respondent's mother tongue. Additionally, a new variable denoting the respondent's NUTS3 region of residence was created based on the removed postal code variable.

Weighting

There are no weight variables in the data.

Citation Requirement

The data and its creators shall be cited in all publications and presentations for which the data have been used. The bibliographic citation may be in the form suggested by the archive or in the form required by the publication.

Bibliographical Citation

Herne, Kaisa (Tampere University) & Kestilä-Kekkonen, Elina (Tampere University) & Mattinen, Laura (Tampere University) & Sipinen, Josefina (Tampere University): Argument Quality Evaluation Study 2018 [dataset]. Data version 1.0 (2022-01-20). Finnish Social Science Data Archive [distributor]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd3587; URN: https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD3587

Deposit Requirement

Notify FSD of all publications where you have used the data by sending the citation information to user-services.fsd@tuni.fi.

Disclaimer

The original data creators and the archive bear no responsibility for any results or interpretations arising from the reuse of the data.

FSD has not been informed of any publications related to the data.