Abstract
This study undertakes further testing of Hample's cognitive model of argument. Results of the concreteness manipulation are difficult to interpret. The model is more accurate for highly involved than for less involved subjects. The model performs at the usual levels of accuracy when the standard individual scores analyses are conducted. When group data are used, however, the model accounts for as much as 95% of the variance in adherence to argument claims. These results suggest that the model's validity is greater than previously indicated.

This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit: