Abstract

The manuscript offers a review and critique of the most popular techniques (the thought listing process; the recognition check-off procedure; the closed-ended question measures; and the mechanical testing measures) currently used to assess the concept of counterarguing in the cross-disciplinary literature of the social sciences. The advantages and drawbacks of each technique are summarized. Subsequently, recent empirical findings comparing the differential effectiveness of some of the above techniques in different domains are reviewed and discussed. Furthermore, empirical evidence is examined pertaining to the effectiveness and importance of using multi-technique strategies when attempting to capture the concept of counterarguing. Finally, implications are drawn and recommendations are proposed for how to more effectively measure the concept of counterarguing.