Personality traits and affective argumentation style as factors in perceived argument strength in natural conditions of competitive debating. The role of psychological matching of speaker and listener. A pilot study.

In this pilot study, we investigate whether there exists a relationship between affective argumentation style and Big Five personality traits in the context of perceived persuasive strength, and whether the psychological matching of speaker and listener affects the evaluation of argument strength. The study took the form of a structured natural experiment, conducted during a summer school for students of the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Adam Mickiewicz University. The aim of the summer school was to provide an opportunity to practice persuasive skills through competitive debates, based on the British Parliamentary format. The NEO-FFI personality test was used to diagnose Costa and McCrae's Big Five traits, and Zhao et al.'s Perceived Argument Strength scale was used for evaluation of the strength of arguments. Transcripts of the debates were subjected to sentiment analysis, in which the speaker's specific argumentation style was identified. The results suggest that the key insight does not lie simply in the absence of statistically significant linear matching effects, but in the substantial heterogeneity observed in persuasive behaviour and evaluation. This heterogeneity highlights the limitations of simplified matching models and points towards a more contextual, dynamic, and person-sensitive understanding of persuasion.