  The empirical validation of models remains one of the most important
challenges in opinion dynamics. In this contribution, we report on recent
developments on combining data from survey experiments with computational
models of opinion formation. We extend previous work on the empirical
assessment of an argument-based model for opinion dynamics in which biased
processing is the principle mechanism. While previous work (Banisch & Shamon,
in press) has focused on calibrating the micro mechanism with experimental data
on argument-induced opinion change, this paper concentrates on the macro level
using the empirical data gathered in the survey experiment. For this purpose,
the argument model is extended by an external source of balanced information
which allows to control for the impact of peer influence processes relative to
other noisy processes. We show that surveyed opinion distributions are matched
with a high level of accuracy in a specific region in the parameter space,
indicating an equal impact of social influence and external noise. More
importantly, the estimated strength of biased processing given the macro data
is compatible with those values that achieve high likelihood at the micro
level. The main contribution of the paper is hence to show that the extended
argument-based model provides a solid bridge from the micro processes of
argument-induced attitude change to macro level opinion distributions. Beyond
that, we review the development of argument-based models and present a new
method for the automated classification of model outcomes.
