Argument diagramming is the process of spatially representing an argument by its component parts and their relationships. A growing body of evidence supports the use of argument diagramming to aid student learning and writing within disciplines including science education. However, most of these studies have focused on basic contrasts between diagramming and no diagramming. The purpose of this study was to learn how different diagramming frameworks affect the benefits afforded by argument diagramming. Three groups of undergraduate students in psychology research methods lab courses were given either no diagramming support, support with a domain-general framework, or support with a domain-specific framework to help them write a research paper introduction. Students given any diagramming support included more relevant citations and considered opposing citations in their papers. Students using the domain-specific framework wrote more about the scientific validity of cited studies than the other two groups, whereas students using the domain-general framework trended towards included more supporting citations.