All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Type of argument as a situational constraint
Unformatted Document Text:  Argumentativeness 3 different implications for these two types of arguments? These two types will be defined and discussed in the next section. Definitions of Public Issue and Personal Issue Arguments When considering the term argument, two meanings have been examined in the literature (O’Keefe, 1977). One may advance an argument. This involves the actions of one individual and is designed by O’Keefe as argument 1 . In addition, one may have an argument with another person. An interaction involving a disagreement is perceived as an integral component of interpersonal argument (Benoit & Cahn, 1994). This type of argument is designed by O’Keefe (1977) as argument 2 . Two types of interpersonal arguments (argument 2 s) have previously been distinguished, disagreements over behaviors and disagreements over ideas (Newell & Stutman, 1988). However, Newell and Stutman only focused on disagreements about behaviors in their research concerning social confrontation. Author (2000) extended Newell and Stutman’s (1988) differentiation of disagreements by defining public issue and personal issue arguments. Public issue arguments do not focus on factors within the particular interpersonal relationship. Rather, the focus is on concerns outside of the relationship that do not have as many direct implications for the behavior within the arguing interpersonal dyad. The term “public” refers to what individuals argue about and is not utilized in the sense of the setting in which they argue or with whom they argue. The argument can have implications for behavior—e.g., for whom one should vote in an election—but these implications are not as closely tied to the day-to-day functioning of the individuals within that particular dyad. Krause (1972) claims that an argument “focused on resolving a difference of opinion is a kind of serious ‘game’ of interpersonal conflict” (p. 269). Newell and Stutman (1988) claim that disagreements over ideas can be “pursued just for the fun

Authors: Johnson, Amy.
first   previous   Page 3 of 24   next   last



background image
Argumentativeness 3
different implications for these two types of arguments? These two types will be defined and
discussed in the next section.
Definitions of Public Issue and Personal Issue Arguments
When considering the term argument, two meanings have been examined in the literature
(O’Keefe, 1977). One may advance an argument. This involves the actions of one individual and
is designed by O’Keefe as argument
1
. In addition, one may have an argument with another
person. An interaction involving a disagreement is perceived as an integral component of
interpersonal argument (Benoit & Cahn, 1994). This type of argument is designed by O’Keefe
(1977) as argument
2
.
Two types of interpersonal arguments (argument
2
s) have previously been distinguished,
disagreements over behaviors and disagreements over ideas (Newell & Stutman, 1988).
However, Newell and Stutman only focused on disagreements about behaviors in their research
concerning social confrontation. Author (2000) extended Newell and Stutman’s (1988)
differentiation of disagreements by defining public issue and personal issue arguments. Public
issue arguments do not focus on factors within the particular interpersonal relationship. Rather,
the focus is on concerns outside of the relationship that do not have as many direct implications
for the behavior within the arguing interpersonal dyad. The term “public” refers to what
individuals argue about and is not utilized in the sense of the setting in which they argue or with
whom they argue. The argument can have implications for behavior—e.g., for whom one should
vote in an election—but these implications are not as closely tied to the day-to-day functioning
of the individuals within that particular dyad. Krause (1972) claims that an argument “focused on
resolving a difference of opinion is a kind of serious ‘game’ of interpersonal conflict” (p. 269).
Newell and Stutman (1988) claim that disagreements over ideas can be “pursued just for the fun


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.