, 23:21

Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments



Since argument frames precede most other arguing processes, argument editing among them, one’s frames may well predict one’s preferred editorial standards. This experiment assesses people’s arguing frames, gives them arguments to edit, and tests whether the frames actually do predict editorial preferences. Modest relationships between argument frames and argument editing appear. Other connections among frames, editing, and additional individual differences variables are more substantial. Particularly notable are the informative influences of psychological reactance. A new theoretical contribution is offered, connecting argument frame research to Erving Goffman’s frame analysis.


Argument frames Argument editing Argumentativeness Frame analysis Gender Goffman Reactance Verbal aggressiveness 


  1. Bateson, G. 1987. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an ecology of mind, ed. N.J. Northvale and J. Aronson, 177–193. Chapter originally published, 1955.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S.L. 1974a. The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit, P.J. 1982. The naïve social actor’s concept of argument. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  4. Brehm, J.W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burgoon, M., E. Alvaro, J. Grandpre, and M. Voulodakis. 2002. Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In The Persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice, ed. J.P. Dillard and M. Pfau, 213–232, Ch. 12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Dowd, E.T., C.R. Milne, and S.L. Wise. 1991. The therapeutic reactance scale: a measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development 69: 541–545.Google Scholar
  7. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hample, D. 2003. Arguing skill. In Handbook of communication and social interaction skill, ed. J.O. Greene and B.R. Burleson, 439–478, Ch. 11. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Hample, D. 2005a. Arguing: exchanging reasons face-to-face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Hample, D. 2005b. Argument frames: an initial investigation into operationalizations. In Critical problems in argumentation, ed. C.A. Willard, 568–576. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  11. Hample, D. 2006. Argument production. In Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: views from the Venice argumentation conference, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, M.D. Hazen, P. Houtlosser and D.C. Williams, 9–22. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  12. Hample, D., and P.J. Benoit. 1999. Must arguments be explicit and violent: a study of naive social actors’ understandings. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard, 306–310. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Google Scholar
  13. Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1990. Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4: 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1992. The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 109–122.Google Scholar
  15. Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 2002. Argument framing and gender orientation. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  16. Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  17. Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: an interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, A.J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: a comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports 15: 99–112.Google Scholar
  20. Levine, T.R., M.J. Beatty, S. Simon, M.A. Hamilton, R. Buck, and R.M. Chory-Assad. 2004. The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs 71: 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, R.W., and D.R. Scheerhorn. 1985. What are conversational arguments? Toward a natural language user’s perspective. In Argument and social practice, ed. J.R. Cox, M.O. Sillars and G.B. Walker, 705–722. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  22. Rancer, A.S., and T.A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and aggressive communication: theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Seemann, E.A., W.C. Buboltz, A. Thomas, B. Soper, and L. Wilkinson. 2005. Normal personality variables and their relationship to psychological reactance. Individual Differences Research 3: 88–98.Google Scholar
  24. Seibel, C.A., and E.T. Dowd. 2001. Personality characteristics associated with psychological reactance. Journal of Clinical Psychology 57: 963–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Western Illinois UniversityMacombUSA

Personalised recommendations