Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguers as editors

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

People use editorial criteria to decide whether to say or to suppress potential arguments. These criteria constitute people's standards as to what effective and appropriate arguments are like, and reflect general interaction goals. A series of empirical investigations has indicated that the standards fall into three classes: those having to do with argument effectiveness, those concerned with personal issues for arguer and target, and those centered on discourse quality. The essay also sketches the affinities certain types of people have for the different criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benoit, P. J. and W. L. Benoit: 1986, ‘Consciousness: The Mindlessness/Mindfulness and Verbal Report Controversies’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 50, 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, P. J. and W. L. Benoit: 1989, Accounts of Success and Failures in Arguments, presented to SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta, UT.

  • Benoit, P. J. and W. L. Benoit: 1990, ‘Aggravated and Mitigated Opening Utterances’, Argumentation 4, 171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boster, F. J.: 1985, ‘Argumentation, Interpersonal Communication, Persuasion, and the Process(es) of Compliance Gaining Message Use’, in J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, and G. B. Walker (eds.), Argument and Social Practice, Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, pp. 578–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christie, R. and F. L. Geis: 1970, Studies in Machiavellianism, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. A. and J. G. Delia: 1979, ‘Topoi and Rhetorical Competence’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 65, 187–206.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cody, M. J. and M. L. McLaughlin: 1985, ‘The Situation as a Construct in Interpersonal Communication Research’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 263–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crockett, W. H., A. N. Press, J. G. Delia, and C. J. Kenney: 1974, The Structural Analysis of the Organization of Written Impressions, unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. and D. Marlowe: 1964, The Approval Motive, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dallinger, J. M. and D. Hample: 1989a, Cognitive Editing of Arguments and Interpersonal Construct Differentiation, presented to ICA, San Francisco.

  • Dallinger, J. M. and D. Hample: 1989b, Biological and Psychological Gender Effects upon Cognitive Editing of Arguments, presented to SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta, UT.

  • Dillard, J. P., C. Segrin, and J. M. Harden: 1989, ‘Primary and Secondary Goals in the Production of Interpersonal Influence Messages’, Communication Monographs 56, 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. and H. A. Simon: 1984, Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. T. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudykunst, W. B., S.-M. Yank, and T. Nishida: 1987, ‘Cultural Differences in Self-consciousness and Self-monitoring’, Communication Research 14, 7–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.: 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. by T. McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D.: 1984a, ‘On the Use of Self-Reports’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 20, 140–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D.: 1984b, Roads Not Taken, Arguments Not Made, presented to CSSA, Chicago.

  • Hample, D.: 1985, ‘A Third Perspective on Argument’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 18, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D.: 1986, ‘Argumentation and the Unconscious’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 23, 82–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D.: 1988, ‘Argument: Public and Private, Social and Cognitive’, Argumentation and Advocacy 25, 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1985, ‘Unused Compliance Gaining Strategies’, in J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars and G. B. Walker (eds.), Argument and Social Practice, Annandale, VA.: Speech Communication Association, pp. 675–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1987a, ‘Cognitive Editing of Argument Strategies’, Human Communication Research 14, 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1987b, ‘Self-monitoring and the Cognitive Editing of Arguments’, Central States Speech Journal 38, 152–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1987c, ‘Argument Editing Choices and Argumentative Competence’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices, Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, pp. 455–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1987d, ‘The Judgment Phase of Invention’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, Dordrecht, Holland: Foris, pp. 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1987e, The Effects of Machiavellianism, Social Desirability, Gender, and Grade Point Average on Cognitive Editing of Arguments, presented to SCA, Boston.

  • Hample, D. and J. M. Dallinger: 1988, The Use of Multiple Goals in Cognitive Editing of Arguments, presented to Temple University Discourse Conference, Philadelphia.

  • Hample, D., J. M. Dallinger, and K. A. Myers: 1989, Marital Argument, presented to SCA, San Francisco.

  • Hunter, J. E., M. Hamilton, and M. Allen (in press), ‘The Design and Analysis of Language Experiments in Communications’, Communication Monographs.

  • Infante, D. A. and A. S. Rancer: 1982, ‘A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness’, Journal of Personality Assessment 46, 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infante, D. A. and C. J. Wigley: 1986, ‘Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure’, Communication Monographs 53, 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. D.: 1977, ‘Family Rules: Marital quid pro quo’, in P. Watzlawick and J. H. Weakland (eds.), The Interactional View, New York: Norton, pp. 21–31. Originally published in 1965: Archives of General Psychiatry 12, 589–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. and D. Backus: 1982, ‘Are Compliance-gaining Strategies Dependent on Situational Variables?’ Central States Speech Journal 33, 469–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1983, ‘Generalizing About Messages: Suggestions for Design and Analysis of Experiments’, Human Communication Research 9, 169–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., D. J. O'Keefe, S. Jacobs, and D. E. Brashers (in press), ‘Messages as Replications: Toward a Message-centered Design Strategy’, Communication Monographs.

  • Marwell, G. and D. R. Schmitt: 1967, ‘Dimensions of Compliance-gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis’, Sociometry 30, 350–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. L.: 1984, Conversation: How Talk Is Organized, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, B. J. and J. G. Delia: 1982, ‘Impression Formation and Message Production’, in M. E. Roloff and C. R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 33–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, B. J. and G. J. Shepherd: 1987, ‘The Pursuit of Multiple Objectives in Face-toface Persuasive Interaction: Effects of Construct Differentiation on Message Organization’, Communication Monographs 54, 396–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raush, H. L., W. A. Barry, R. K. Hertel, and M. A. Swain: 1974, Communication, Conflict and Marriage, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. J.: 1969, ‘The Conditions and Consequences of Evaluation Apprehension’, in R. Rosenthal and R. L. Rosnow (eds.), Aratifact in Behavioral Research, New York: Academic Press, pp. 279–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L. B.: 1979, ‘Self-disclosure Avoidance: Why I Am Afraid to Tell You Who I Am’, Communication Monographs 46, 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., R. L. Wiseman, and G. N. Georgacarackos: 1982, ‘A Model of Properties of Compliance-gaining Strategies’, Communication Quarterly 30, 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibold, D. R., J. G. Cantrill, and R. A. Meyers: 1985, ‘Communication and Interpersonal Influence’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 551–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M.: 1974, ‘Self-monitoring of Expressive Behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30, 526–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swap, W. C. and J. Z. Rubin: 1983, ‘Measurement of Interpersonal Orientation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 208–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, R.: 1986, The Concept of Argumentative Competence, paper presented to SCA, Chicago.

  • Wheeless, L. R., R. Barraclough, and R. Steweart: 1983, ‘Compliance-gaining and Power in Persuasion’, in R. Bostrom (ed.), Communication Yearbook 7, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 105–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeless, L. R. and V. E. Wheeless: 1981, ‘Attribution, Gender Orientation, and Reconceptualization, Measurement, and Research Results’, Communication Quarterly 30, 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Western Illinois University, 61455, Macomb, Illinois, USA

    Dale Hample & Judith M. Dallinger

Authors
  1. Dale Hample
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith M. Dallinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hample, D., Dallinger, J.M. Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4, 153–169 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175420

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175420

Key Words

Search

Navigation