Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 121–163 | Cite as

Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model

  • Ioana A. CioneaEmail author
  • Adam S. Richards
  • Sara K. Straub
Article
  • 324 Downloads

Abstract

This manuscript examines argument engagement in close relationships (friendships and romantic relationships). Two pilot studies were conducted to identify what factors naïve actors report matter to them when considering whether to engage in an interpersonal argument, and to develop and pre-test measurement scales for these factors. The main study examined which of these factors predicted participants’ behavioral intent to engage in an argument about different topics (personal or public) and with different partners (friend or romantic partner). Results indicated intent to engage was predicted by five factors: one’s orientation to the topic, one’s preparedness for an argument, the costs of arguing, the effort involved in arguing, and one’s right to speak one’s mind. Several of these factors are new contributions to argument engagement research. A discussion of these results and their implications are presented.

Keywords

Argument engagement Interpersonal arguments Decision to engage in arguments Costs and benefits of arguing 

References

  1. Benoit, P.J. 1982. The naïve social actor’s concept of argument. Louisville, KY: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, P.J., and W.E. Benoit. 1990. To argue or not to argue: How real people get into and out of interpersonal arguments. In Perspectives on argument: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. R. Trapp, and J. Schuetz, 55–72. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  3. Berinsky, A.J., G.A. Huber, and G.S. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20: 351–368. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, H.R., and G. Ryan. 1998. Text analysis: Qualitative and quantitative methods. In Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, ed. H.R. Bernard, 595–645. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. Brockriede, W. 1974. Where is argument? In Perspectives on argument: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. R. Trapp, and J. Schuetz, 4–8. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. 2015. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Browne, M.W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing structural equation models, ed. K.A. Bollen, and J.S. Long, 136–162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S.D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cionea, I.A., Hample, D., and Paglieri, F. 2011. A test of the argument engagement model in Romania. In Argumentation: Cognition and community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), ed. F. Zenker May 18–21. Windsor, ON. [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
  11. Clark, H.H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, E.B. 1964. Generalizing to a language population. Psychological Reports 14: 219–226. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1964.14.1.219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, E.B., and G.R. Miller. 1974. The simplest experimental design that permits multiple generalization. Journal of Literacy Research 6: 31–40. doi: 10.1080/10862967409547075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeVellis, R.F. 2003. Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hample, D. 2005. Arguing: Exchange reasons face to face. Mawhah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1993. The effects of taking conflict personally on arguing behavior. In Argument and the postmodern challenge, ed. R.E. McKerrow, 235–238. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  17. Hample, D., J.M. Dallinger, and J. Fofana. 1995. Perceiving and predicting the tendency to personalize arguments. In Argumentation and values, ed. S. Jackson, 434–438. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  18. Hample, D., and A. Irions. 2015. Argument engagement under invitational versus demanding conditions. In Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation, ed. C.H. Palczewski, 149–154. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Hample, D., F. Paglieri, and L. Na. 2012. The costs and benefits of arguing: Predicting the decision whether to engage or not. In Topical themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 307–322. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, L., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, S. 1992. Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, A.J. 1999. Public-issue versus personal-issue arguments: Examining arguments concerning public issues in friendships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, A.J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports 15: 99–112. doi: 10.1080/08934210209367757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, A.J. 2009. A functional approach to interpersonal argument: Differences between public- and personal-issue arguments. Communication Reports 22: 13–28. doi: 10.1080/08934210902798528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jöreskog, K.G., and D. Sörbom. 2013. LISREL 9.10 [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  26. Kaiser, H.F. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kline, R.B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th ed. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, E. (2006). Vignettes and respondent debriefings for questionnaire design and evaluation. U. S. Bureau of Census research report series (Survey Methodology #2006-8). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rsm2006-08.pdf.
  29. Newell, S.E., and R.K. Stutman. 1983. Interpersonal disagreement: The study of social confrontation. In Argument in transition, ed. D. Zarefsky, M.O. Sillars, and J. Rhodes, 725–739. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  30. Newell, S.E., and R.K. Stutman. 1988. The social confrontation episode. Communication Monographs 55: 266–285. doi: 10.1080/03637758809376172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Keefe, D.J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.Google Scholar
  32. Paglieri, F. 2013. Choosing to argue: Towards a theory of argumentative decisions. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 153–163. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paglieri, F., and C. Castelfranchi. 2010. Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation 1: 71–91. doi: 10.1080/19462160903494584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rancer, A., R. Baukus, and D. Infante. 1985. Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education 34: 37–47. doi: 10.1080/03634528509378581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richards, A.S., and I.A. Cionea. 2015. Extending the argument engagement model: Expected utility and interacting traits as predictors of the intent to argue with friends. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4: 110–133. doi: 10.1075/jaic.4.1.06ric.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  37. Willard, C.A. 1989. A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  38. Witteman, H. 1992. Analyzing interpersonal conflict: Nature of awareness, type of initiating event, and management style. Western Journal of Communication 56: 248–280. doi: 10.1080/10570319209374416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioana A. Cionea
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adam S. Richards
    • 2
  • Sara K. Straub
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations