nach oben

Argumentation

Erschienen in:

01.03.2009

Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments

verfasst von: Dale Hample, Ben Warner, Dorian Young

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 1/2009

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Interpreting Perelman’s Universal Audience: Gross versus Crosswhite

Nächster Artikel Cogency in Motion: Critical Contextualism and Relevance

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

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.

Bem, S.L. 1974a. The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155–162.CrossRef

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.

Brehm, J.W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

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.

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.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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.

Hample, D. 2005a. Arguing: exchanging reasons face-to-face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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.

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.

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.

Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1990. Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4: 153–169.CrossRef

Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1992. The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 109–122.

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.

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.

Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80.CrossRef

Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: an interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69.CrossRef

Johnson, A.J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: a comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports 15: 99–112.

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.CrossRef

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.

Rancer, A.S., and T.A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and aggressive communication: theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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.

Seibel, C.A., and E.T. Dowd. 2001. Personality characteristics associated with psychological reactance. Journal of Clinical Psychology 57: 963–969.CrossRef

Titel: Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments
verfasst von: Dale Hample
Ben Warner
Dorian Young
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2009
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Argumentation / Ausgabe 1/2009
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9107-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2009

Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions

Douglas Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation

Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation

Controversies on, in, Around, and About the Subject

Dissuasion as a Rhetorical Technique of Creating a General Disposition to Inaction

Cogency in Motion: Critical Contextualism and Relevance

Premium Partner