Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 4, Issue 1, 2015

The present study addresses the issue of how the differences in age and roles with their parents can affect the children’s choice of the argumentative strategies they adopt in their discussions. The findings show that when children refer to a third person as a source of expert opinion, the expert always proves to be an adult, and not another child. Looking at this argumentative choice typically made by children, it is reasonable to assume that for them the reference to an opinion of an adult is a stronger argument than the reference to an opinion of another child. However, the actual effectiveness of the argument from adult-expert opinion depends on the extent to which the premises (endoxa) the argument is based on are shared by parents and children.

When individuals cannot resolve a disagreement in a single episode, the argument is likely to reoccur over time resulting in a serial argument. Prior research on serial arguing has shown that engaging in hostile communication during episodes and taking a resigned stance after episodes is detrimental to one’s physical health. This study investigates the mechanisms by which hostile communication and taking a resigned stance lead to negative outcomes in a sample of emerging adults. Mutual hostility is related to physical and mental health symptoms and this relationship is mediated by the degree to which the participants feel hyperaroused. Taking a resigned stance toward a serial argument with one’s parent is related to health symptoms and this relationship is mediated by the participants’ rumination after argumentative episodes.

Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.

Serial argument theory explains recurring conflict within personal relationships. The theory specifies that an arguer’s goals influence his/her tactics, leading to argument outcomes which include effects on the relationship. We extend this model in two ways. First we suggest that attachment styles predict serial argument goals. Second, we hypothesize that taking conflict personally (TCP) is an outcome of such arguments. University students (N = 682) completed a cross-sectional survey about their attachment styles and felt personalization regarding a serial argument they experienced. A structural equation model tested relationships between attachment styles, goals, tactics, outcomes, and TCP. Results indicated that attachment styles predict goals of serial arguing and serial argument outcomes predict TCP. The study shows that attachment styles have modest but statistically significant effects on goals of serial arguing in close relationships and that the tactics used in serial arguing predict the degree to which people take recurring conflict personally.

The uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.

This investigation considers the factors that predict the intent to engage in interpersonal arguments. By adapting the argument engagement model (Hample, Paglieri, and Na 2012), a subjective expected utility model was tested to determine the effects of (1) evaluative assessments, in addition to probabilistic assessments, and (2) probabilistic assessment-trait interactions on argument engagement. Participants (N = 273) read three argument vignettes and answered questions about their intent to argue in each situation. Results were mixed regarding the significance of expected values and situation-trait interactions in predicting intentions to argue. Participants overwhelmingly reported an optimism bias, whereby they tended to perceive positive outcomes of argument as likely and negative outcomes of argument as unlikely. Possible reasons for these findings and their implications are discussed.