Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions

Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions The idea that different arguments have different stakes for the arguers is an explanatory resource med to interpret various findings, notably those involved with A. Johnson's program of research on public and personal argument topics. Although arguers' ego-involvement in their interactions has been studied, that is a limited summary of what sorts of importance an argument might have. This paper briefly explains the idea of “argument stakes,” and then moves on to what we believe is the first empirical description of it. We collected data from two samples, 290 undergraduates and 195 adult Mechanical Turk workers. We analyzed their self-descriptions of actual arguments and how these corresponded to their ratings of the argument's importance. We distinguished several potential kinds of importance, including instrumental and relationship issues. We also collected people's reports about their goals, tactics, and understandings of the arguments. The project successfully generated usable measurement procedures and produced an interesting initial sketch of how ordinary actors think about the stakes involved in their own arguments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions

Hample, Dale; Dai, Yiwen; Zhan, Mengqi
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 52 (3): 15 – Jan 1, 2016
Download PDF

Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions

Abstract

The idea that different arguments have different stakes for the arguers is an explanatory resource med to interpret various findings, notably those involved with A. Johnson's program of research on public and personal argument topics. Although arguers' ego-involvement in their interactions has been studied, that is a limited summary of what sorts of importance an argument might have. This paper briefly explains the idea of “argument stakes,” and then moves on to what we...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/argument-stakes-preliminary-conceptualizations-and-empirical-UQ6m15Z30l
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2016 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2016.11821870
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The idea that different arguments have different stakes for the arguers is an explanatory resource med to interpret various findings, notably those involved with A. Johnson's program of research on public and personal argument topics. Although arguers' ego-involvement in their interactions has been studied, that is a limited summary of what sorts of importance an argument might have. This paper briefly explains the idea of “argument stakes,” and then moves on to what we believe is the first empirical description of it. We collected data from two samples, 290 undergraduates and 195 adult Mechanical Turk workers. We analyzed their self-descriptions of actual arguments and how these corresponded to their ratings of the argument's importance. We distinguished several potential kinds of importance, including instrumental and relationship issues. We also collected people's reports about their goals, tactics, and understandings of the arguments. The project successfully generated usable measurement procedures and produced an interesting initial sketch of how ordinary actors think about the stakes involved in their own arguments.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 2016

Keywords: argument stakes; ego-involvement; goals; interpersonal arguing

References

  • Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties
  • Children's responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions
  • Demand/withdraw patterns in marital relationships: An individual differences perspective
  • A test of the argument engagement model in Romania
  • Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages
  • Emotional messages
  • Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
  • Arguing skill
  • A theory of interpersonal goals and situations
  • The aggressiveness of playful arguments
  • Argument engagement under invitational versus demanding conditions
  • Arguing to display identity
  • The costs and benefits of arguing: Predicting the decision whether to engage or not
  • Attachment style, serial argument, and taking conflict personally
  • Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public-issue and personal-issue arguments
  • Understanding argumentation in interpersonal communication: The implications of distinguishing between public and personal topics
  • Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis
  • Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk
  • Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentation theory
  • Ruinous arguments: Escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing
  • Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing
  • Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management
  • Extending the argument engagement model: Expected utility and interacting traits as predictors of the intention to argue with friends
  • Toward a theoretical account of goal characteristics in micro-level message features
  • Pragma-dialectical theory and interpersonal interaction outcomes: Unproductive interpersonal behavior as violations of rules for critical discussion
  • Conversational argument in close relationships: A case for studying argument sequences