Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link

For this research, we extended previous descriptive studies of group argument by (a) positing a theoretical process model of group argument and (b) investigating the predictive nature of argument ingroups. Following development of the group argument process model, we employed two frameworks—the Group Valence Model and two versions of the Distribution of Valence Model—to study the argument‐outcome link. We expanded all three models to include proportional, as well as dichotomous, variables. The results revealed that all models were fairly accurate predictors: however, in cases in which the models differed in prediction, the DVM Rank Sum model was more accurate. All the argument acts investigated were fairly accurate predictors of group outcomes, except for disagreement‐relevant intrusions. Interpretations of these findings are offered, and avenues for future research are suggested.

[1]  Renee A. Meyers,et al.  Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence , 1989 .

[2]  C. Nemeth,et al.  CREATING THE PERCEPTIONS OF CONSISTENCY AND CONFIDENCE. A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR MINORITY INFLUENCE , 1974 .

[3]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Plausible argument in everyday conversation , 1992 .

[4]  Edward J. Murray,et al.  A content-analysis method for studying psychotherapy. , 1956 .

[5]  L. R. Hoffman,et al.  Individual and Group in Group Problem Solving The Valence Model Redressed , 1994 .

[6]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Developmental Processes in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[7]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , 1997 .

[8]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples , 1992 .

[9]  Dennis S. Gouran.  Exploiting the Predictive Potential of Structuration Theory , 1990 .

[10]  S. Jacobs.  Speech acts and arguments , 1989 .

[11]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Sex differences and group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation , 1997 .

[12]  Renee A. Meyers,et al.  Persuasive arguments theory: a test of assumptions , 1989 .

[13]  J. H. Davis.  Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[14]  Harry Weger,et al.  Couples' argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics , 1991 .

[15]  Renee A. Meyers,et al.  Subgroup Influence in Decision-Making Groups , 1995 .

[16]  D. Seibold,et al.  Perspectives on Group Argument: A Critical Review of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an Alternative Structurational View , 1990 .

[17]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  A critical analysis of factors related to decisional processes involved in the challenger disaster , 1986 .

[18]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis , 1991 .

[19]  Robert D. McPhee,et al.  Group decision‐making as a structurational process , 1985 .

[20]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence , 1983 .

[21]  E. Madden,et al.  Causal powers: A theory of natural necessity , 1975 .

[22]  Sally Jackson,et al.  Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation. , 1981 .

[23]  D. O’Keefe.  Two Concepts of Argument. , 1977 .

[24]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument structures in decision‐making groups , 1987 .

[25]  Explaining Choice Shift: A Comparison of Competing Effects-Coded Models , 1986 .

[26]  Linda L. Putnam.  The Evolution of Case Arguments in Teachers' Bargaining. , 1986 .

[27]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  The structuration of group decisions. , 1996 .

[28]  J. Fleiss.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[29]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[30]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

[31]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions , 1982 .

[32]  M. Mayer,et al.  Explaining choice shift: An effects coded model , 1985 .

[33]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[34]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective , 1992 .

[35]  Barry O'Neill,et al.  The Group problem solving process : studies of a valence model , 1982 .

[36]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of Nightline , 1990 .

[37]  Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analyses of Episode-Specific Effects of Argument Structures. , 1995 .

[38]  Dale Hample.  The cognitive context of argument , 1981 .

[39]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. , 1969, Sociometry.

[40]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Introduction: Communication and Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[41]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Explaining Development and Change in Organizations , 1995 .

[42]  M. Wallach,et al.  Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality , 1965 .

[43]  Response to Hoffman and Kleinman , 1994 .

[44]  John D. Hatfield,et al.  The Comparative Utility of Three Types of Behavioral Units for Interaction Analysis. , 1978 .

[45]  S. Jackson,et al.  Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse , 1993 .

[46]  Lawrence R. Frey,et al.  Effects of reactions to arguments on group outcome: The case of group polarization , 1983 .

[47]  The Role of Disagreement in Interactional Argument. , 1986 .

[48]  R. Harré,et al.  The explanation of social behaviour , 1973 .

[49]  H. Tsoukas.  The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations , 1989 .

[50]  Michael Billig,et al.  Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology , 1987 .

[51]  M. Scott Poole,et al.  The Valence Model Unveiled: Critique and Alternative Formulation , 1981 .

[52]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Communication and influence in group decision making. , 1996 .

[53]  Andrew S. Rancer,et al.  A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. , 1982, Journal of personality assessment.

[54]  Robert Trapp,et al.  A Model of Serial Argument in Interpersonal Relationships. , 1985 .

[55]  F. Auld,et al.  Rules for Dividing Interviews Into Sentences , 1956 .

[56]  Dennis S. Gouran.  Communicative influences on decisions related to the watergate coverup: The failure of collective judgment , 1984 .

[57]  Robert Trapp.  Special Report on Argumentation: Introduction. , 1981 .