Argument structures in decision‐making groups

Within the context of a continuing research program on argument and group decision‐making, this study reports refinements in an existing coding scheme of interpersonal argument, and an analysis of argument structures in consensus and dissensus groups. Four argument structures were identified: simple, compound, eroded, and convergent. In addition, consensus groups had a greater proportion of convergent arguments than did dissensus groups. Discussion focuses on future directions for interpersonal and small‐group argument research.

[1]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making , 1983 .

[2]  David W. Wright,et al.  Small group communication research of the 1970's: A synthesis and critique , 1980 .

[3]  M. E. Shaw.  Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[4]  S. Jackson,et al.  Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme , 1980 .

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

[6]  23 Interactional and Non-Interactional Perspectives on Interpersonal Argument: Implications for the Study of Group Decision-Making , 1987 .

[7]  Jim Schenkein.  Studies in the organization of conversational interaction , 1978 .

[8]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 3rd ed. , 1981 .

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

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

[11]  Ernest G. Bormann,et al.  Discussion and group methods : theory and practice , 1968 .

[12]  David Zarefsky,et al.  Argument in transition : proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation , 1983 .

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

[14]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision‐making discussions , 1978 .

[15]  Gilbert Shapiro,et al.  Toward the Integration of Content Analysis and General Methodology , 1975 .

[16]  M. Booth-Butterfield,et al.  The function of uncertainty reduction in alleviating primary tension in small groups , 1988 .

[17]  M. S. Poole,et al.  Communication and Group Decision-Making , 1986 .

[18]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  chapter 6 – Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: UNEXPANDED AND EXPANDED VERSIONS OF PROJECTED ACTION SEQUENCES* , 1978 .

[19]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: Unexpanded and Expanded Versions of Projected Action Sequences , 1977 .

[20]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[21]  K. Bailey.  Methods of Social Research , 1978 .

[22]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  An analysis of distributional and sequential structure in problem‐solving and informal group discussions , 1972 .

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