Framing Flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net

The purpose of this study was to assess the use, in computer-mediated communication, of the strategic message structuring tactic known as framing. Interlocutors in computer-mediated environments have software supported systemic resources facilitative of constructing messages using framing tactics in their argumentative discourse. It is hypothesized that framing strategies are related to the emotional tenor of a disputant's message and that a speaker's emotional involvement with an issue should be curvilinearly related to the appropriation of framing as an argumentative discourse strategy. Results from the analysis of 3000 messages, obtained from a diverse sampling of computer-mediated discussion groups and forums, provided support for the primary hypothesized relationship. A speaker's emotional involvement was significantly and curvilinearly related to two message framing devices (message dependency and coalition building) and a measure of conciliatory face-saving moves.

[1]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[2]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  How Do You Get a Hundred Strangers to Agree: Computer mediated communication and collaboration , 1996 .

[3]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[4]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[5]  S. Kraemer.  Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[6]  P. Brown,et al.  Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena , 1978 .

[7]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[8]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  T. Govier.  A practical study of argument , 1985 .

[11]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Testing Claims for On-Line Conferences , 1991 .

[12]  T. Holtgraves,et al.  Language structure in social interaction: perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[14]  Dale J. Prediger,et al.  Coefficient Kappa: Some Uses, Misuses, and Alternatives , 1981 .

[15]  M. Spitzer,et al.  Writing style in computer conferences , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[16]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[17]  Ivan Leudar,et al.  Explaining in conversation: towards an argument model. , 1992 .