Individual Differences in Cognitive Editing Standards

This study is aimed at understanding how people edit their own arguments prior to uttering them (Hample, 1984; Hample & Dallinger, 1985a, 1985b). The main categories of editorial criteria are effectiveness, principled objection to type of argument, person-centered issues, and discourse competence standards. Our main purpose here is to begin an account of what sort of person prefers which criteria. Argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), verbal aggression (Infante & Wigley, 1986), interpersonal orientation (Swap & Rubin, 1983), and respondent gender are associated with use of editorial criteria. Results point to two different approaches to editing one's own arguments. The task orientation focuses on effectiveness, and is taken by males, and by people high in verbal aggressiveness and low in interpersonal orientation. The relational orientation is taken by females, and by people low in verbal aggressiveness and high in argument avoidance and interpersonal orientation. Justification for using multiple arguments to instantiate each type of argument, and for using multiple situations was also found.

[1]  W. Swap,et al.  Measurement of interpersonal orientation. , 1983 .

[2]  J. Hunter,et al.  A model of compliance‐gaining message selection , 1987 .

[3]  W. Ong,et al.  Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue , 1958 .

[4]  D. Kipnis,et al.  Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's Way , 1980 .

[5]  D. Infante,et al.  Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure , 1986 .

[6]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Interpersonal orientation and speech behavior , 1987 .

[7]  L. Offermann,et al.  Social Influence Strategies , 1985 .

[8]  T. Falbo Relationships Between Sex, Sex Role, and Social Influence , 1977 .

[9]  D. Infante The Argumentative Student in the Speech Communication Classroom: An Investigation and Implications. , 1982 .

[10]  M. Snyder Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. , 1974 .

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

[12]  D. Infante Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in situations requiring argument , 1981 .

[13]  D. Infante,et al.  The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression , 1984 .

[14]  G. Marwell,et al.  Dimensions of Compliance-Gaining Behavior: An Empirical Analysis , 1967 .

[15]  James Price Dillard,et al.  Situational influences on the selection of compliance‐gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody‐McLaughlin typology , 1985 .

[16]  S. Jackson,et al.  Are Compliance-Gaining Strategies Dependent on Situational Variables?. , 1982 .

[17]  W. Mischel Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. , 1973, Psychological review.