Group Argument

This article reviews and assesses the structuration program of research on group argument that has evolved over more than two decades. The authors first position group argument research in relationship to argument studies across many disciplines and especially at the intersection of three research traditions in communication. Acknowledging structuration theory foundations, the authors explicate their conceptualization of argument and explain the theoretical foundations of their approach. They next describe the methods that have been used to analyze group argument, including participants, data collection procedures, coding scheme and process, and contexts that have been employed in past investigations. They also survey the findings of this research program and how they have enhanced understanding of argument processes in groups and group argument—outcome linkages. The authors then offer a critique of the program, including challenges and unanswered questions. They note projects currently under way and conclude by identifying opportunities for interdisciplinary research on group argument.

[1]  Dennis S. Gouran.  Variables related to consensus in group discussions of questions of policy , 1969 .

[2]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[3]  P. H. Bradley,et al.  Dissent in Small Groups. , 1976 .

[4]  Timothy A. Hill.  An experimental study of the relationship between opinionated leadership and small group consensus , 1976 .

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

[6]  A. Giddens.  Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis , 1979 .

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

[8]  M. Scott Poole,et al.  The Valence Model Unveiled: Critique and Alternative Formulation , 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]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making , 1983 .

[11]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[12]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Coding social interaction , 1984 .

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

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

[15]  23 Interactional and Non-Interactional Perspectives on Interpersonal Argument: Implications for the Study of Group Decision-Making , 1987 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[23]  Chapter 36. Argument in Satisfied and Dissatisfied Married Couples , 1992 .

[24]  Charles Pavitt.  Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions , 1993 .

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

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

[27]  Harry Weger,et al.  Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analyses of Episode-Specific Effects of Argument Structures. , 1995 .

[28]  Franziska Tschan,et al.  Communication Enhances Small Group Performance if it Conforms to Task Requirements: The Concept of Ideal Communication Cycles , 1995 .

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

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

[31]  Lawrence R. Frey,et al.  Remembering and “Re-Membering”: A History of Theory and Research on Communication and Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[32]  Dean E. Hewes.  Small Group Communication May Not Influence Decision Making: An Amplification of Socio-Egocentric Theory , 1996 .

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

[34]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions , 1997 .

[35]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link , 1998 .

[36]  D. Seibold,et al.  Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication injury decision making , 1998 .

[37]  K. Trigwell,et al.  Understanding Learning and Teaching: the experience in higher education , 1999 .

[38]  R. Fisch,et al.  Argumentation and Emotional Processes in Group Decision-Making: Illustration of a Multilevel Interaction Process Analysis Approach , 2000 .

[39]  Diane M. Badzinski,et al.  An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision‐making process , 2000 .

[40]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Majority‐minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument‐outcome links , 2000 .

[41]  D. Ellis,et al.  Cross-cultural argument interactions between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians , 2002 .

[42]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  8 Rethinking Traditional Approaches to Argument in Groups , 2002 .

[43]  J. Cappella,et al.  Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion? , 2002 .

[44]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Argument and Decision Making in Computer‐Mediated Groups , 2004 .

[45]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Small Groups , 2004 .

[46]  Lawrence R. Frey,et al.  The Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective of Group Life , 2005 .

[47]  Lawrence R. Frey,et al.  9 The Communication Perspective on Group Life , 2005 .

[48]  Jane Sell,et al.  Conflict, power, and status in groups , 2005 .

[49]  Communication as Structuring , 2006 .