Naive Theories of Argument: Avoiding Interpersonal Arguments or Cutting Them Short

Participants kept diaries of arguments that were avoided or cut short, and what tactics were used. We determined if the diarist thought the argument was explicit, if it was destructive, and how the diarist felt about it. We explored whether certain tactics are mostly used for avoidance or for cuttin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Argumentation and Advocacy 1999, Vol.35 (3), p.130-139
Main Authors: Hample, Dale, Benoit, Pamela J., Houston, Josh, Purifoy, Gloria, VanHyfte, Vanessa, Wardwell, Cy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Communication Research
Conflict Resolution
Conversation
Debates
Debates and debating
Discussion
Forensics (Public speaking)
Higher Education
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal relations
Interpersonal Relationship
Problem Solving
Quarreling
Reasoning
Undergraduate Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Participants kept diaries of arguments that were avoided or cut short, and what tactics were used. We determined if the diarist thought the argument was explicit, if it was destructive, and how the diarist felt about it. We explored whether certain tactics are mostly used for avoidance or for cutting short. Explicitness and destructiveness of arguments are highly correlated (r = 80). This is problematic for an academic speciality that is committed to the idea that argumentation is an alternative to violence.
ISSN:0002-8533
1051-1431
1051-1431
2576-8476
DOI:10.1080/00028533.1999.11951627