Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode‐specific effects of argument structures

Abstract

Whereas the investigation of argument in public discourse has long held prominent status in the field of communication, research on argument in interpersonal settings has only recently emerged. This article concerns how argument structures (i.e., simple, complex, jointly enacted, and eroded) are related to perceptions of communicator competence, communication satisfaction, and attraction. Our theoretic assumptions portray argument as convergence‐seeking discourse that is reflected in minimally rational structures. Two studies triangulate on how communicators are evaluated. In Study 1, observations of couples' argument behaviors are correlated with measures of appropriateness, effectiveness, reasonableness, and communication satisfaction. Results reveal that, in terms of competence perceptions, people positively evaluate higher proportions of jointly constructed and complex arguments, whereas they negatively assess higher proportions of undeveloped points and eroded arguments. In Study 2, experimentally manipulated argument structures combine with topic importance to affect assessments of communicator competence and attraction. Communicator appropriateness is rated highest in dialogues involving simple arguments about unimportant issues, and communicator appropriateness was lowest in dialogues containing simple arguments about important issues, suggesting a scope condition for minimal rationality in everyday conversation. Main effects reveal that, overall, communicators using complex arguments are seen as more instrumentally effective than communicators using simple arguments.