Arguing about others’ personal issues: a reconceptualization of argument type

Abstract

Extending the existing typology of interpersonal argument (i.e., public- and personal-issue argument), this manuscript focuses on a distinctive argument type: one that concerns others’ personal issues (i.e., OP arguments). OP arguments involve issues that have direct implications for other people’s personal relationships. We present a survey conducted to provide evidence for the existence of OP arguments, as well as how argument type affects people’s beliefs related to arguing from the perspective of the new conceptualization. The results have shown that OP arguments came across as more enjoyable than personal-issue arguments, but less so than public-issue ones. The participants also indicated that OP and public-issue arguments yielded similar level of pragmatic outcomes. OP and public-issue arguments were reported to be similarly ego-involving, but less so than personal-issue arguments. After having OP and personal-issue arguments, the participants indicated not having as many positive thoughts and feelings about themselves as they did after public-issue arguments.

Keywords:

• Argument
• argument type
• argument beliefs

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Yiwen Dai is a Ph.D. candidate in Communication at University of Maryland. Her research interests include various topics in interpersonal communication, such as interpersonal argumentation, commitment, and relational boredom.

Mengqi Zhan is an Assistant Professor of communication studies at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research interests include interpersonal communication in the workplace.