Unexpected Arguments

References

• Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 29–48. doi:10.1177/0265407584011003
   Google Scholar
• Cionea, I. A., Piercy, C. W., & Carpenter, C. J. (2017). A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 438–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronen, V. E., Pearce, W. B., & Snavely, L. M. (1979). A theory of rule-structure and types of episodes and a study of perceived enmeshment in undesired repetitive patterns (“URPs”). Communication Yearbook, 3, 225–240. doi:10.1080/23808985.1979.11923763
   Google Scholar
• Dai, Y., & Zhan, M. (2016, November). Re-conceptualizing argument type: The utility of arguments about others’ personal issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, J. A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication: Issues and directions. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 13–41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (2005). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141–148. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. (2016). A theory of interpersonal goals and situations. Communication Research, 43, 344–371. doi:10.1177/0093650214565899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hample, D. (2018). Interpersonal arguing. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. (2010). Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 372–387). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., Dai, Y., & Zhan, M. (2016). Argument stakes: Preliminary conceptualizations and empirical descriptions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 199–213. doi:10.1080/00028533.2016.11821870
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., Dai, Y., Zhan, M., & Hample, J. M. (2018). Consequential unscripted interactions: A conceptual and empirical description. Western Journal of Communication, 82, 135–159. doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1372621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly, 43, 297–319. doi:10.1080/01463379509369978
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., & Irions, A. (2015). Arguing to display identity. Argumentation, 29, 389–416. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hample, D., Paglieri, F., & Na, L. (2011). The costs and benefits of arguing: Predicting the decision whether to engage or not. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, A. Blair, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ISSA 2010 (pp. 718–732). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., Richards, A. S., & Na, L. (2012). A test of the conflict linkage model in the context of serial arguments. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 459–479. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.703361
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., Richards, A. S., & Skubisz, C. (2013). Blurting. Communication Monographs, 80, 503–532. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.830316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, L. M., Gergen, K. J., & Lannamann, J. W. (1986). Aggression rituals. Communication Monographs, 53, 252–265. doi:10.1080/03637758609376140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, L. M., & Sadghi, A. R. (1987). Realizing: How facts are created in human interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 481–495. doi:10.1177/0265407587044006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes‐Roth, B., & Hayes‐Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275–310. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0304_1
   Google Scholar
• Hong, S.-M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173–182. doi:10.1177/0013164496056001014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. doi:10.1080/03637758609376126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161–176. doi:10.1007/bf00154323
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, A. J. (2002). Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public-issue and personal-issue arguments. Communication Reports, 15, 99–112. doi:10.1080/08934210209367757
   Google Scholar
• Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 3–47. doi:10.1177/0893318911414400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsunaga, M. (2009). Parents don’t (always) know their children have been bullied: Child‐parent discrepancy on bullying and family‐level profile of communication standards. Human Communication Research, 35, 221–247. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01345.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. L. (1984). Conversation: How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. B., & Pittman, M. (2016). Amazon’s mechanical turk for academics: The HIT handbook for social science research. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh.
   Google Scholar
• Siegert, J. R., & Stamp, G. H. (1994). “Our first big fight” as a milestone in the development of close relationships. Communications Monographs, 61, 345–360. doi:10.1080/03637759409376342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turk, D. R., & Monahan, J. L. (1999). “Here I go again”: An examination of the repetitive behaviors during interpersonal conflicts. Southern Journal of Communication, 64, 232–244. doi:10.1080/10417949909373136
   Google Scholar
• Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Weger, Jr., H. (2001). Pragma-dialectical theory and interpersonal interaction outcomes: Unproductive interpersonal behavior as violations of rules for critical discussion. Argumentation, 15, 313–330. doi:10.1023/A:1011117411938
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein, E. A. (1966). Toward a theory of interpersonal tactics. In C. W. Backman & P. F. Secord (Eds.), Problems in social psychology (pp. 394–398). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar