Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis

References

• Alderton , S. 1982 . Locus of control‐based argumentation as a predictor of group polarization . Communication Quarterly , 30 : 381 – 387 .
   Google Scholar
• Alderton , S. M. and Frey , L. R. 1983 . Effects of reactions to arguments on group outcomes: The case of group polarization . Central States Speech Journal , 34 : 88 – 95 .
   Google Scholar
• Alderton , S. M. and Frey , L. R. 1986 . “ Argumentation in small group decision‐making ” . In Communication and group decision‐making , Edited by: Hirokawa , R. Y. and Poole , M. S. 157 – 174 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Auld , F. Jr. and White , A. M. 1956 . Rules for dividing interviews into sentences . Journal of Psychology , 42 : 273 – 281 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brashers , D. and Meyers , R. A. Tag‐team argument and group decision‐making: A preliminary investigation . Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Edited by: Gronbeck , B. E. August . pp. 542 – 550 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Brossmann , B. G. and Canary , D. J. 1990 . An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of . Nightline. Argumentation , 4 : 199 – 212 .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Brossmann , B. G. and Seibold , D. R. 1987 . Argument structures in decision‐making groups . Southern Speech Communication Journal , 53 : 18 – 37 .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Brossmann , B. G. , Sillars , A. L. and LoVette , S. Married couples’ argument structures and sequences: A comparison of satisfied and dissatisfied dyads . Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Edited by: Wenzel , J. W. August . pp. 475 – 484 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Ratledge , N. T. and Seibold , D. R. Argument and group decision‐making: Development of a coding scheme . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Louisville, KY. November .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. and Weger , H. Jr. The relationship of interpersonal argument to control mutuality: An observational analysis of romantic couples’ conversations . Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Edited by: Gronbeck , B. E. pp. 592 – 598 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Giddens , A. 1984 . The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration , Berkeley, CA : University of California Press .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. Communicative influences on inferential judgments in decision‐making groups: A descriptive analysis . Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third SCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation . Edited by: Zarefsky , D. , Sillars , M. O. and Rhodes , J. pp. 667 – 682 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. A critical summary of research on the role of argument in decision‐making groups . Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Edited by: Cox , J. R. , Sillars , M. O. and Walker , G. B. pp. 723 – 736 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. 1986 . “ Inferential errors, interaction, and group decision‐making ” . In Communication and group decision‐making , Edited by: Hirokawa , R. Y. and Poole , M. S. 93 – 112 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. Functions of argument in decision‐making discussion: Some prescriptions for increasing the probability of rational choice . Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Edited by: Gronbeck , B. E. pp. 481 – 488 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. 1990 . “ Commentary on Meyers and Seibold's “Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an alternative Structurational view ” . In Communication yearbook , Edited by: Anderson , J. A. Vol. 13 , 313 – 322 . Newbury Park, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. and Hirokawa , R. Y. 1986 . “ Counteractive functions of communication in effective group decision‐making ” . In Communication and group decision‐making , Edited by: Hirokawa , R. Y. and Poole , M. S. 81 – 90 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield , J. D. and Wieder‐Hatfield , D. 1978 . The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis . Communication Monographs , 45 : 44 – 50 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirokawa , R. Y. and Pace , R. 1983 . A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making . Communication Monographs , 50 : 363 – 379 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirokawa , R. Y. and Scheerhorn , D. R. 1986 . “ Communication in faulty group decision‐making ” . In Communication and group decision‐making , Edited by: Hirokawa , R. Y. and Poole , M. S. 63 – 80 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman , L. R. 1979 . The group problem‐solving process: Studies of a valence model , New York : Praeger .
   Google Scholar
• Jackson , S. and Jacobs , S. 1980 . Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme . Quarterly Journal of Speech , 66 : 251 – 265 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keough , C. M. 1987 . The nature and function of argument in organizational bargaining research . The Southern Speech Communication Journal , 53 : 1 – 17 .
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff , K. 1980 . Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology , Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Martz , A. An investigation of the relationship between verbalized inferential errors and group decision‐making effectiveness . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Chicago. November .
   Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. 1989a . Persuasive Arguments Theory: A test of assumptions . Human Communication Research , 15 : 357 – 381 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. 1989b . Testing Persuasive Argument Theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence . Communication Monographs , 56 : 112 – 132 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici , S. and Faucheux , C. 1972 . “ Social influence, conformity bias and the study of active minorities ” . In Advances in experimental social psychology , Edited by: Berkowitz , L. Vol. 6 , 149 – 202 . New York : Academic Press .
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici , S. , Lage , E. and Naffrechoux , M. 1969 . Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task . Sociometry , 32 : 365 – 380 .
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murray , E. J. 1956 . A content‐analysis method for studying psychotherapy . Psychological Monographs , 70 ( 13 ) No. 420
   Google Scholar
• Nemeth , C. 1977 . Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 7 : 38 – 56 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth , C. 1982 . “ Stability of faction position and influence ” . In Group decision making , Edited by: Brandstetter , G. H. , Davis , J. H. and Stocker‐Kriechgauer , G. 185 – 213 . New York : Academic Press .
   Google Scholar
• Nemeth , C. J. 1986 . Differential contributions of majority and minority influence . Psychological Review , 93 : 23 – 32 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth , C. , Swedlund , M. and Kanki , B. 1974 . Patterning of minority responses and their influence on the majority . European Journal of Social Psychology , 4 : 53 – 64 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth , C. and Wachtler , J. 1974 . Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence . Sociometry , 37 : 529 – 540 .
   Google Scholar
• Pace , R. Group discussion as a rhetorical process: The influence of the small group setting on the process of accedance . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Washington, D.C.. November .
   Google Scholar
• Pace , R. C. 1985 . “ Patterns of argumentation in high and low consensus discussions ” . In Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation , Edited by: Cox , J. R. , Sillars , M. O. and Walker , G. B. 770 – 781 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Perelman , C. H. and Olbrechts‐Tyteca , L. 1969 . The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation , Edited by: Wilkinson , J. and Weaver , P. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame Press .
   Google Scholar
• Perrault , W. D. and Leigh , L. E. 1989 . Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments . Journal of Marketing Research , 26 : 135 – 148 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole , M. S. , McPhee , R. D. and Seibold , D. R. 1982 . A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions . Communication Monographs , 49 : 1 – 19 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratledge , N. T. 1986 . Theoretical and methodological integrity of a structurational scheme for coding argument in decision‐making groups , University of Southern California . Unpublished dissertation
   Google Scholar
• Schultz , B. 1980 . Communicative correlates of perceived leaders . Small Group Behavior , 11 : 175 – 191 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz , B. 1982 . Argumentativeness: Its effect in group decision‐making and its role in leadership perception . Communication Quarterly , 30 : 368 – 375 .
   Google Scholar
• Schultz , B. 1983 . “ Argumentativeness: Its role in leadership perception and group communication ” . In Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation , Edited by: Zarefsky , D. , Sillars , M. O. and Rhodes , J. 638 – 647 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. , Canary , D. J. and Ratledge , N. T. Argument and group decision‐making: Interim report on a structurational research program . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Washington, D.C.. November .
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. and Meyers , R. A. 1986 . “ Communication and influence in group decision‐making ” . In Communication and group decision‐making , Edited by: Hirokawa , R. Y. and Poole , M. S. 133 – 155 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. , Poole , M. S. , McPhee , R. D. , Tanita , N. E. and Canary , D. J. 1981 . “ Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes ” . In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation , Edited by: Ziegelmueller , C. and Rhodes , J. 663 – 692 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin , S. E. 1958 . The uses of argument , Cambridge : The University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Walker , G. B. 1985 . “ Argumentation and negotiation ” . In Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation , Edited by: Cox , J. R. , Sillars , M. O. and Walker , G. B. 747 – 769 . Annandale, VA : SCA .
   Google Scholar
• Zaleska , M. 1976 . Majority influence on group choices among bets . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 33 : 8 – 17 .
   Google Scholar
• Zaleska , M. 1978 . “ Some experimental results: Majority influence on group decisions ” . In Dynamics of group decision , Edited by: Brandstetter , H. , Davis , J. H. and Schuler , H. 67 – 74 . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Scott Britten, Larry King, Paul Lakey, and Jimmy Smith (University of Oklahoma) for their help in coding the data, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
   Google Scholar