18 found
Sort by:
  1. Dale Hample & Amanda L. Irions (forthcoming). Arguing to Display Identity. Argumentation:1-28.
    A rarely studied motive for engaging in face-to-face arguing is to display one’s identity. One way people can manage their impressions is to give reasons for their commitments. This appears to be the first study to focus on this reason for arguing. 461 undergraduates recalled an episode in which they had argued to display own identity. They filled out trait measures as well as instruments describing the episode. Identity display arguments do not require controversy, are not very emotional episodes, can (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Yun Xie, Dale Hample & Xiaoli Wang (2015). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Argument Predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Argument Frames, and Personalization of Conflict. Argumentation 29 (3):265-284.
    China has a longstanding tradition of stressing the values of harmony and coherence, and Chinese society has often been portrayed as a culture in which conflict avoidance is viewed more positively than direct confrontation and argumentation. In order to evaluate the validity of this claim, this paper sketches Chinese people’s feelings and understandings about interpersonal arguing by reporting results of a data collection in China, using measures of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. These results were compared (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Dale Hample (2012). Ana Patrícia Macedo: The Development of Children's Argument Skills. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (4):529-531.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Dale Hample & Susan Allen (2012). Serial Arguments in Organizations. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (3):312-330.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. J. Blair & Dale Hample, A Critical Examination and Development of Wellman’s Theory of Conductive Argument.
    The paper aims to provide an analysis and critique of Carl Wellman’s account of conduction presented in Challenge and Response and Morals and Ethics. It considers several issues, including: reason-ing vs. argument, the definition vs. the three patterns of conduction, pro and con arguments as dialogues, their assessment, the concept of validity, applications beyond moral arguments, argument type vs. as crite-rion of evaluation.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Ioana Cionea, Dale Hample, Fabio Paglieri & Lilian Bermejo-Luque, A Test of the Argument Engagement Model in Romania.
    Hample, Paglieri, and Na’s model of argument engagement proposes that people en-gage in arguments when they perceive the benefits of arguing to be greater than the costs of doing so. This paper tests the model in Romania, a different culture than the one in which the model was developed, by using a 2 x 2 design.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Dale Hample & Katarzyna Budzynska, Convergent Causal Arguments in Conversation.
    In theory, flawed arguments are not individually sufficient to justify a conclusion, but several may converge to do so. This is an empirical study of how arguers respond to a series of imperfect causal arguments during a serious conversation. People became less critical of the flawed arguments as more of the arguments appeared. The study gives empirical evidence that ordinary arguers permit sufficiency to accumulate during an extended discussion.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Dale Hample (2010). Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, & Bert Meuffels: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Argumentation 24 (3):375-381.
    Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, & Bert Meuffels: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules Content Type Journal Article Pages 375-381 DOI 10.1007/s10503-010-9183-6 Authors Dale Hample, University of Maryland College Park MD 20742 USA Journal Argumentation Online ISSN 1572-8374 Print ISSN 0920-427X Journal Volume Volume 24 Journal Issue Volume 24, Number 3.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
    Some people report that they argue for play. We question whether and how often such arguments are mutually entertaining for both participants. Play is a frame for (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Dale Hample, Ben Warner & Dorian Young (2009). Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments. Argumentation 23 (1):21-37.
    Since argument frames precede most other arguing processes, argument editing among them, one’s frames may well predict one’s preferred editorial standards. This experiment assesses people’s arguing frames, gives them arguments to edit, and tests whether the frames actually do predict editorial preferences. Modest relationships between argument frames and argument editing appear. Other connections among frames, editing, and additional individual differences variables are more substantial. Particularly notable are the informative influences of psychological reactance. A new theoretical contribution is offered, connecting argument (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Dale Hample (2007). The Arguers. Informal Logic 27 (2):163-178.
    I wish to argue in favor of a particular orientation, one expressed in Brockriede’s remark that “aruments are not in statements but in people.” While much has been gained from textual analyses, even more will accrue by additional attention to the arguers. I consider that textual materials are really only the artifacts of arguments. The actual arguing is done exclusively by people, either the argument producers or receivers, and never by words on a page. In fact, most of our textua (...)
    Direct download (16 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Dale Hample (2001). A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Inquisition. Argumentation 15 (2):135-149.
    Disagreement space consists of all the commitments and understandings required for an utterance to take on its discourse function. These are virtual standpoints that can be called out for explicit argumentation. This paper shows how the Inquisition systematically controlled disagreement space, preventing some apparently important standpoints from ever being argued about, and requiring attention to others that may not have initially seemed relevant. This control of disagreement space constituted violation of the rules for critical discussion. The essay suggests that the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.) (1992). Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications.
    Introduction: the Study of Argumentation Although our overall organization of the readings suggests one way of dividing our selected literature, ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Dale Hample (1992). The Toulmin Model and the Syllogism. In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications. 225--238.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Dale Hample (1992). What is a Good Argument? In William L. Benoit, Dale Hample & Pamela J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications. 11--313.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Dale Hample & JudithM Dallinger (1990). Arguers as Editors. Argumentation 4 (2):153-169.
    People use editorial criteria to decide whether to say or to suppress potential arguments. These criteria constitute people's standards as to what effective and appropriate arguments are like, and reflect general interaction goals. A series of empirical investigations has indicated that the standards fall into three classes: those having to do with argument effectiveness, those concerned with personal issues for arguer and target, and those centered on discourse quality. The essay also sketches the affinities certain types of people have for (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Dale Hample (1987). The Role of the Unconscious in Nonverbal Information Processing. Semiotica 67 (3-4):211-232.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Dale Hample (1978). Are Attitudes Arguable? Journal of Value Inquiry 12 (4):311-312.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation