Abstract
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 frame research to Erving Goffman’s frame analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bateson, G. 1987. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an ecology of mind, ed. N.J. Northvale and J. Aronson, 177–193. Chapter originally published, 1955.
Bem, S.L. 1974a. The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155–162.
Benoit, P.J. 1982. The naïve social actor’s concept of argument. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
Brehm, J.W. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Burgoon, M., E. Alvaro, J. Grandpre, and M. Voulodakis. 2002. Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In The Persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice, ed. J.P. Dillard and M. Pfau, 213–232, Ch. 12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dowd, E.T., C.R. Milne, and S.L. Wise. 1991. The therapeutic reactance scale: a measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development 69: 541–545.
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hample, D. 2003. Arguing skill. In Handbook of communication and social interaction skill, ed. J.O. Greene and B.R. Burleson, 439–478, Ch. 11. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hample, D. 2005a. Arguing: exchanging reasons face-to-face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hample, D. 2005b. Argument frames: an initial investigation into operationalizations. In Critical problems in argumentation, ed. C.A. Willard, 568–576. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
Hample, D. 2006. Argument production. In Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: views from the Venice argumentation conference, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, M.D. Hazen, P. Houtlosser and D.C. Williams, 9–22. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.
Hample, D., and P.J. Benoit. 1999. Must arguments be explicit and violent: a study of naive social actors’ understandings. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard, 306–310. Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1990. Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4: 153–169.
Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1992. The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 109–122.
Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 2002. Argument framing and gender orientation. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Minneapolis, MN.
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80.
Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: an interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69.
Johnson, A.J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: a comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports 15: 99–112.
Levine, T.R., M.J. Beatty, S. Simon, M.A. Hamilton, R. Buck, and R.M. Chory-Assad. 2004. The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs 71: 245–268.
Martin, R.W., and D.R. Scheerhorn. 1985. What are conversational arguments? Toward a natural language user’s perspective. In Argument and social practice, ed. J.R. Cox, M.O. Sillars and G.B. Walker, 705–722. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Rancer, A.S., and T.A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and aggressive communication: theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seemann, E.A., W.C. Buboltz, A. Thomas, B. Soper, and L. Wilkinson. 2005. Normal personality variables and their relationship to psychological reactance. Individual Differences Research 3: 88–98.
Seibel, C.A., and E.T. Dowd. 2001. Personality characteristics associated with psychological reactance. Journal of Clinical Psychology 57: 963–969.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hample, D., Warner, B. & Young, D. Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments. Argumentation 23, 21–37 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9107-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9107-x