Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This project explores the effects of communication apprehension, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and argument realism on the way an arguer engages in possible arguments. In particular, the study examines arguers’ editorial standards. 201 participants completed a survey containing standard mesaures, and also responded to two separate situations which used the Hample and Dallinger (1987) editorial standards instrument format. Each of the situations was designed to respect Johnson’s (2002) distinction between personal and public topics. Bivariate correlations showed that communication apprehension is positively associated with concern for effectiveness, truth, and self-image. Verbally aggressive respondents are also concerned with effectiveness, but avoid editing based on truth or relational issues. Argumentative respondents make more principled objections to various arguments, but seem disinclined to worry about person-centered matters. Since these three variables are intercorrelated, multiple regressions show somewhat different patterns. Argument realism, intended as a manipulation check, is a serendipitous discovery. Argument realism has important relationships to endorsement and editorial behaviors. Participants reacted quite differently to public versus personal argument topics, reinforcing Johnson’s claim that these must be carefully distinguished in research and theory.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This study reviews the use of representations of public opinion by Congresspersons in oral argument. We review the different ways public opinion has been viewed within the scholarly literature, identifying three unique characterizations of the term. We apply these varied meanings to use of polls to represent public opinion in the Congressional Record from January 2007 through December 2009 and evaluate their use in persuasive argument. Common uses included bolstering the speaker's own argument, countering the opponent's arguments as well as claiming that the speaker is above its influence that is, acting as a trustee rather than a delegate. We further compare variations in portrayal of public opinion to speaker political party and issue.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: As Burnett and Badzinski (2000) demonstrate, it is possible to code arguments jurors make in deliberations. Using the argument coding scheme, we found that jurors use a preponderance of assertions and agreements; however, we suggested that jurors might co-construct simple arguments, creating more sophisticated group arguments. In this project, Burnett and co-authors will use lag sequential analysis to investigate how jurors co-construct, or connect, individual arguments in deliberation.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Arguments in interpersonal relationships can be divided into two types: public issue arguments and personal issue arguments. Arguing over topics such as politics, a public issue argument, can be very different than arguing over topics such as cleaning the house, a personal issue argument. This study examines argument type as a situational constraint on argumentative and verbally aggressive behavior. Both men and women reported higher amounts of argumentative behavior in the public issue argument. Women reported higher amounts of verbally aggressive behavior in the personal issue argument, but men did not report significantly different levels of verbally aggressive behavior in either type of argument. Implications for the study of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in personal relationships are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The present experiment examined how the lack of individuating information affects message elaboration and conformity to group norms in text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC). Participants made decisions about choice dilemma scenarios and exchanged their arguments with three ostensible partners via computer. Consistent with the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE), those who had exchanged personal profiles with their partners were better able to differentiate between strong and weak arguments and were more likely to make conformity decisions based on the message content than those who had not. On the other hand, those with no identity cues were more likely to factor in group identification for their conformity decisions. Results suggest that less systematic message processing and greater reliance on normative considerations account for how deindividuation moderates the effects of argument strength on group conformity.