The effects of six components relevant in the evaluation of integrity violations were tested within a completely crossed six-factor design. The following components were included in the analysis: severity of an argumentative rule violation (high vs. low), degree of subjective awareness in committing a rule violation (intentional, by negligence, unknowingly), presence versus absence of excuses and corrections, frequent versus infrequent rule violations, far-reaching positive versus far-reaching negative intentions, and high versus low subject matter and argumentative competence of the speaker. The data were analyzed by using a logistic regression approach and by the configuration-frequency analysis. All hypotheses were largely confirmed (N = 317): Severe rule violations, negative far-reaching intentions of the speaker, high argumentative competence and subject matter knowledge of the speaker, no corrections and excuses by the speaker, and frequent rule violations lead with significant frequency to an unfairness verdict. Among all variables included in the analysis, severity of a rule violation proved to be the most powerful. In addition, specific predictor combinations, which lead to an unfairness verdict or a neutral evaluation with significant frequency, were identified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alicke, M. D.
, Weigold, M. F., & Rogers, S. L. (1990). Inferring intentions and responsibility from motives and outcomes: Evidential and extra-evidential judgements. Social Cognition, 8(3), 286-305.
2.
Blickle, G., and Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegrität (II): Zur Psychologischen Realität des subjektiven Wertkonzepts—ein Experimenteller Prüfungsansatz am Beispiel ausgewählter Standards [Argumentational integrity (II): The psychological reality of the subjective value concept—an experimental approach for selected standards]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 29. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
3.
Carroll, J. S.
, & Payne, J. W. (1977). Judgments about crime and the criminal: A model and a method for investigation parole decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology, (pp. 191-239). New York: Plenum.
4.
Christmann, U.
, & Groeben, N. (1995). Diagnosis and evaluations of argumentational integrity: An empirical study. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendoorst, A. J. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA Conference on argumentation. Amsterdam 1994 (Vol. 3, pp. 219-229). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
5.
Christmann, U.
, Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1996). War das Absicht? Indikatoren subjektiver Intentionalitätszustände bei der ethischen Bewertung von Argumentationsbeiträgen [Was that deliberate? Cues to subjective states of intentionality in evaluating contributions to argumentative discussions from an ethical perspective]. Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, 101, 70-113.
6.
Christmann, U.
, Sladek, U., & Groeben, N. (1998). Der Einfluß personaler und interaktiver Kontextinformationen auf die Diagnose und Bewertung argumentativer (Un-)Integrität [The effect of person-related and interactive context variables on the diagnosis and evaluation of argumentational (un-)fairness]. Sprache & Kognition, 17(3), 107-124.
7.
Cody, M. J.
, & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Models for the sequential construction of accounting episodes: Situational and interactional constraints on message selection and evaluation. In R. L. Street & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 50-69). London: E. Arnold.
8.
Cody, M. J.
, & McLaughlin, M. L. (1988). Accounts on trial: Oral arguments in traffic court. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 113-126). London: Sage.
9.
Cody, M. J.
, & McLaughlin, M. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & P. W. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 227-255). Chichester, New York: John Wiley.
10.
Darley, J. M.
, & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and aquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556.
11.
Groeben, N.
, Nüse, R., & Gauler, E. (1992). Diagnose argumentativer Unintegrität. Objektive und subjektive Tatbestandsmerkmale bei Werturteilen über argumentative Sprechhandlungen [The diagnosis of unfairness in argumentation. Objective and subjective facts in evaluating contributions]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 39(4), 533-558.
12.
Groeben, N.
, Schreier, M., & Christmann, U. (1993). Fairneß beim Argumentieren: Argumentationsintegrität als Wertkonzept einer Ethik der Kommunikation [Fairness in argumentation. Argumentational integrity as a value concept within an ethics of argumentation]. Linguistische Berichte, 147, 355-382.
13.
Higgins, R. L.
, & Snyder, C. R. (1989). Excuses gone awry. An analysis of self-defeating excuses. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), Self-defeating behaviors. Experimental research, clinical impressions, and practical implications (pp.99-130). New York/London: Plenum.
14.
Hosmer, D. W.
, & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Jones, E. E.
, & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Karlovac, M.
, & Darley, J. M. (1988). Attribution of responsibility for accidents: A negligence law analogy. Social Cogniton, 6, 287-318.
17.
Krauth, J.
(1993). Einführung in die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse (KFA). Ein multivariates nichtparametrisches Verfahren zum Nachweis und zur Interpretation von Typen und Syndromen [Introduction to configuration-frequency-analysis (CFA). A multivariate, non-parametric procedure for proof and interpretation of types and syndromes]. Weinheim/Basel: Psychologie Verlags Union.
18.
Lienert, G. A.
, & Krauth, J. (1974). Die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse als Prädiktionsmodell in der angewandten Psychologie [The configuration frequency analysis as a prediction model in applied psychology]. In L. H. Eckensberger & U. S. Eckensberger (Eds.), Bericht über den 28. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Band 2: Psychologische Methoden und Mathematische Psychologie (pp. 219-228). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
19.
Löschper, G.
, Mummendey, A., Linneweber, V., & Bornewasser, M. (1984). The judgement of behaviour as aggressive and sanctionable. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 391-404.
20.
McCann, C. D.
, & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Social cognition and communication. In H. Giles & P. W. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 13-33). Chichester, New York: John Wiley.
21.
Nüse, R.
, Groeben, N., Christmann, U., & Gauler, E. (1993). Schuldmindernde versus—begründende Zusatzattributionen in moralischen Handlungsbeurteilungen [Mitigating and aggravating factors in the attribution of guilt in moral judgments]. Gruppendynamik, 24(2), 165-198.
22.
Oswald, M.
(1989) Schadenshöhe, Strafe und Verantwortungsattribution [Extent of damage, punishment, and attribution of responsibility]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 20, 200-210.
23.
Schreier, M.
(1997). Das Erkennen sprachlicher Täuschung. Über Absichtlichkeitsindikatoren beim unintegren Argumentieren [The identification of verbal deception. Intentionality cues in unfair contributions to argumentative discussions]. Münster: Aschendorff.
24.
Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegrität (III): Rhetorische Strategien und Integritätsstandards [Argumentational integrity (III). Rhetorical strategies and the standards of fair argumentation]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 30. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
25.
Schreier, M., & Groeben, N.(1992). Argumentationsintegrität (VIII): Zur psychologischen Realität des subjektiven Wertkonzepts. Eine experimentelle Überprüfung für die 11 standards integren argumentierens [Argumentational integrity (VIII). The psychological reality of the subjective value concept]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 53. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
26.
Schreier, M.
, & Groeben, N. (1996). Ethical guidelines for the conduct in argumentative discussions: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 49(1), 123-132.
27.
Schreier, M.
, Groeben, N., & Blickle, G. (1995). The effects of (un-)fairness and (im-) politeness on the evaluation of argumentative communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(3), 260-288.
28.
Schreier, M
, Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). That’s not fair! Argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9, 267-289.
29.
Scott, M. B.
, & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
30.
Semin, G. R.
, & Manstead, A. S. R. (1983). The accountability of conduct: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic Press.
31.
Shaver, K. G.
(1985). The attribution of blame. New York: Springer.
32.
Shaver, K. G.
, & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702.
33.
Shultz, T. R.
, & Wright, K. (1985). Concepts of negligence and intention in the assignment of moral responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 97-108.
34.
Sladek, U., Mlynski, G., Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1996). Argumentation-sintegrität (XXI): Der Einfluß situativer Rahmenbedingungen auf die Bewertung argumentativer (Un-)Integrität [Argumentational integrity (XXI). Situational facors in the evaluation of argumentative (un-)fairness]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 100. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
35.
Snyder, C. R.
, & Higgins, R. L. (1990). Reality negotiations and excuse-making: President Reagan’s 4 March 1987 Iran arms scandal speech and other literature. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 207-228). Clevedon, Wales: Multilingual matters.
36.
Weiner, B.
(1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 1-47). London: Academic Press.
37.
Weiner, B.
, Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.
38.
Williams, E. J.
(1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Science Research, 2, 149-168.
