Research about argumentational unfairness has focused primarily on the cognitive
evaluation of argumentational rule violations, applying written argumentational
scenarios, and structured answering format. This study investigates cognitive,
emotional, and verbal responses to unfair contributions (nonrational vs.
noncooperative speech acts) using an open-ended answering format in various
presentation modalities (written, auditory, and role-play). No differences appeared
between reactions to nonrational versus noncooperative contributions or between the
different presentation modalities. The results replicate previous findings and
provide support for the validity of attributional models in unfair everyday
discourse, as well as for the position that argumentative behavior is rule governed
by reciprocal expectancies.
Burgoon, J.K.
(1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12,
30-48.
2.
Chaiken, S.
, & Eagly, A.H. (1986). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson, & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp.
3-40). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Christmann, U.
, & Groeben, N. (1993). Argumentationsintegrität (XIV): Der
Einfluß von Valenz und Sequenzstruktur argumentativer
Unintegrität auf kognitive und emotionale Komponenten von Diagnose-
und Bewertungsreaktionen [Argumentational integrity (XIV): Effect of
valence and sequence on cognitive and emotional components of diagnosis and
evaluation of unfair contributions] (Rep. No. 67). Heidelberg,
Mannheim, Germany: Sonderforschungsbereich 245
"Sprache und
Situation."
4.
Christmann, U.
, & Mischo, C. (2000). The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in
contributions to argumentations: An experimental testing in written and
auditory presentation mode. Language and Speech, 43,
229-259.
5.
Christmann, U.
, Mischo, C., & Flender, J. (2000). Argumentational integrity: A training program for dealing with unfair
argumentative contributions. Argumentation, 14,
339-360.
6.
Christmann, U.
, Mischo, C., & Groeben, N. (2000). Components of the evaluation of integrity violations in argumentative
discussions: Relevant factors and their relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19,
315-341.
7.
Cody, M.J.
, & McLaughlin, M.L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp.
227-255). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
8.
Eemeren, F.V.
, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Groeben, N.
, Nüse, R., & Gauler, E. (1992). Diagnose argumentativer Unintegrität. Objektive und subjektive
Tatbestandsmerkmale bei Werturteilen über argumentative
Sprechhandlungen [Diagnosis of severity and awareness in evaluating argumentative speech
acts]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte
Psychologie, 39,
533-558.
10.
Holtgraves, T.M.
(2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and
language use. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Krupat, E.
, & Garonzik, R. (1994). Subject's expectations and the search for alternatives to
deception in social psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,
211-222.
12.
Mikula, G.
(1993). On the experience of injustice. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp.
223-244). New York:
Wiley.
13.
Mischo, C.
(2000a). Fair oder Unfair? Übergehen oder Ansprechen? Bewertung
argumentativer Unintegrität und
Reaktionsmöglichkeiten [Fair or unfair? To ignore or to respond? Evaluation of argumentational
integrity and possible reactions]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle
Psychologie, 47,
281-296.
14.
Mischo, C.
(2000b). Reaktionen auf unfaire Argumente: kognitive,
emotionale und konative Aspekte [Reactions to unfair contributions:
Cognitive, emotional and conative aspects].
Lengerich:
Pabst.
15.
Mischo, C. (2002). Personality and ability effects on reactions to
argumentative unfairness. Social Justice Research.
16.
Ng, S.H.
(1990). Language and control. In H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp.
271-285). New York:
Wiley.
17.
Nüse, R.
, Groeben, N., & Gauler, E. (1991). Argumentationsintegrität (V): Diagnose
argumentativer (Un-)Integrität-(Wechsel-)-Wirkungen von
Komponenten subjektiver Werturteile über argumentative
Sprechhandlungen[Argumentational integrity (V): Diagnosis of
argumenational integrity: (Interaction) effects of components of speech
act-evaluation] (Rep. No. 33). Heidelberg, Mannheim,
Germany: Sonderforschungsbereich 245 "Sprache
und Situation."
18.
Schönbach, P.
, & Kleibaumhüter, P. (1989). Severity of reproach and defensiveness of
accounts. In M.J. Cody & M.L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp.
229-243). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
19.
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,
260-288.
20.
Schreier, M.
, Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). That's not fair! Argumentational integrity as an ethics of
argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9,
267-289.
21.
Smith, C.A.
, Haynes, K.N., Lazarus, R., & Pope, L.K. (1993). In search of the "hot" cognitions: Attributions,
appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
916-929.
22.
Van de Vliert, E.
, & Euwema, M.C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
674-678.
23.
Weiner, B.
(1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation of a theory
of social conduct. New York:
Guilford.
