The studies reported here were carried out in order to test whether people in everyday argumentative interactions evaluate contributions according to the fairness criterion of argumentational integrity. The hypotheses were (a) that violations ofthe fairness criterion are conspicuous, (b) that such violations are negatively evaluated, and (c) that in the case of specific violations (Standards 1 to 5), people distinguish between impolite and unfair utterances. Tb test these hypotheses, an incompletely crossed two-factorial design with the factors (un-)fairness and (im-)politeness (unfair/impolite, unfairlpolite, fair/impolite) was used, employing the scenario approach; its suitability was confirmed in the first (preliminary) study (N = 54). In the main study, all three hypotheses were largely confirmed (N = 119); the study also yielded information on additional factors influencing diagnosis and evaluation, such as type of unfairness or the participants'age and level of schooling.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blickle, G.
, & Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegritdt (II): Zur psychologischen Realitdt des subjektiven Wertkonzepts-Ein experimenteller Uberpriifungsansatz am Beispiel ausgewahlter Standards [Argumentational integrity (II): The psychological reality of the subjective value concept-An experimental approach for selected standards] (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 29). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
2.
Bortz, J.
(1985). Lehrbuch der Statistik. Fur Sozialwissenschaftler [Textbook of Statistics. For social scientists]. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
3.
Bortz, J.
, Lienert, G. A., & Boehnke, K. (1990). Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik [Nonparametric methods in biostatistics]. Berlin: Springer.
4.
Brown, P.
, & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Christmann, U.
, & Groeben, N. (1991). Argumentationsintegritft (VI): Subjektive Theorien uber Argumentieren und Argumentationsintegritat-Erhebungsverfahren, inhaltsanalytische und heuristische Ergebnisse [Argumentational integrity (VI): Subjective theories about argumentation and argumentational integrity-Procedures for data collection, content-analytic, and heuristic results]. (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 34). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
6.
Eemeren, F. V.
, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
7.
Grice, H. P.
(1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
8.
Groeben, N.
, Nuse, R., & Gauler, E. (1992). Diagnose argumentativer Unintegritat. Objektive und Subjektive Tatbestandsmerkmale bei Werturteilen uber argumentative Sprechhandlungen [The diagnosis of unfairness in argumentation. Objective and subjective facts in evaluating contributions]. Zeitschrift f experimentelleu angewandte Psychologie, 4, 533-558.
9.
Groeben, N.
, Schreier, M., & Christmann, U. (1993). Fairness beim Argumentieren. Argumentationsintegritat als Wertkonzept einer Ethik derArgumentation [Fairness in argumentation. Argumentational integrity as a value concept within an ethics of argumentation]. Linguistische Berichte, 147, 355-382.
10.
Grootendorst, R.
(1991). Everyday argumentation from a speech act perspective. Communication & Cognition, 24, 111-134.
11.
Hamblin, C. L.
(1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
12.
Herbig, A. F.
(1992). Sie argumentieren doch scheinheilig [You are arguing like a hypocrite]. Frankfurt: Lang.
13.
Herzberg, F.
(1966). Work and the nature of man. New York: Crowell.
14.
Hofer, M.
, Pikowsky, B., Fleischmann, T., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (1993). Argumentationssequenzen in Konfliktgesprachen [Argumentation sequences in conflict discourse]. Zeitschrift f Sozialpsychologie, 1, 15-24.
15.
Hook, S.
(1969). The ethics of controversy. In J. M. Anderson & P J. Dovre (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 6-11). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Jacobs, S.
(1987). The management of disagreement in conversation. In F. V. Eemeren & et al. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of the discipline (pp. 229-239). Dordrecht: Foris.
17.
Jesdinsky, H. J.
(1968). Einige Chi-Quadrat-Tests zur Hypothesenprufung bei Kontingenztafeln [Some chi-square-tests for hypothesis testing with contingency tables]. Methods of Information in Medicine, 7, 187-200.
18.
Klein, J.
(1989). Gesprachsregeln in fernsehtypischen Formen politischer Selbstdarstellung [Conversational rules in forms of political self-presentation typical for television]. In W Holly, P. Kuhn, & U. Puschel (Eds.), Redeshows. Fernsehdiskussionen in der Diskussion [Talkshows. Discussion of discussions on TV] (pp. 64-90). IThbingen: Niemeyer.
19.
Landis, J. R.
, & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
20.
Miller, G. A.
(1969). A psychological method to investigate verbal concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 169-171.
21.
Nemenyi, P
(1968). Linear hypotheses: Multiple comparisons. In W H. Kruskal & J. M. Tanur (Eds.), International encyclopedia of statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 554-570). New York: Free Press.
22.
Nilsen, T. R.
(1966). Ethics and argument. In G. R. Miller & T. R. Nilsen (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation (pp. 176-197). Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co.
23.
Rives, S. G.
(1969). Ethical argumentation. In J. M. Anderson & P J. Dovre (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 12-20). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
Sachtleber, S.
, & Schreier, M. (1990). Argumentationsintegritat (fV): Sprachliche Manifestationen argumentativer Unintegritat-Ein pragmalinguistisches Beschreibungsmodell und seine Anwendung [Argumentational integrity (IV): Manifestations of unfairness in spoken language-A pragmalinguistic model and its application] (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 31). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
25.
Schreier, M.
(w. Czemmel, J.) (1992a). Argumentationsintegritat (VII): Wie stabil sind die Standards derArgumentationsintegritat [Argumentational integrity (VII): How stable are the standards of fair argumentation?] (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 48). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
26.
Schreier, M. (1992b). Rhetorische Strategien und Integrittsstandards: Zur Relation von Rhetorik, Dialektik und Argumentationsintegritdt [Rhetorical strategies and integrity standards: On the relation between rhetoric, dialectic, and argumentational integrity]. Unpublished master's thesis, Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat, Heidelberg.
27.
Schreier, M.
, & Christmann, U. (1993). Ein pragmalinguistisches Modell zur Beschreibung und Analyse argumentativer Unintegritat [A pragmalinguistic model for the description and analysis of unfair argumentation]. In H. Loffler (Ed.), Dialoganalyse IV Referate der 4. Arbeitstagung Basel 1992 [Dialogue analysis IV. Proceedings of the 4th convention, Basel 1992] (pp. 351-358). Tihbingen: Niemeyer.
28.
Schreier, M.
, & Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegritat (III): Rhetorische Strategien und Integritdtsstandards [Argumentational integrity [III]: Rhetorical strategies and the standards of fair argumentation] (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 30). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
29.
Schreier, M.
, & Groeben, N. (1992).Argumentationsintegritdt (VIII): Zurpsychologischen Realitdt des subjektiven Wertkonzepts. Eine experimentelle Uberprufung fur die 11 Standards integeren Argumentierens [Argumentational integrity (VIII): The psychological reality of the subjective value concept. An experimental testing for the 11 standards of fair argumentation] (Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Rep. No. 53). Heidelberg: Psychologisches Institut d. Universitat.
30.
Schreier, M.
, Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). "That's not fair!" Argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9, 267-289.
31.
Schreier, M.
, Groeben, N., Christmann, U., Ntise, R., & Gauler, E. (1993). Indicators of argumentational integrity in everyday communication. Argumentation, 7, 205-219.
32.
Voss, J. F.
, Blais, J., Means, M. L., Greene, T. R., & Ahwesh, E. (1986). Informal reasoning and subject matter knowledge in the solving of economics problems by naive and novice individuals. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 269-302.
33.
Woods, J.
, & Walton, D. (1972). On fallacies. Journal of Critical Analysis, 4, 103-112.
