In this article, the authors examine argument in the interactions of members of a naturally occurring jury (State of Ohio v. Mark Ducic). Using the structurational concept of contradictions and a thematic analysis, the authors examine the forms and functions of group argument structures and the role of argument structuring in the jury’s penalty deliberation. Findings are discussed in terms of theoretical and methodological implications for structuration argument theory.
Boster, F.J., Hunter, J.E., & Hale, J.L. ( 1991). An information-processing model of jury decision making . Communication Research, 18, 524-547.
2.
Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D.M. (2000). An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly, 48, 380-396.
3.
Canary, D.J., Brossmann, B.G., & Seibold, D.R. ( 1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18-37.
4.
Davis, J.H. ( 1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3-38.
5.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M.S. ( 1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121-147.
6.
Ellis, D.G., & Maoz, I. ( 2002). Cross-cultural argument interactions between Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 181-194.
7.
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stuttman, R.K. (1997). Working through conflict (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
8.
Gastil, J., Black, L.W., Deess, E.P., & Leighter, J. ( 2008). From group member to democratic citizen: How deliberating with fellow jurors reshapes civic attitudes. Human Communication Research, 34, 137-169.
9.
Giddens, A. ( 1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
Gouran, D.S. ( 1969). Variables related to consensus in group discussions of questions of policy. Speech Monographs, 36, 387-391.
11.
Gouran, D.S. ( 1999). Communication in groups: The emergence and evolution of a field of study. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 3-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Gouran, D.S., Brown, C., & Henry, D.R. ( 1978). Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision-making discussions. Communication Monographs, 45, 51-63.
13.
Guetzkow, H. ( 1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.
14.
Hample, D. ( 2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Hirokawa, R.Y., & Pace, R. ( 1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision-making. Communication Monographs, 50, 369-379.
16.
Huber, J., Johnson, M., Hill, R., Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. ( 2007, November). Examining the argument process in jury decision making. Paper presented to the Group Communication Division, National Communication Association conference, Chicago, IL.
17.
Kang, P., Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. ( 2008, July). Examining argument in naturally occurring jury deliberations. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, Kansas City, MO.
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D.R. ( 1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
20.
Kvale, S. ( 1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Lemus, D.R., Seibold, D.R., Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. ( 2004). Argument in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54, 302-320.
22.
Meyers, R.A. ( 1997). Social influence and group argumentation. In L. R. Frey & J. K. Barge (Eds.), Managing the tensions of group life: Communication in decision-making groups (pp. 183-201). Burlington, ME: Houghton-Mifflin.
23.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1994). Expanding the boundaries of small group communication research: Exploring a feminist perspective. Communication Studies, 45, 68-85.
24.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1998). Argument and group decision-making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261-281.
25.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (in press). Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures.
26.
Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (1990). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook13 (pp. 268-302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R., & Brashers, D. ( 1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47-68.
28.
Pettus, A.N. ( 1990). The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and jury deliberations-From the jurors’ point of view. Communication Quarterly, 38, 83-97.
29.
Poole, M.S. ( 1985). Tasks and interaction sequences: A theory of coherence in group decision-making. In R. Street & J. N. Capella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behavior (pp. 206-224). London, England: Edward Arnold.
30.
Poole, M.S. ( 1992). Group communication and the structuring process. In R. S. Cathcart & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication (pp. 147-157). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
31.
Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. ( 1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision-making. Human Communication Research, 19, 5-49.
32.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
33.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 114-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Price, V., Cappella, J.N., & Nir, L. ( 2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion ? Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
35.
Schrader, D.C., & Dillard, J.P. ( 1998). Goal structures and interpersonal influence. Communication Studies, 49, 276-293.
36.
Seibold, D.R., & Lemus, D.R. ( 2005). Argument quality in group deliberation: A structurational approach and quality of argument index. In C. A. Willard (Ed.), Critical problems in argumentation (pp. 203-215). Washington, DC: National Communication Association .
37.
Seibold, D.R., & Myers, K.K. ( 2005). Communication as structuring. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as . . . Stances on theory (pp. 143-152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A. ( 2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-336.
39.
Seibold, D.R., Meyers, R.A., & Shoham, M.D. ( 2010). Social influence in groups and organizations. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. Roskos-Ewolsen (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 237-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
SunWolf, & Seibold, D.R. (1998). Jurors’ intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs , 64, 282-307.
