Arguing Goals: An Initial Assessment of a New Measurement Instrument

Cionea, Ioana A.; Hoelscher, Carrisa S.; Ileş, Irina A.

doi:10.1080/08934215.2016.1184695

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the open-ended responses revealed that individuals commented on a post in which another friend was being attacked or sided with others in defending the OP or the target of a verbally aggressive or inappropriate comment. This goal was not as frequently reported during FtF arguments by individuals in neither Cionea et al (2017) or Cionea et al (2015) as it was in our current data. This finding may be explained by the overemphasis on flaming in online contexts.…”

Section: The Final Research Question Rq9 Asked What Opinions Peoplecontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…As in FtF arguments, people often pursued multiple goals (RQ4), including both influence and face-saving goals (Cionea et al, 2017;Cionea et al, 2015). An interesting goal revealed during the coding process was defending oneself or others, which is somewhat similar to Cionea et al's (2017) standing up for oneself goal, but also brings some unique nuances.…”

Section: The Final Research Question Rq9 Asked What Opinions Peoplementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Goals are fundamental features of human interactions (Berger, 1997) and direct people's behavior when interacting with others (Dillard, 1990). Researchers have found that individuals pursue goals such as personal expression, dominance, persuasion/compliance gaining, problem-solving, or learning when arguing with others (Cionea et al, 2015), as well as mutual understanding, conflict resolution, standing up for oneself, enjoyment, or emotional release (Cionea, Hoelscher, & Ileș, 2017). Thus, in FtF interactions, arguing is used to accomplish a multitude of desired outcomes.…”

Section: Rq3: Do Individuals Argue Mostly About Public or Personal Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook

Cionea

Piercy

Carpenter

2017

Computers in Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores how people argue on social-networking sites. Specifically, participants (N = 170) responded to open and closed-ended questions about the most recent argument they had engaged in on Facebook. Results of a content analysis of participants' answers revealed individuals tended to argue mostly about public issues, in somewhat complex arguments that involved a median of six people and with about 30 comments exchanged. Individuals often pursued multiple goals, with persuasion and defending themselves or others also reported by some. Arguments tended to end without resolution and most had no effects on arguers' relationships; however, for 20% of the sample, arguments permanently damaged their relationships. Although the number of friends participants had did not have a substantial effect on their frequency of arguing, the frequency with which one's friends argued on Facebook was positively related to one's own arguing frequency. These results are interpreted in connection to argumentation and computer-mediated-communication literatures. Limitations of the study as well as directions for future research are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Final Research Question Rq9 Asked What Opinions Peoplecontrasting

confidence: 59%

Section: The Final Research Question Rq9 Asked What Opinions Peoplementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Rq3: Do Individuals Argue Mostly About Public or Personal Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook

Cionea

Piercy

Carpenter

2017

Computers in Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…gender) may actually be related to central route processes. Financially incentivizing participants to write persuasive arguments may also attenuate some intrinsic motivations for engaging in political arguments ( 21 ), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, we measured perceived persuasion—not actual attitude change, though the high rank-order agreement in perceived persuasiveness suggests the argument may track with actual attitude change ( 22 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women, the intellectually humble, and liberals write more persuasive political arguments

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If sincere attempts at political persuasion are central to the functioning of democracy, then what attributes of individuals make them more persuasive toward fellow citizens? To examine this we asked 594 Democrats and Republicans to write politically persuasive arguments on any topic of their choice, then gave those arguments to a US representative sample of 3,131 to rate on persuasiveness, totaling 54,686 judgments. We consistently found that arguments written by women, liberals, the intellectually humble, and those low on party identification were rated as more persuasive. These patterns were robust to controls for the demographics and partisanship of judges and persuaders, the topics written about, argument length, and the emotional sentiments of the arguments. Women’s superior persuasiveness was partially, but not fully, explained by the fact that their arguments were longer, of a higher grade level, and expressed less dominance than men’s. Intergroup dynamics also affected persuasiveness, as arguments written for in-party members were more persuasive than ones written for out-party members. These findings suggest that an individual's personal and psychological characteristics durably provide them with a persuasive advantage when they engage in sincere attempts at changing the hearts and minds of fellow citizens.

show abstract

An Exploratory Mixed-Method Analysis of Interpersonal Arguments on Twitter

Johnson

Cionea

2020

Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arguing Goals: An Initial Assessment of a New Measurement Instrument

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook

A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook

Women, the intellectually humble, and liberals write more persuasive political arguments

An Exploratory Mixed-Method Analysis of Interpersonal Arguments on Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About