Argument and Decision Making in Computer-Mediated Groups

Lemus, Daisy R.; Seibold, David R.; Flanagin, Andrew J.; Metzger, Miriam J.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02630.x

Cited by 46 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the need to explain, justify, and understand is felt and acted upon only when conflicts or errors are brought to attention (Baker, 1999). Supporting these assumptions are the findings from extensive research on collaborative learning in the face-to-face classroom (Johnson and Johnson, 1992;Wiley and Voss, 1999) and some recent research in CMC (Jeong, 2004b;Lemus, Seibold, Flanagin, and Metzger, 2004) that show conflict (produced by responses that challenge arguments) and the consideration of both sides of an issue is what drives inquiry, reflection, articulation of individual viewpoints and assumptions, and deeper understanding.…”

Section: Theoretical Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

Jeong

2006

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on the number and types of replies elicited per argument and per challenge posted in online debates. To facilitate collaborative argumentation, thirty-two students (22 females, 10 males) enrolled in a graduatelevel online course classified and labeled their messages as arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, or explanations prior to posting each message. The findings showed that qualified arguments elicited 41 percent fewer replies (effect size = -.64), and the reduction in replies was greatest when qualified arguments were presented by females than males. Challenges without qualifiers, however, did not elicit more replies than challenges with qualifiers. These findings suggest that qualifiers were used to hedge arguments, and such behaviors should be discouraged during initial stages of identifying arguments (more so in all-female than in all-male groups) in order to elicit more diverse and more opposing viewpoints needed to thoroughly and critically analyze arguments.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

Jeong

2006

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in this study, argumentation was operationalized as the proportion of comments made that were not assertions, so there was no consider-ation of the different kinds of discursive moves that may be made in conversational arguments. Although they did not directly compare FtF and computer-mediated groups, Lemus et al (2004) found in their sample of computer-mediated groups differences in the frequency of several argument behaviors compared to a study of FtF arguments (Meyers, Seibold, & Brashers, 1991). Without a direct comparison between FtF and computer-mediated conditions, it is unclear whether any such differences are the result of differences in medium or differences in the sample or task.…”

Section: Communication Medium and The Structuration Of Conversationalmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, when interlocutors are anonymous, no future interactions are anticipated, and the goals of the interaction are not interpersonal (i.e., are task oriented), then we may expect more impersonal communication in CMC. There is very little research directly comparing argumentation in FtF versus computer-mediated contexts, although some studies of group argumentation have been done on computer-mediated groups (Brashers, Adkins, & Meyers, 1994;Lemus, Seibold, Flanagin, & Metzger, 2004). In a study on small groups of managers performing a decision-making task on risk taking, McGuire, Kiesler, and Siegel (1987) found evidence that there may be differences in argumentation in these contexts.…”

Section: Communication Medium and The Structuration Of Conversationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversational Argumentation in Decision Making: Chinese and U.S. Participants in Face-to-Face and Instant-Messaging Interactions

Stewart

Setlock

Fussell

2007

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates cultural and communication medium effects on conversational argumentation in a decision-making context. Chinese and U.S. participants worked in pairs on two decision-making tasks via face-to-face (FtF) and instant messaging (IM). The analyses showed that Chinese participants tended to engage in potentially more complex argumentation, whereas U.S. participants tended to utilize proportionally more statements of claims and statements of convergence (agreements, acknowledgments, and concessions). Argumentation in IM tended to be more direct than in FtF interactions. There were no interaction effects between culture and communication medium on argumentation behavior. In addition, statements of convergence were found to be negatively related to measures of persuasion, indicating that such statements do not necessarily indicate true agreements or shifts in opinion. The results are discussed in terms of structuration theory and the socioegocentric model of communication.Argumentation is a pervasive mode of discourse, occurring in face-to-face (FtF), mass-mediated and computer-mediated contexts, and in oral and written discourse. Various definitions of argumentation exist, depending on disciplinary and functional orientations to the study of argument (Voss & Van Dyke, 2001). Decision-making dyads and groups engage in argumentation by exchanging claims and Correspondence should be addressed to Craig O. Stewart, Department of English, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529. E-mail: cstewart@odu.edu reasons, and expressing agreement and disagreement, in the process of arriving at decisions that are, at least ideally, mutually acceptable to the group's members. Increasingly, as organizations internationalize, collaborative decision making takes place over computer-mediated channels and across diverse cultures. However, there is little research on argumentation in decision-making directly comparing the argumentation behaviors found in computer-mediated interactions with those in FtF interactions or argumentation behaviors in collectivistic cultures with those in individualistic cultures. In this article, we analyze the argumentative discourse moves of dyads consisting either of U.S. or Chinese college students collaborating on decision-making tasks in FtF and instant-messaging (IM) interactions. In addition to investigating how culture and communication technology affect argumentation, we investigate relations between argumentation behaviors and postdiscussion agreement between partners and subjective ratings of the tasks. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKStructuration theory has been an influential framework for studying the role of interaction and communicative processes in group decision making. As Poole, Seibold, and McPhee (1985) stated, "Structuration refers to the process of production and reproduction of social systems via the application of generative rules and resources [i.e., structures]" (p. 76). The underlying structures that support social systems emerge through processes of interaction. Argumen...

show abstract

“…That is beginning to change, however. The CAS recently has been used to code the interaction of students discussing consequential tasks (Lemus et al, 2004) and actual jury decision-making interactions. Moreover, future plans include investigating argument in top management teams' strategic planning sessions and among teams of scientists considering next steps in their research.…”

Section: Application To Unique Tasks and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument Categories, Units, and Coding Procedures

Meyers

Brashers

2010

Communication Methods and Measures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argument and Decision Making in Computer-Mediated Groups

Cited by 46 publications

References 33 publications

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

Conversational Argumentation in Decision Making: Chinese and U.S. Participants in Face-to-Face and Instant-Messaging Interactions

Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument Categories, Units, and Coding Procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About