1991
DOI: 10.1080/10570319109374370
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
40
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is not new. Past research on group argument shows that groups readily offer propositions and assertions (claims) but often little reasoning to support those claims (Burnett & Badzinski, 2000;Meyers, Seibold, & Brashers, 1991). The patterns in these data mirror those earlier findings, again illustrating how members are willing to disagree with information and propositions (statements of simple fact or opinion) but do not challenge members' evaluations of those statements.…”
Section: Group-centric Behaviorsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…This finding is not new. Past research on group argument shows that groups readily offer propositions and assertions (claims) but often little reasoning to support those claims (Burnett & Badzinski, 2000;Meyers, Seibold, & Brashers, 1991). The patterns in these data mirror those earlier findings, again illustrating how members are willing to disagree with information and propositions (statements of simple fact or opinion) but do not challenge members' evaluations of those statements.…”
Section: Group-centric Behaviorsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…For instance, the five primary communication processes that emerged in the knowledge construction frames are consistent with findings regarding argument in decision-making groups using the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme (CACS) (Canary, Ratledge, & Seibold, 1982). Studies in that line of research have reported frequent use of communication strategies labeled elaborations (similar to explanations/clarifications), assertions (similar to potential consequences), and agreement (opposite of expressions of difference) (Meyers, Seibold, & Brashers, 1991;Seibold & Meyers, 2007). Although people might explain, offer opinions, and disagree in any number of interaction contexts, this study identified how each of the five primary communication processes contributed to knowledge development over time in the three knowledge construction frames.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A primary objective of this research program has been to combine argumentation theory and observations of people interacting to construct a coding scheme applicable to conversational arguments (Brossmann & Canary, 1990;Canary et al, 1982Canary et al, , 1987aCanary et al, , 1987bMeyers, Seibold, & Brashers, 1990;Seibold, McPhee, Poole, Tanita, & Canary, 1981). Table 1 presents the content codes used in this research.…”
Section: Assumption 4: Conversational Arguments Vary In Structurementioning
confidence: 98%