Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Abstract

Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) is a noninteractional theory of group decision-making that predicts postdiscussion shifts (polarization/choice shifts) from the cognitive arguments individuals generate prior to discussion. PAT relegates interaction to a "display channel"; it is considered an efficient, but not necessary, mechanism for displaying members' cognitive arguments in group discussion. The principal PAT predictor model incorporates four primary elements: (a) cognitive arguments, (b) cognitive argument novelty ratings, (c) cognitive argument persuasiveness ratings, and (d) a weighted-averaging combinatory formula. This model is utilized to predict individual and group shifts produced in group discussion. Following a review, critique, and alternative interaction-based explanation of the argument-decision shift link, two models, each increasingly more interactionoriented, are advanced to test the PAT perspective on argument. Results of the tests revealed that although the initial model was not a significantly better predictor of postdiscussion shifts than the PAT model, the second elaborated model demonstrated superior predictive ability at some levels of analysis. Implications for PAT and for the role of communication in determining decision shifts are discussed.

Normative and Informational Influences in Online Political Discussions

“…The Postmes et al (2000) study of online communication discussed above, for instance, coded features such as self-reference, requests, complaints, flaming, use of humor or slang, and the like. Research in formal decision-making groups has studied patterns of argumentation in some detail, both in face-to-face settings (e.g., Meyers, 1989) and in computer-mediated groups (e.g., Brashers, Adkins, & Meyers, 1994). These studies, however, have focused on group outcomes rather than on individual choices, finding evidence that group decisions are influenced both by the total proportion of arguments made supporting or opposing the proposition and by the number of group members offering support or opposition (Gouran, 1994;Hoffman, 1979;Lemus, Siebold, Flanagin, & Metzger, 2004;McPhee, Poole, & Siebold, 1982;Meyers & Brashers, 1998).…”

Argument and Decision Making in Computer-Mediated Groups

“…Unlike cognitive perspectives such as social decision scheme (Davis, 1973) and persuasive arguments theory (Burnstein, 1982), interaction-including group argumentis key to group decision processes. For example, Meyers (1989) found that the interaction among group members significantly influenced the number and novelty of arguments advanced during FtF discussion compared with those members' prediscussion cognitive arguments.…”

Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions

“…Working in the specific area of group polarization, Meyers (1989aMeyers ( , 1989b attempted to contrast the persuasive arguments view with a structurationalist, "social interactional," approach more consistent with Position Five. Meyers was able to demonstrate that group members' postdiscussional preferences were not predicted well by the distribution of arguments for and against various preferences known by the members before discussion, a finding clearly inconsistent with persuasive arguments theory.…”