The Origins and Nature of Arguments: Studies in Conflict Understanding, Emotion, and Negotiation

Abstract

The emergence and development of argumentation skills in interpersonal conflict situations are the focus of this study. The mental structures used to understand arguments are related to those used to understand social conflict and goal-directed action. The desire to maintain or dissolve a relationship, to persuade, and to understand a position operate throughout interpersonal arguments. Decisions made about whether a relationship should be maintained influence the reasoning and thinking during negotiation, the negotiation strategies, and the outcome of an argument. Because social goals are crucial to understanding argument, negotiations and memory for an argument may be affected as to bias and accuracy.The ability to understand an argument is claimed to emerge early in development. By 3 years of age, children understand and generate the principle components of an argument, either in face-to-face interaction or individual interviews. The ability to construct detailed, coherent rationales in defense of a favored position improves with age. This development, however, does not guarantee a deeper understanding of one's opponents. The conditions that prevent greater understanding of the opposition from developing are discussed. The ways in which biases and limited understanding can be overcome are also considered.In this article, we focus on the social origins and nature of argument. Our analysis describes how children and adults represent, evaluate, and resolve arguments. We have, in our research (

When Do Siblings Compromise? Associations with Children's Descriptions of Conflict Issues, Culpability, and Emotions

“…Finally, anger and sadness were related to compromise in conflict negotiations, albeit in complex ways. We expected anger to be related to a focus on previous harm and attempts at goal reinstatement (i.e., the submission of one's opponent) rather than compromise (Murphy & Eisenberg, 2002; Stein & Albro, 2001). In fact, our results revealed that children's attributions of their sibling 's emotions best differentiated dyads whose negotiations would end in compromise and those that would not.…”

“…Overall, we expected sadness to be related to compromise due to goal abandonment and substitution (Murphy & Eisenberg, 2002; Stein & Albro, 2001). Our results supported this hypothesis.…”

“…In conflict negotiations between parents and children, dyads failed to resolve their differences when both negotiators were angry. In contrast, when both were sad, compromises were most likely to be achieved (Stein & Albro, 2001). Further, Murphy and Eisenberg (2002) found that in middle childhood, children reported constructive goals in peer conflicts if they felt sad whereas they reported destructive goals if they felt angry.…”

“…We expected negotiations to end more often in siblings mutually agreeing to compromise when: (1) siblings' narratives did not include references to physical harm (Stein & Trabasso, 1982; Stein et al., 1996); (2) siblings claimed that they were at least partially to blame (Stein et al., 1996); and (3) siblings indicated that they felt sad rather than angry during their fights (Stein & Albro, 2001).…”

21. Social communicative competencies across the life span

“…As children move toward adolescence, they offer more reasons, find more holes in their opponents' arguments, and offer longer arguments (Stein and Albro 2001). Around age four, children are capable of offering reasons for requests and attempt to persuade others.…”