Abstract
Research about argumentational unfairness has focused primarily on the cognitive evaluation of argumentational rule violations, applying written argumentational scenarios, and structured answering format. This study investigates cognitive, emotional, and verbal responses to unfair contributions (nonrational vs. noncooperative speech acts) using an open-ended answering format in various presentation modalities (written, auditory, and role-play). No differences appeared between reactions to nonrational versus noncooperative contributions or between the different presentation modalities. The results replicate previous findings and provide support for the validity of attributional models in unfair everyday discourse, as well as for the position that argumentative behavior is rule governed by reciprocal expectancies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
