The Effects of Arguing Expectations and Predispositions on Perceptions of Argument Quality and Playfulness

Abstract

The production of arguments is, or is expected to be, influenced by a number of factors, including one's expectations concerning what occurs during interpersonal arguments, one's emotional predispositions about arguing, and the goals of making good, appropriate arguments. This investigation focused on these factors. Argument frames refers to one's expectations concerning arguing, and personalization of conflict is an index of feelings relating to arguing. These self-report batteries were compared to respondents' judgments of the effectiveness, soundness, playfulness, and appropriateness of conversational argument moves, presented as vignettes. Half of the vignettes presented arguments involving public issues while half concerned personal topics. Half concluded with a rude argumentative move and half with a polite one. Respondents rated the concluding moves. Appropriateness, effectiveness, and soundness were so highly intercorrelated that respondents appeared to be using the scales interchangeably; hence, these measures were combined into one, labeled argument quality. Playfulness, however, was distinct. The politeness of concluding moves affected arguments' perceived quality, but effects regarding their playfulness were inconsistent. Perceived argument quality was poorly predicted by all the expectations or predispositions, except conflict valence. Perceptions of the playfulness of arguments, in contrast, were predicted by several individual differences measures, including the expected utility of arguments, use of arguing to display dominance, the expectation that arguments can be playful, competitiveness, expectation of civility, and conflict valence.