The playful divide: a new look at arguing for fun

Abstract

Interpersonal arguments have many goals; one that has previously been identified is play or enjoyment. However, previous literature on playful argument has conceptualized it as a rather primal and overtly eristic behavior. While many playful arguments do indeed proceed in an eristic sort of frame, many do not show these features. As such, this paper advocates for the reconceptualization of playful argument into two discrete types, substantive playful argument (SBPA) and superficial playful argument (SPPA). First, the differing nature of the two types is explained. Second, four hypotheses are developed to predict association with each type of playful argument. The hypotheses are tested with a survey design, including instruments developed to measure both types of playful argument. Argumentativeness and epistemological sophistication are found to predict substantive playful argument more than superficial, and verbal aggressiveness, teasing, and use of inside jokes are found to be more predictive of superficial than substantive. Further, the substantive and superficial play scales showed a fairly weak correlation, indicating that they are indeed largely conceptually distinct. Thus, this paper advances the study of playful argument, provides new instruments for its measure, and provides insight into what traits or communicative preferences might predispose an individual to seek one route to enjoyment or the other.