Article published In: Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 110–133
Extending the argument engagement model
Expected utility and interacting traits as predictors of the intent to argue with friends
Published online: 8 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.06ric
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.06ric
This investigation considers the factors that predict the intent to engage in interpersonal arguments. By adapting the argument engagement model (Hample, Paglieri, and Na 2012), a subjective expected utility model was tested to determine the effects of (1) evaluative assessments, in addition to probabilistic assessments, and (2) probabilistic assessment-trait interactions on argument engagement. Participants (N = 273) read three argument vignettes and answered questions about their intent to argue in each situation. Results were mixed regarding the significance of expected values and situation-trait interactions in predicting intentions to argue. Participants overwhelmingly reported an optimism bias, whereby they tended to perceive positive outcomes of argument as likely and negative outcomes of argument as unlikely. Possible reasons for these findings and their implications are discussed.
References (24)
Andersen, Peter A. 1987. “The Trait Debate: A Critical Examination of the Individual Differences Paradigm in Interpersonal Communication.” In Progress in Communication Sciences, ed. by Brenda Dervin and Melvin J. Voigt, 47–52. Norwood: Ablex.
Armor, David A., and Shelley E. Taylor. 2002. “When Predictions Fail: The Dilemma of Unrealistic Optimism.” In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, ed. by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 334–47. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, Charles R. 1997. Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bernoulli, Daniel. 1954. “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk.” Econometrica 22 (1): 23–36.
Cionea, Ioana A., Dale Hample, and Fabio Paglieri. 2011. “A Test of the Argument Engagement Model in Romania.” In Argumentation: Cognition and Community: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. by Frank Zenker. Windsor: OSSA. CD-ROM.
Condit, Celeste M. 2000. “Culture and Biology in Human Communication: Toward a Multi-Causal Model.” Communication Education 49 (1): 7–24.
Dillard, James P. 2008. “Goals-Plans-Action Theory of Message Production: Making Influence Messages.” In Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, ed. by Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite, 65–76. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Epstein, Seymour. 1979. “The Stability of Behavior: 1. On Predicting Most People Much of the Time.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (7): 1097–126.
Fink, Clinton F. 1972. “Conflict Management Strategies Implied by Expected Utility Models of Behavior.” American Behavioral Scientist 15(6): 837–58.
Fink, Edward L., Deborah A. Cai, and Qi Wang. 2006. “Quantitative Methods for Conflict Communication Research, with Special Reference to Culture.” In The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. by John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, 33–64. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hample, Dale, Fabio Paglieri, and Ling Na. 2012. “The Costs and Benefits of Arguing: Predicting the Decision Whether to Engage or Not.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 307–22. New York: Springer.
Infante, Dominic A. 1987. “Enhancing the Prediction of Response to a Communication Situation from Communication Traits.” Communication Quarterly 35 (4): 308–16.
Infante, Dominic A., and Andrew S. Rancer. 1982. “A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness.” Journal of Personality Assessment 46 (1): 72–80.
Infante, Dominic A., and Charles J. Wigley. 1986. “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communication Monographs 53 (1) : 61–9.
Johnson, Amy J. 2009. “A Functional Approach to Interpersonal Argument. Differences between Public- and Personal-Issue Arguments.” Communication Reports 22 (1): 13–28.
. 2002. “Beliefs about Arguing: A Comparison of Public Issue and Personal Issue Arguments.” Communication Reports 15 (2): 99–111.
Johnson, Amy J., Jennifer A.H. Becker, Shelley Wigley, Michael M. Haigh, and Elizabeth A. Craig. 2007. “Reported Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Levels: The Influence of Type of Argument.” Communication Studies 58 (2): 189–205.
Magnusson, David, and Norman S. Endler. 1977. “Interactional Psychology: Present Status and Future Prospects.” In Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, ed. by David Magnusson and Norman S. Endler, 3–35. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Paglieri, Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi. 2010. “Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation.” Argument & Computation 1 (1): 71–91.
Rancer, Andrew S., and Theodore A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sillars, Alan L. 1980. “The Stranger and the Spouse as Target Persons for Compliance-Gaining Strategies: A Subjective Expected Utility Model.” Human Communication Research 6 (3): 265–79.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Cionea, Ioana A., Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.