Argumentative Flexibility as a Factor Influencing Message Response Style to Argumentative and Aggressive Arguers.

The study of interpersonal argument has generated a considerable body of research literature in the last decade. A variety of contexts in which interpersonal argument is cast have been investigated ranging from such specialized contexts as marital argument to the more generalized context of conversational argument. Despite this diversity of contexts, a consensus exists among many argument theorists regarding the value of argument within an interpersonal relationship. Johnson and Johnson (1979) in their review of over 100 published articles on conflict within the classroom context, conclude that arguing improves one's social perspective-taking or ability to infer what is important to each person. Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) report that arguing improves a relationship by keeping it interesting and increasing mutual understanding. These outcomes do accrue without effort. As Infante (1988) stresses, interpersonal argument is more likely to achieve a positive outcome if arguers test each other's ideas rather than testing each other. That is, one's position on an issue may be attacked whereas attacks on one's self-concept may lead to destructive argument. Thus, arguers must be able to argue constructively. For Infante (1988), constructive argument requires that arguers treat each other as equals, establish attitudinal similarity, and demonstrate interest in each other's views. Infante's definition of constructive argument represents a second consensus among many argument theorists. That is, several studies have determined that constructive argument is more likely to lead to cooperative or collaborative outcomes than destructive argument. For instance, Roloff, Tutzauer, and Dailey (1989) examined the impact of relational processes in argument and found that a low interpersonal orientation adversely affected negotiation outcomes while conciliatory-based negotiation led to an increase in integrative or collaborative outcomes. Pruitt (1981) further suggests that information exchange will lead to collaborative agreement when arguers believe that each is concerned with the needs of the other. Other research also suggests that once bargaining begins, arguers' reactions to each other are frequently based on reciprocal action, including the making of concessions (Esser & Komorita, 1975; Pruitt, 1968 & 1971; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975). These studies suggest that arguers, out of practical necessity, if not philosophical principle, may better serve their argumentative ends by arguing in a cooperative manner. Thus, attending to the relational level of argument appears to have a direct influence on the content level of argument. These findings parallel Watzwalick, Beavin, and Jackson's (1967) distinction between content and relational messages. That is, a message includes both a content or cognitive level and a relational or affective level. As these theorists suggest, these levels are interdependent communication processes with each influencing the interpretation of the other. That is, the content of a message influences how participants define their relationship while the relational level influences how message content is interpreted. Wenzel (1990) demonstrates the importance of balancing the content level and the relational level when he states that a good argument must deal with the subject as comprehensively as possible, that arguers use candor in making their ideas clear, and that decisions be rigorously tested. However, as Wenzel also states, rules and principles alone cannot ensure critical discussion unless arguers bring "attitudes of the right kind" to an argument. Wenzel defines these attitudes consistent with several tenets of the "new rhetoric" philosophical movement of the 1960's and early 1970's. The new rhetoric focused considerable attention on communication outcomes, such as Simon's (1967) use of communication to reconcile differences and deescalate conflict and Ohm-ann's (1964) emphasis on communication to achieve harmony anti consensus. …