Pragma-dialectical theory (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004) explains that a critical discussion has four stages: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding.
In the confrontation stage, two people discover that they have a disagreement, and in the opening stage they decide how to pursue it. This study focuses on the transition from the confrontation stage to the opening stage. Not all disagreements are explored or even expressed. When circumstances invite disagreement and then argument, sometimes we move forward and sometimes we move away. This is an investigation of the decision to engage or not. What factors predict engagement and which predict that no argument will be voluntarily forthcouting?
Some people report that they argue for play. We question whether and how often such arguments are mutually entertaining for both participants. Play is a frame for arguing, and the framing may not always be successful in laminating the eristic nature of interpersonal argumentation. Previous research and theory suggest that playfulness may be associated with aggression. Respondents (N = 199) supplied self-report data on their arguing behaviors and orientations. We found support for the hypothesis that self-reported playfulness and aggression are directly associated.
We found less evidence for our hypothesized inverse association between self-reported playfulness and indices of cooperation and avoidance. Self-reports of
playfulness are not significantly associated with expert coders’ ratings of either playfulness or aggressiveness. The claim that an argument is playful should be met with skepticism, although playful arguments are possible.
Blurting is production of speech that is spontaneous, unedited, and negative in its repercussions. Study 1 (N 230) analyzed open-ended descriptions of situations in which respondents had blurted and situations in which they had been tempted to blurt but stopped themselves. Coding of those materials supported our essential understanding of blurting. A self-report measure of blurting was developed and produced these findings: Blurters endorsed more messages overall and rejected fewer because of harm to other or relationship; they saw interpersonal arguments in a less sophisticated way, and as less cooperative or civil, but more pointedly emphasized the utility, identity display, dominance, and play goals for arguing; blurters were higher in verbal aggressiveness, indirect interpersonal aggression, psychological reactance, sensation seeking, psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism; and they were lower in perspective-taking and lying.
People were most likely to blurt when they believed they had high rights to speak in a situation, and were less likely when personal benefits and relational consequences were at issue, or when the situation made them apprehensive. Study 2 (N 570) clarified the psychometric properties of the new blurting scale and established its convergent and discriminant validity when compared to a measure of simple spontaneity in speech.