Components of the evaluation of integrity violations in argumentative discussions: Relevant factors and their relationships

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 315-341

  Christmann, Ursula ^a   Mischo, Christoph ^a   Groeben, Norbert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034374638     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X00019003003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alicke, M. D., Weigold, M. F., & Rogers, S. L. (1990). Inferring intentions and responsibility from motives and outcomes: Evidential and extra-evidential judgements. Social Cognition, 8(3), 286-305.
2. Blickle, G., & Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegrität (II): Zur Psychologischen Realität des subjektiven Wertkonzepts - ein Experimenteller Prüfungsansatz am Beispiel ausgewählter Standards [Argumentational integrity (II): The psychological reality of the subjective value concept - an experimental approach for selected standards]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 29. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
3. Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Judgments about crime and the criminal: A model and a method for investigation parole decisions. In B. D. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology, (pp. 191-239). New York: Plenum.
4. Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (1995). Diagnosis and evaluations of argumentational integrity: An empirical study. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendoorst, A. J. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA Conference on argumentation. Amsterdam 1994 (Vol. 3, pp. 219-229). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
5. Christmann, U., Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1996). War das Absicht? Indikatoren subjektiver Intentionalitätszustände bei der ethischen Bewertung von Argumentationsbeiträgen [Was that deliberate? Cues to subjective states of intentionality in evaluating contributions to argumentative discussions from an ethical perspective]. Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, 101, 70-113.
6. Christmann, U., Sladek, U., & Groeben, N. (1998). Der Einfluβ personaler und interaktiver Kontextinformationen auf die Diagnose und Bewertung argumentativer (Un-)Integrität [The effect of person-related and interactive context variables on the diagnosis and evaluation of argumentational (un-)fairness]. Sprache & Kognition, 17(3), 107-124.
7. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). Models for the sequential construction of accounting episodes: Situational and interactional constraints on message selection and evaluation. In R. L. Street & J. N. Cappella (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 50-69). London: E. Arnold.
8. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1988). Accounts on trial: Oral arguments in traffic court. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 113-126). London: Sage.
9. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & P. W. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 227-255). Chichester, New York: John Wiley.
10. Darley, J. M., & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and aquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556.
11. Groeben, N., Nüse, R., & Gauler, E. (1992). Diagnose argumentativer Unintegrität. Objektive und subjektive Tatbestandsmerkmale bei Werturteilen über argumentative Sprechhandlungen [The diagnosis of unfairness in argumentation. Objective and subjective facts in evaluating contributions]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 39(4), 533-558.
12. Groeben, N., Schreier, M., & Christmann, U. (1993). Fairneβ beim Argumentieren: Argumentationsintegrität als Wertkonzept einer Ethik der Kommunikation [Fairness in argumentation. Argumentational integrity as a value concept within an ethics of argumentation]. Linguistische Berichte, 147, 355-382.
13. Higgins, R. L., & Snyder, C. R. (1989). Excuses gone awry. An analysis of self-defeating excuses. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), Self-defeating behaviors. Experimental research, clinical impressions, and practical implications (pp. 99-130). New York/London: Plenum.
14. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley.
15. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
16. Karlovac, M., & Darley, J. M. (1988). Attribution of responsibility for accidents: A negligence law analogy. Social Cogniton, 6, 287-318.
17. Krauth, J. (1993). Einführung in die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse (KFA). Ein multivariates nichtparametrisches Verfahren zum Nachweis und zur Interpretation von Typen und Syndromen [Introduction to configuration-frequency-analysis (CFA). A multivariate, non-parametric procedure for proof and interpretation of types and syndromes]. Weinheim/Basel: Psychologie Verlags Union.
18. Lienert, G. A., & Krauth, J. (1974). Die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse als Prädiktionsmodell in der angewandten Psychologie [The configuration frequency analysis as a prediction model in applied psychology]. In L. H. Eckensberger & U. S. Eckensberger (Eds.), Bericht über den 28. Kongreβ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Band 2: Psychologische Methoden und Mathematische Psychologie (pp. 219-228). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
19. Löschper, G., Mummendey, A., Linneweber, V., &Bornewasser, M. (1984). The judgement of behaviour as aggressive and sanctionable. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 391-404.
20. McCann, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Social cognition and communication. In H. Giles & P. W. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 13-33). Chichester, New York: John Wiley.
21. Nüse, R., Groeben, N., Christmann, U., & Gauler, E. (1993). Schuldmindernde versus-begründende Zusatzattributionen in moralischen Handlungsbeurteilungen [Mitigating and aggravating factors in the attribution of guilt in moral judgments]. Gruppendynamik, 24(2), 165-198.
22. Oswald, M. (1989) Schadenshöhe, Strafe und Verantwortungsattribution [Extent of damage, punishment, and attribution of responsibility]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 20, 200-210.
23. Schreier, M. (1997). Das Erkennen sprachlicher Täuschung. Über Absichtlichkeitsindikatoren beim unintegren Argumentieren [The identification of verbal deception. Intentionality cues in unfair contributions to argumentative discussions]. Münster: Aschendorff.
24. Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1990). Argumentationsintegrität (III): Rhetorische Strategien und Integritätsstandards [Argumentational integrity (III). Rhetorical strategies and the standards of fair argumentation]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 30. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
25. Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1992). Argumentationsintegrität (VIII): Zur psychologischen Realität des subjektiven Wertkonzepts. Eine experimentelle Überprüfung für die 11 standards integren argumentierens [Argumentational integrity (VIII). The psychological reality of the subjective value concept). Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 53. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
26. Schreier, M., & Groeben, N. (1996). Ethical guidelines for the conduct in argumentative discussions: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 49(1), 123-132.
27. Schreier, M., Groeben, N, & Blickle, G. (1995). The effects of (un-)fairness and (im-) politeness on the evaluation of argumentative communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(3), 260-288.
28. Schreier, M, Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1995). That's not fair! Argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9, 267-289.
29. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
30. Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1983). The accountability of conduct: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic Press.
31. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame. New York: Springer.
32. Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702.
33. Shultz, T. R., & Wright, K. (1985). Concepts of negligence and intention in the assignment of moral responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 97-108.
34. Sladek, U., Mlynski, G., Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (1996). Argumentationsintegrität (XXI): Der Einfluβ situativer Rahmenbedingungen auf die Bewertung argumentativer (Un-)Integrität [Argumentational integrity (XXI). Situational facors in the evaluation of argumentative (un-)fairness]. Sonderforschungsbereich 245, Report No. 100. Heidelberg, Germany: Psychologisches Institut der Universität.
35. Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1990). Reality negotiations and excuse-making: President Reagan's 4 March 1987 Iran arms scandal speech and other literature. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 207-228). Clevedon, Wales: Multilingual matters.
36. Weiner, B. (1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 1-47). London: Academic Press.
37. Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.
38. Williams, E. J. (1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Science Research, 2, 149-168.