Arguing in Internet Chat Rooms: Argumentative Adaptations to Chat Room Design and Some Consequences for Public Deliberation at a Distance

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 23-38

  Weger, Harry ^a   Aakhus, Mark ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23944439138     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2003.11821595     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aakhus, M., (2003). Neither naive nor normative reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning, 77(3), 265–290.
2. Aakhus, M., (2002). Forums for online deliberation and their consequences for argumentation. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 21, 137–148.
3. Aakhus, M., (2001, July). Designing web-based interactional tools to support learning from experience. Paper presented at the Sixth International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modeling in conjunction with the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Organisational Semiotics, Montreal, Canada.
4. Aakhus, M., (2000). Constituting deliberation as “buy-in” through GDSS design and implementation. The Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication [Online], 70(1). Available: http://www.cios.org/www/ejcrec2.htm
5. Aakhus, M., (1999). Reconstruction Games: Assessing the resources for managing collective argumentation in groupware technology. In F. H., van Eemeren, R., Grootendorst, J. A., Blair, and C. A., Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 1–7). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (SicSat).
6. Abrahams, Roger D., (1962). Playing the dozens. Journal of American Folklore, 75, 209–218.
7. Billig, M., (1996). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Brashers, D., & Meyers, R. A., (1989). Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In B. E., Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 542–550). Annandale, VA: SCA.
9. Canary, D. J., Brossmann, J., Brossmann, B. G., & Weger, H., Jr. (1995). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs, 62, 183–212.
10. Cech, C. G., & Condon, S. L., (1998). Message size constraints on discourse planning in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(2), 255–264.
11. Delio, M., (2001). IRC: Attack from killer ‘HaX0rZ’. Wired News [On-line], Available: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41077,00.html.
12. de Moor, A., & Aakhus, M., (2003). Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. In H., Weigand, G., Goldkuhl & A., de Moor (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective on CommunicationModeling (pp. 135–141). Tilburg: The University of Tilburg. Available: infolab.uvt.nl/lap2003/demoor_aakhus.pdf.
13. Dewey, J., (1927). The public and its problems New York: Henry Holt.
14. Dillard, J. P., (1990). Primary and secondary goals in interpersonal influence. In M. J., Cody, & M. L., McLaughlin (Eds.), Psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70–90). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
15. Fernbeck, J., (1997). The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In S. G., Jones (Ed.). Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 36–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Gergen, K., (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J., Katz & M., Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Goffman, E., (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
18. Goodnight, G. T., (1982). The personal technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
19. Goodnight, G. T., (1995). Views of the public sphere Colloquium and seminar conducted at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, April, 1995.
20. Grice, H. P., (1975). Logic and conversation. In P., Cole & J. L., Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics (pp. 113–128). New York: Academic Press.
21. Habermas, J., (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T., Burger & F., Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1962).
22. Hamblin, C. L., (1970). Fallacies. London, Methuen.
23. Herring, S., (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html
24. Hollihan, T. A., Klumpp J. F., & Riley, P., (1999). Public argument in the post-mass media age. In F. H., van Eemeren, R., Grootendorst, J. A., Blair, and C. A., Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 365–371). Amsterdam: SicSat.
25. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M., (2002). What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution (Quarterly, 20(4), 177–204.
26. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S., (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R., Cox and C. A., Willard (Eds.), Advanees in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205–237). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
27. Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., Steams, S., & Hall, B., (1991). Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K., Tracy (Ed.), Understanding Face-to-Face interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 43–61).
28. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N., (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(4), 557–571.
29. Katz, J., & Aakhus, M., (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Katz, James E., & Rice, R. E., (2002). “Project Syntopia: Social consequences of Internet use.” itandsociety, 1(1), 166–179. (Online publication based at the University of Maryland).
31. Katz, J., Rice, R, & Aspden, P., (2001). The Internet, 1995–2000: Access, civic involvement, and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 405–419.
32. Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W., (1998). Internet Paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.
33. Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R, & Brashers, D., (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47–68.
34. O'Keefe, D.J., (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 121–128.
35. Phillips, L., (1999). Netizens aren't so PC. American Demographics, 21(6), 26.
36. Postman, N., (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Penguin.
37. Postmes, T., & Spears, R., (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(3) 238–260.
38. Rheingold, H., 1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39. Rice, R., & Katz, J., (2001). The Internet and health communication: Expectations and experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G., (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In J., Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55). New York: Academic Press.
41. Sennett, R., (1977). The fall of public man. New York: Knopf.
42. Sproull, L., & Keisler, S., (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Stephens, M., (1996). On shrinking soundbites. Columbia Journalism Review, 35, 22.
44. Taylor, C., (1995). Philosophical arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., (1992). Argumentation communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.
46. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P., (1998). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragmadialectical reconstructions. In Klumpp, J.G., (Ed.) Argument in a Time of Change: Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 51–57). Annandale, VA: NCA.
47. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S., (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
48. Walton, D. N., (1991). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
49. Walton, D. N., (1989). Informal logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Weger, H., Jr. & Jacobs, S., (1995). The burden of going forward with the argument: Argumentative relevance in Pragma-Dialectics. In S., Jackson (Ed.) Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (525–531). Annandale, VA: SCA.
51. Willard, C. A., (1985). The science of values and the values of science. In J. R., Cox, M. O., Sillars, & G. B., Walker (Eds.), Argumentation and social practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 435–444). Annandale, VA: SCA.