Framing flames: The structure of argumentative messages on the net

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1997, Pages

  Mabry, Edward A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COALESCENCE; COMPUTER AIDED NETWORK ANALYSIS; COMPUTER NETWORKS; ELECTRONIC MAIL; INTERNET; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS (CMC); DIALOGUE GAMES; MESSAGE EXCHANGERS; SOCIAL ARGUMENTATION;

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 3042534805     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00193.x     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Alderton, S. M and Frey, L. R. 1986. Argumentation in small groups decision-making. In Group Decision-Making and Communication, eds R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole, 157-173. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. Antaki, C. and Leudar, I. 1992. Explaining in conversation: Towards an argument model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22: 181-194.
3. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballentine.
4. Brennan, R. L. and Prediger, D. J. 1981. Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41: 687-699.
5. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and Politeness, ed. E. Goody, 256-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16: 297-334.
7. Govier, T. 1985. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont: Wadsworth.
8. Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., and Johnson, K. 1989. Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, de-individuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5: 217-232.
9. Holtgraves, T. 1986. Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 305-314.
10. Kerlinger, F. N. and Pedhazur, E. J. 1973. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11. Kiesler, S., Zubrow, P., Moses, A. M. and Geller, V. 1985. Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human Computer Interaction, 1:77-104.
12. Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. 1992. Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52:96-123.
13. Lea, M., O'Shea, t., Fung, P. and Spears, R. 1992. 'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In Contexts of Computer- Mediated Communication, ed. M. Lea, 89-112. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
14. McLaughlin, M. 1984. Conversation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Mabry, E. A., Jackson. J., McPhee, R. D., and Van Lear, A. 1990. Interactional arguments and group decision-making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL, 10 November.
16. Mabry, E. A., Van Lear, A, Jackson, J., and McPhee, R. D. 1991. Constitutive dimensions of small group argument: Rethinking argument in persuasive arguments theory. In Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference, ed. D. Parsons, 175-181. Annendale, VA: SCA.
17. Rafaeli, S., Sudweeks, F., Konstan, J., and Mabry, E. A. 1994. ProjectH Overview: A Quantitative Study of Computer Mediated Communication, available on the World Wide Web at http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/~fay/netplay/techreport.html or via ftp at ftp.arch.su.edu.au/pub/projectH/papers/techreport.txt.
18. Rheingold, H. 1993. Virtual Communities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19. Selfe, C. L. and Meyer, C. A. 1991. Testing claims for online conferences. Written Communication, 8: 165-192.
20. Siegel, J. Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T. 1986. Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37: 157-187.
21. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1991. The analysis of dialogical elements in argumentative texts. In Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, eds F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, 365-370. Amsterdam: SICSAT.
22. Spitzer, M. 1986. Writing style in computer conferences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications (PC), 29: 19-22.
23. Sudweeks, F. and Rafaeli, S. 1996. How do you get a hundred strangers to agree: Computer mediated communication and collaboration. In Computer Networking and Scholarship in the 21st Century, eds T. M. Harrison and T. D. Stephen, 115-136. New York: SUNY Press.
24. Sudweeks, F., Collins, M., and December, J. 1995. Internetworking resources. In Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom: An Overview and Perspectives, Vol. 1, eds Z. Berge and M Collins, 193-212. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
25. Weisband, S. P. 1992. Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 53: 352-380.
26. Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. 2nd edn New York: McGraw-Hill.