The Effects of Arguing Expectations and Predispositions on Perceptions of Argument Quality and Playfulness.

Argument production is, or is expected to be, influenced by a number of factors. Among these are one's expectations about what goes on during interpersonal arguments, one's emotional predispositions about arguing, and the goals of making good and appropriate arguments. This investigation concerns these factors. Argument frames refer to one's expectations about arguing, and personalization of conflict is taken as a reasonable index of feelings about arguing. These self-report batteries are compared to respondents' judgments about the quality, playfulness, and appropriateness of conversational argument moves, presented as vignettes. Half the vignettes presented arguments on public issues, and half on personal topics. Half the versions concluded with a rude argumentative move, and half with a polite one. Respondents rated the concluding moves. Appropriateness, effectiveness, and soundness are so highly intercorrelated that respondents appear to be using the scales synonymously, and so these measures were combined into one, labeled quality. Argument playfulness is distinct, however. The politeness of concluding moves affects their perceived argumentative quality, but has inconsistent effects regarding the arguments' apparent playfulness. Perceived argument quality is poorly predicted by any of the expectations or predispositions except conflict valence. Perception of argument playfulness, in contrast, is predictable by several individual differences measures, including expected argument utility, use of arguing to display dominance, the expectation that arguments can be playful, competitiveness, expectation of civility, and conflict valence. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]