Article published in:
Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 110133
References

References

Andersen, Peter A.
1987 “The Trait Debate: A Critical Examination of the Individual Differences Paradigm in Interpersonal Communication.” In Progress in Communication Sciences, ed. by Brenda Dervin and Melvin J. Voigt, 47–52. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Armor, David A., and Shelley E. Taylor
2002 “When Predictions Fail: The Dilemma of Unrealistic Optimism.” In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, ed. by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 334–47. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Charles R.
1997Planning Strategic Interaction: Attaining Goals through Communicative Action. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Daniel
1954 “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk.” Econometrica 22 (1): 23–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cionea, Ioana A., Dale Hample, and Fabio Paglieri
2011 “A Test of the Argument Engagement Model in Romania.” In Argumentation: Cognition and Community: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), ed. by Frank Zenker. Windsor: OSSA. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Condit, Celeste M.
2000 “Culture and Biology in Human Communication: Toward a Multi-Causal Model.” Communication Education 49 (1): 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dillard, James P.
2008 “Goals-Plans-Action Theory of Message Production: Making Influence Messages.” In Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, ed. by Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite, 65–76. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Seymour
1979 “The Stability of Behavior: 1. On Predicting Most People Much of the Time.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (7): 1097–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fink, Clinton F.
1972 “Conflict Management Strategies Implied by Expected Utility Models of Behavior.” American Behavioral Scientist 15(6): 837–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fink, Edward L., Deborah A. Cai, and Qi Wang
2006 “Quantitative Methods for Conflict Communication Research, with Special Reference to Culture.” In The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. by John G. Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, 33–64. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale, Fabio Paglieri, and Ling Na
2012 “The Costs and Benefits of Arguing: Predicting the Decision Whether to Engage or Not.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 307–22. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Infante, Dominic A.
1987 “Enhancing the Prediction of Response to a Communication Situation from Communication Traits.” Communication Quarterly 35 (4): 308–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., and Andrew S. Rancer
1982 “A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness.” Journal of Personality Assessment 46 (1): 72–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., and Charles J. Wigley
1986 “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communication Monographs 53 (1) : 61–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Amy J.
2009 “A Functional Approach to Interpersonal Argument. Differences between Public- and Personal-Issue Arguments.” Communication Reports 22 (1): 13–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Beliefs about Arguing: A Comparison of Public Issue and Personal Issue Arguments.” Communication Reports 15 (2): 99–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Amy J., Jennifer A.H. Becker, Shelley Wigley, Michael M. Haigh, and Elizabeth A. Craig
2007 “Reported Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Levels: The Influence of Type of Argument.” Communication Studies 58 (2): 189–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, James M.
1999The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. New York: Cambridge Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, David, and Norman S. Endler
1977 “Interactional Psychology: Present Status and Future Prospects.” In Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, ed. by David Magnusson and Norman S. Endler, 3–35. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paglieri, Fabio, and Cristiano Castelfranchi
2010 “Why Argue? Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Argumentation.” Argument & Computation 1 (1): 71–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rancer, Andrew S., and Theodore A. Avtgis
2006Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Sillars, Alan L.
1980 “The Stranger and the Spouse as Target Persons for Compliance-Gaining Strategies: A Subjective Expected Utility Model.” Human Communication Research 6 (3): 265–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos
1972 “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice.” Psychological Review 79 (4): 281–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1967 “Utility Theory and Additivity Analysis of Risky Choices.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 75 (1): 27–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cionea, Ioana A., Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub
2017. Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model. Argumentation 31:1  pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo
Hample, Dale, Yiwen Dai & Mengqi Zhan
2016. Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions. Argumentation and Advocacy 52:3  pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.