This is a natural experiment comparing Ukrainians’ orientations toward interpersonal arguing under three distinct conditions of war. We compare results of parallel data collections from 2018 (after the Crimea seizure but before the current invasion), 2021 (immediately prior to the Russian invasion), and 2024 (during the war). Analyses showed that as war conditions became more intense, Ukrainians self-reported more favorable attitudes and understandings about engaging in face-to-face arguing. We discuss the difficulties of drawing clear causal conclusions from natural experiments such as the present one, versus true experiments with their stringent controls for competing causal confounds. We speculate that our results regarding war might suggest the effects we might expect from other conditions of high social stress, such as natural disasters or civil unrest.

In this paper, we describe and analyze how immigrants in Chile ( N = 388, from Colombia, Perú and Venezuela), conceive having a disagreement and how they value the practice of giving reasons. For this purpose, we applied a survey that measures different argumentative tendencies. For the most part, we found all three immigrant groups to be comparable in how they thought and felt about arguing, but that age and gender were structural variables that made important differences in the way people conceived the practice of giving reasons.

Bulgarian people have a long history and an enduring national identity, significantly defined by their continuing allegiance to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Here we investigate how Bulgarians understand the prospect of interpersonal argument. Our instruments assess Bulgarians' arguing motivations, their understandings of the practice of arguing face to face, their emotional reactions to interpersonal disagreement, their tolerance of status inequalities in society, and their willingness to argue at work. We have data from 287 Bulgarians (39% male, 61% female), having an average age of 37 years. We uncovered very few differences between men and women. We found older Bulgarians less eager to argue in typical social situations, though they were not hesitant to argue with their superiors at work. They were more polite and cooperative when they did argue. Bulgarians who were most comfortable with status inequities in society were reluctant to argue with their superiors, were noticeably willing to produce ad hominem arguments, and generally had an aggressive impolite profile of arguing orientations. Poland and Ukraine are natural comparisons because of their shared political histories in the last several generations. We also do a comparison with the U.S., as a general standard of comparison because our theories and measures originated in the U.S.

Guided by the Categorization-Elaboration Model, we developed and tested a model to reconcile the conflicting results of cultural diversity's influence on team performance. Previous theory and studies have inconsistent arguments and evidence regarding cultural diversity's effects on team performance. We recognize that member cultural diversity is one possible influence on the variety and meanings of messages generated within groups, and the messages' meanings may then affect performance. Work-related information sharing, including information sharing openness and uniqueness, is proposed as an underlying mechanism that translates the effect of cultural diversity to project team performance. Additionally, team cultural intelligence may moderate the relationship between cultural diversity and the information sharing processes. Participants constituted three types of teams: all American (N = 32 teams), all Chinese (N = 34 teams), and mixed (N = 38 teams), in which team members finished a business problem identification task collectively. Results showed that in culturally diverse teams, high levels of cultural intelligence amplified the positive relationship between cultural diversity and information sharing uniqueness, which in turn led to higher team performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Orientations toward interpersonal arguing were systematically assessed in Argentina in this article. Several hundred university-connected respondents self-reported their motivations, understandings, and emotional reactions for face-to-face arguing. Comparisons were made to earlier investigations in Mexico and Chile. We found that Argentinian, Mexican, and Chilean orientations were identifiably different. Argentinian men and women often had different orientations, as was also the case in Mexico and Chile (but not in all other nations studied in this global project). Older Argentinian respondents were less aggressive and less interested in arguing than younger ones. Arguing motivations generally reproduced the U.S. correlational patterns, which was not as clearly the case in Mexico and Chile. Early reports on the connections between the standard orientation variables and both power distance and workplace arguing are also reported, and show points of interest.

This is a descriptive study (N = 243) of how Polish undergraduates and graduates perceive face to face arguing. We had some reasons to suppose that they would not be especially aggressive. The Polish culture has a number of proverbs warning against combative arguing, with "agreement builds and disagreement destroys" being illustrative. In addition, up until 1989 public dissent and open disagreements were suppressed by the government, and older generations often found it prudent to avoid arguing. We compared Polish results with previously reported data from the U.S. and Ukraine. We did, in fact, find that Polish orientations were less aggressive and more other-oriented than the two comparison nations. We also discovered Poland was more wary of engaging in interpersonal conflicts. Distinct sex differences appeared when we compared Polish men and women, with men being more forceful. Correlational patterns, especially concerning argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, were largely consistent with those originally found in the U.S. Power distance continues to have important connections with the standard argument orientation measures, but its patterns of correlation are not entirely consistent across the relatively small number of nations where the variable has been studied.

friendly man, and will be deeply missed by many of us. coach, and a mock trial coach (this, even after retirement). These experiences blended easily with his education in rhetoric to produce a lifelong interest in argumentation. He served his profession in many capacities, but particularly as the editor of Argumentation and Advocacy (the leading U.S. journal for the study of argumentation), as the Alta argumentation conference director, and as editor of Argument and Critical Practices, which grew from that conference. He was pivotal in the internationalization of the U.S. argumentation community, by encouraging the work of Frans van Eemeren and meetings, and by being one of the first U.S. scholars to take a role in the meetings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. His career was honored by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, and he was a keynote speaker at several Perhaps his most remarkable scholarly contribution was his recognition that arguments can usefully be seen from three different perspectives: as rhetorical, as logical, and as dialectical. His idea that scholars should try to see argument, the one thing, in three different ways offered a comfortable way to reconcile what seemed to be radically different interests in the argumentation community. Those interested in politics and pragmatic effects were naturally drawn to the rhetorical perspective and its concerns with effectiveness and audience. Scholars wanting to evaluate the soundness of arguments could begin by considering the truth/validity focus of for

This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors (N = 243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors’ responses to survey items indexing argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N = 80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments, a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.

In legal and educational circles, the quality of arguments has become a growing national concern in Mexico. We examined the motivations, understandings, and private reactions to arguing among Mexican college students, and compare these to data from the United States. Mexican men were more aggressive than women, which is not the case in all nations studied to this point. Mexicans were very substantially more oriented to civility than U.S. respondents, more sophisticated in their understandings of interpersonal arguing, and far less inclined to take conflicts personally. Power distance was a substantial predictor for many of the measures used here.

Though people know better when they stop to consider it, most of them casually think of themselves as having inherited a coherent tradition of rhetorical and argumentation theory. The combination of an Aristotelian idea with a remark by Kenneth Burke is received without blinking. Another sort of horizontal analysis might focus on argument forms and channels. Some scholars have already debated whether the explicit linear models appropriate to propositional verbal arguments are also suitable to what appear to be visual or narrative arguments. Many contributors to the volume were comfortable with something like these vertical and horizontal distinctions, but others instinctively oriented to others sorts of locality. Some found the locality issue imbedded in particular sorts of bodies. Some found legal or academic forensics settings to be those that suggested that some sort of specialized argumentation was being institutionalized or expected.

This project investigates orientations toward interpersonal arguing among Chilean seniors (N=243), having a mean age of 72 years. We found no prior attention to seniors in the interpersonal arguing literature, and only a little to Chileans. Sited within the US framework for studying interpersonal arguing (see Hample, 2016), this project collected seniors' responses to survey items indexing argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, personalization of conflict, and power distance. Our exploratory work involved use of a second sample of Chilean undergraduates (N=80) for comparison. Comparisons showed that the seniors were less likely to argue, especially for play. Seniors were more interested in asserting dominance and were less cooperative and civil. Few sex differences were observed among the seniors, whereas quite a few had been previously found for Chilean undergraduates. These differences are attributed to the age of the seniors, although the possibility of a cadre effect is considered. Neither Chilean seniors nor younger adults displayed negative correlations between approaching and avoiding arguments, a result which has become an increasingly urgent theoretical issue across the world.

When people avoid conflict, there is no "away." Where do they go physically or mentally? Both engaging and avoiding have a push and a pull. If we knew where avoiders go, we could study the pull of avoidance. This is a descriptive study (N = 446) of interpersonal conflict. We found that physical and mental avoidance appeared with similar frequency, and that they could occur in combination. People often recognized their need for avoidance early, based on the topic being familiar or various signals of trouble. Avoidance during the conflict could be physical or mental, but notably involved false agreement or topic manipulation. The possibility of violence (physical, verbal, or emotional) was often relevant. Relationship worries frequently motivated the avoidance. After the avoidance rumination was common, often centering on what we called "festering anger."

The Dutch are often thought of as direct, verbally aggressive, and argumentative. Yet, evidence for this stereotype is lacking. This study explores argumentative predispositions in the Netherlands. In a survey, Dutch students' (N=133) argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and conflict personalization were measured. The effects of gender and education were assessed. To explore the role of Dutch culture on argumentativeness, comparisons to U.S. students (benchmark) were made. Overall, Dutch students showed orientations, expectations, and understandings of argumentation as being useful and enjoyable, and seemed to experience argumentation predominantly positive. Males were more aggressive than females, and students in higher professional and university (preparatory) education were more constructive than students in vocational education. In contrast to expectations, Dutch students did not appear more predisposed to argue than U.S. students. Dutch students prioritized prosocial behaviors and professional reflection, thereby tempering aggression in arguing. Thus, argumentativeness is certainly not merely (stereo)typically Dutch.

This research explores the dynamics of interpersonal arguing in South Korea by considering cultural influence, individual traits, and contexts. In a cross-cultural study (Study 1) where Koreans (N = 349) were compared to U.S. Americans (N = 237) on basic measures of argument orientations, several interesting contrasts emerged, along with considerable similarity. Koreans evaluated conflicts more positively than Americans even though they were more worried about the relational consequences of arguing. Within the Korean sample, sex difference was pronounced. Study 2 (N = 491) found that power distance orientation was critical individual-level cultural value for Koreans' argument motivations. When power distance orientation was controlled, argument partner's social status was significantly associated with Koreans' motivation to both avoid and approach arguing but not with verbal aggressiveness. The discussion highlights the importance of considering situational as well as individual factors in intercultural studies.

In this paper, we report on the orientations of Turkish college students to interpersonal arguing and compare them with American students’ predispositions for arguing. In measuring the argument orientations, a group of instruments was utilized: argument motivations, argument frames, and taking conflict personally. Turkish data come from 300 college students who were asked to complete self-report surveys. Analyses contrast the mean scores of the Turkish and American respondents, offer gender-based comparisons in the Turkish data, and show whether religiosity has an effect on Turkish students’ arguing orientations. In order to give an explanatory account of the argument motivations of Turkish college students, the relevant socio-cultural and political facts about Turkey were also considered. Our investigation has revealed that Turkish students have more advanced and positive understandings of interpersonal arguing compared to American ones. We have also found clear sex-typing between Turkish male and female students, and have discovered some limited evidence for religiosity’s relevance to interpersonal arguing.

An unexpected argument is one that takes its target by surprise, possibly leaving the person feeling attacked. We conducted two studies to provide what we believe to be the first empirical description of this phenomenon. Our results showed that the role distinction between surpriser and surprisee significantly differentiated the tactics used in the “unexpected” portions of the conversations. However, there was essentially no difference in personalization of the episode from role to role. Furthermore, distinguishable topic management patterns appeared in our data. In terms of emotions, surprisers were more aggressive, angrier, and more thankful than surprisees, and surprisees were more uncertain, worried, surprised, and careful in their statements. Unexpected arguments seemed often to be doing identity work. There was evidence that some people may be habitual surprisers.