Jon Bruschke

The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers' culture, deceiver's intention, and deceiver‐deceived relationship

This study explored the degree to which deception is perceived to be a socially acceptable form of communication. It was suspected that a liars motivation for deceiving, a perceivers cultural background, and the type of relationship between a liar and the target of a lie (e.g., spouse, friend, stranger, etc.) would affect the perceived acceptability of deceptive messages. Students from China and the United States rated the degree to which they perceived deceptive acts depicted in written scenarios as acceptable or unacceptable. Results indicated that 1) lies told for malicious or self‐benefiting purposes were perceived as less acceptable than mutually‐benefiting lies and lies that benefit others; and 2) culture and the type of relationship between liars and targets of lies interacted with motive for lying to affect the perceived acceptability of deception. These results, their implications, and avenues for future research are discussed.

A test of anxiety/uncertainty management theory: The intercultural adaptation context

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management theory, as formulated by Gudykunst and Hammer (1987a), proposes that intercultural adaptation outcomes are based on the two mediating dimensions of uncertainty reduction and anxiety reduction and sixteen secondary variables that systematically influence uncertainty and anxiety reduction. In this paper, the sixteen variables originally identified are categorized into four “fundamental factors”; (interpersonal saliencies, intergroup saliencies, communication message exchange, and host contact conditions). The present study examines this revised Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory of intercultural adaptation. A total of 291 international students at two universities in the United States participated in the study. The study found overall fit of the revised AUM theory vis‐a‐vis the two mediating factors of uncertainty and anxiety reduction, the importance of interpersonal saliencies for uncertainty reduction, and the importance of host contact conditions for facilitating ...

Verbal Skills and the Value of Scholastic Journalism

In 1983, the United States government, intimidated by foreign competition in the technology race and alarmed by reports of declining standardized test scores of American high school students, established the National Commission on Excellence in Education to improve the prospects for the nation’s future as an intellectual world power. A Senate subcommittee on education, arts and humanities held hearings in July and September of that year. At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee sent a “back to basics” recommendation to American secondary educators. The renewed emphasis on basics left little, i f any, room for valuable elective courses in the high school curriculum. The National Commission on Excellence report, entitled A Nation at Risk, charged that “. . . the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (Nation at R i sk , 1 9 8 3 , p. 583) . The repoi went on to set out “Five New Basics, designed to ensure that students seek ing a high school diploma would tak an increased number of required cor courses to strengthen the educationc foundation of public schools. The “Fiv New Basics” included four years c English, three years of mathematic: three years of science, three years c social studies and a year and a ha: of computer science (Nation at Rid 1983). In laying out this stringent li: of increased requirements, the Senat subcommittee de-emphasized non essential courses such as journalisn speech and debate. The commissio further claimed that the nation’s hig schools had become too diverse an undisciplined in their academic offei ings and called for stricter regulation c the curriculum at the secondary leve In effect, so many required course were added to the curriculum th: students found little time to pursu their personal interests in electiv

Toward Reviving Rationality in Argument: Adding Pieces to Johnson's Puzzle

Although it would seem assessments of the content of arguments, and especially their rational components, would he at the center of our field, there is not a large body of argumentation research that focuses on such questions. In Manifest Rationality, Ralph Johnson attempts to revitalize the rationalistic examinations of argument. This paper advances Johnsons theory in two crucial areas. First, a pragmatic theory of truth based on new empiricism is supplied. This pragmatic theory of truth coheres well with the rest of Johnsons theory and elevates the status of grounds (orevidence) above warrant. Second, an adversarial model, eschewed by Johnson, is re-introduced. This move better accomplishes Johnson ‘s goal of including commonplace, everyday arguments in the scope of argumentation theory. These modifications to Johnsons theory should arm critics with the tools to evaluate an arguments content in addition to its ideological and persuasive features.

Argument and Evidence Evaluation: A Call for Scholars to Engage Contemporary Public Debates

Natural, “full blooded” arguments are characterized in two ways: first, by a controlled chaos where structures are unique to each argument, and second, by a commitment to the use of rationality and especially evidence. The dominant modes of scholarship in our field—structural, critical, and descriptive approaches—have all tended to bracket out questions of evidence evaluation. The paradigm case of argument suggested here is one where non-experts evaluate the differing field evidence offered by advocates seeking incompatible or contrasting conclusions. I call on argument scholars to make two evaluations: (a) to examine source material that is used to support claims, and (b) to evaluate disputes where each side has produced a body of contradicting evidence. By making such evaluations, argument scholars will be able to make more substantive contributions to public disputes.

The influence of heterogeneous exposure and pre-deliberation queries on pretrial publicity effects

ABSTRACT Prior research on pretrial publicity has produced mixed results and a roughly equal number of studies show an effect, show no effect, or show mixed results. We explored the effects of (a) homogenous vs. heterogeneous exposure (whether deliberating jurors were all exposed to the same publicity or not) and (b) pre-deliberation queries as potential contributors to mixed results. We found an effect for positive but not negative publicity on conviction rates but not evidence ratings. Exposure heterogeneity appears to explain these differences and pre-deliberation queries did appear to play some role in the obtained outcomes. Overall these findings do not replicate a robust publicity effect and future research should consider how homogeneous exposure and pre-deliberation opinion queries influence results.

Debunking Nixon’s radio victory in the 1960 election: Re-analyzing the historical record and considering currently unexamined polling data

Abstract It is widely reported that Nixon won the first of the 1960 presidential debates among radio audiences while Kennedy carried television viewers, and further that Kennedy’s victory translated to an electoral victory. It is thus assumed that style trumped substance when politics entered the television age. However, the Nixon radio victory emerged in only a single poll conducted by Sindlinger and Company. Considering other polling data reveals Sindlinger’s finding is likely the result of a Republican bias in the sample and not a mass defection of Democrats swayed by Nixon’s substantive arguments. Voters found Kennedy ahead on substance as well as style. Considering the full historical context of the election, there is little evidence that television worked to the advantage of Kennedy and the disadvantage of Nixon, nor even much evidence that Kennedy was considered more attractive. We find no evidence that the first debate was decisive; we find it dubious that the debates overall produced a 2-million vote swing for Kennedy; we find it implausible that the first debate can be linked in any meaningful way to the outcome of the election. We find it more meaningful that Nixon turned a 5-to-3 Republican disadvantage into a razor-thin contest and that he largely did so using television during the final two weeks of the contest. The 1960 election should not be read as a triumph of style over substance. Correcting the misguided dismissal of substantive argument is crucial work scholars can contribute to the broader democratic project.