Renee A. Meyers

Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions

The study investigates interaction patterns in work group discussions, focusing specifically on complaining and solution-oriented statements. Thirty-three work group discussions in three German industrial enterprises were coded with the Cassel Competence Grid (CCG). Lag sequential analysis results showed that complaining begets further complaining statements, while simultaneously inhibiting the expression of solution-oriented statements. Likewise, when solutions are proposed they are followed by further discussion of solutions. If support is expressed for either complaint or solution statements, circles of these two types of interaction arise. To inhibit complaining, the results point to the importance of structuring statements.

Group Argument: A Structuration Perspective and Research Program

This article reviews and assesses the structuration program of research on group argument that has evolved over more than two decades. The authors first position group argument research in relationship to argument studies across many disciplines and especially at the intersection of three research traditions in communication. Acknowledging structuration theory foundations, the authors explicate their conceptualization of argument and explain the theoretical foundations of their approach. They next describe the methods that have been used to analyze group argument, including participants, data collection procedures, coding scheme and process, and contexts that have been employed in past investigations. They also survey the findings of this research program and how they have enhanced understanding of argument processes in groups and group argument—outcome linkages. The authors then offer a critique of the program, including challenges and unanswered questions. They note projects currently under way and conclude by identifying opportunities for interdisciplinary research on group argument.

Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning communication.

Employing the framework of emotional contagion, this study investigated the link between group interaction sequences (specifically complaining and interest-in-change messages) and group mood. Fifty-two work group discussions from two German industrial enterprises were coded with the act4teams category system (e.g., Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld). Lag sequential analysis revealed complaining as well as interest-in-change cycles in the discussion flow. A two-dimension (arousal and pleasure) rating instrument was developed to assess group mood. Results showed that complaining cycles were linked to a passive group mood, and interest-in-change cycles were correlated with an active group mood. Neither complaining nor interest-in-change cycles were correlated with the pleasure dimension. We discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of our findings as well as prospects for future research on interaction cycles and group mood.

Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis

Studies of the function and process of interactive argument in group contexts have become increasingly prevalent in the last decade. A prominent program of research in this domain is work associated with the structurational perspective on group decision‐making. To date, much of this research has been theoretical and qualitative in nature. This investigation extends prior work in pursuing two objectives: (a) refinement of the structurational argument coding scheme, and (b) preliminary quantitative analysis of argument in decision‐making groups. Following a review of past structurational argument research, the coding scheme is evaluated and revised. Forty‐five decision‐making discussions were coded using the revised coding scheme and these results were evaluated via descriptive statistics. Findings revealed that (a) the groups’ arguments consisted mainly of Assertions, Elaborations, and Agreement, and (b) the revisions to the coding scheme provided increased conceptual clarity. Implications of each finding ...

Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link

For this research, we extended previous descriptive studies of group argument by (a) positing a theoretical process model of group argument and (b) investigating the predictive nature of argument ingroups. Following development of the group argument process model, we employed two frameworks—the Group Valence Model and two versions of the Distribution of Valence Model—to study the argument‐outcome link. We expanded all three models to include proportional, as well as dichotomous, variables. The results revealed that all models were fairly accurate predictors: however, in cases in which the models differed in prediction, the DVM Rank Sum model was more accurate. All the argument acts investigated were fairly accurate predictors of group outcomes, except for disagreement‐relevant intrusions. Interpretations of these findings are offered, and avenues for future research are suggested.

Issues management and organizational accounts: An analysis of corporate responses to accusations of unethical business practices

When external groups accuse a business organization of unethical practices, managers of the accused organization usually offer a communicative response to attempt to protect their organizations public image. Even though many researchers readily concur that analysis of these communicative responses is important to our understanding of business and society conflict, few investigations have focused on developing a theoretical framework for analyzing these communicative strategies used by managers. In addition, research in this area has suffered from a lack of empirical investigation. In this paper we address both of these weaknesses in the existing literature. First, we explicate Impression Management Theory as an appropriate framework for studying organizational communicative responses, paying particular attention to the concept of “accounts.” Second, we critique previous investigations of organizational accounts and discuss the major contributions of our study. Third, we propose a coding system and content analyze the accounts offered by managers from 21 organizations that were recently the targets of consumer boycotts. Finally, we report the results of our empirical investigation and discuss ethical issues related to organizational accounts.

Powerful/powerless language use in group interactions: Sex differences or similarities?

This paper examines sex differences in powerful/powerless language (interruptions, disclaimers, hedges, and tag questions) in the small group context by juxtaposing two competing theoretical frameworks. A test of five contrasting hypotheses revealed little support for the dominant “dual cultures”; approach for investigating sex differences (i.e., men will use more powerful language while women will employ more powerless language). Instead results were much more supportive of a “gender similarities”; approach to understanding sex differences, showing no significant differences between women and men in their use of interruptions, hedges, and tag questions. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed for research on sex differences, powerful/ powerless language use, and small group communication.

Research topics and methodological orientations in organizational communication: A decade in review

In the past decade, the study of organizational communication has attracted increased research attention. This paper systematically evaluates the past eleven years (1979‐1989) of organizational communication research by (1) identifying the research topics that most often have been the focus of study and (2) explicating the methodological orientations that have characterized organizational communication investigations. A content analysis of all organizational communication articles (N = 289) published during the years 1979‐1989 was undertaken. Results reveal that (1) research focused primarily on three topics—climate and culture, superior‐subordinate relations and communication, and power, conflict, and politics and (2) the majority of studies were framed within a modernistic‐empirical methodological orientation and were conducted in actual organizational settings. The implications of these findings for organizational communication research practices are discussed.

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) is a noninteractional theory of group decision‐making that predicts postdiscussion shifts (polarization/choice shifts) from the cognitive arguments individuals generate prior to discussion. PAT relegates interaction to a “display channel”; it is considered an efficient, but not necessary, mechanism for displaying members’ cognitive arguments in group discussion. The principal PAT predictor model incorporates four primary elements: (a) cognitive arguments, (b) cognitive argument novelty ratings, (c) cognitive argument persuasiveness ratings, and (d) a weighted‐averaging combinatory formula. This model is utilized to predict individual and group shifts produced in group discussion. Following a review, critique, and alternative interaction‐based explanation of the argument‐decision shift link, two models, each increasingly more interaction‐oriented, are advanced to test the PAT perspective on argument. Results of the tests revealed that although the initial model was not a s...

Perspectives on Group Argument: A Critical Review of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an Alternative Structurational View

This chapter summarizes a program of research undertaken to examine a prominent cognitive-informational theory of group argument—persuasive arguments theory (PAT). An examination of PAT seems especially germane for communication researchers, for PAT predicts particular group outcomes without direct analysis of interaction. Four tasks are undertaken in this chapter. First, key assumptions of two metatheoretical approaches to argument-the cognitive-informational (CI) and the social-interactional (SI) perspectives—are surveyed. Second, PAT is identified as a particularly prominent CI approach to group argument, and its theoretical underpinnings are detailed-Third, a critique of PAT is offered that identifies three conceptual difficulties: (a) an assumption of correspondence between individual cognition and group discussion, (b) a focus nn noninteraction[] predictor factors, and (c) a methodological commitment to research conducted at the individual level of analysis. Finally, an alternative approach to group...