"What did you mean by that?": the functions of perceptions in interpersonal argument.

• Author: Legge, Nancy J.
• Position: Special Issue: Interpersonal Argument

the arguments they "normally" have with each other.

Thus, the recreated arguments seem to be representative of the argumentative patterns of these friends. And, given the findings reported here, perceptual analysis is one dimension that warrants consideration even if it requires an experimental setting to retrieve the perceptions. Investigating the interactants' perceptions helps researchers consider and address questions aimed at explaining how arguments progress and why they are handled in a given way. Perceptual analysis encourages researchers to focus on issues that cannot be addressed if one considers only what is said. A fruitful area Perhaps even O'Keefe (1977) could not have predicted the volume of scholarly debate and research that would accrue from his articulation of two senses of argument. O'Keefe noted that one sense of argument (|argument.sub.1~) involved "making an argument" while another distinct concept of argument involved the process of having an argument (|argument.sub.2~). Several researchers have suggested that the proper focus of argumentation theory and research should be |argument.sub.1~ and therefore study the logical structure (formal and informal) of reason-giving discourse (Burleson, 1979; 1980; 1981; Kneupper, 1978; 1979; Rowland & Barge, 1991). Other researchers suggest that the proper focus for argumentation theory and research should be on having arguments (|arguments.sub.2~) (Willard, 1978; 1979a; 1979b; 1979c; 1981). Finally, a third group of scholars are interested in studying the interaction of |argument.sub.1~ and |argument.sub.2~ in everyday social settings (Trapp, 1983; 1985; 1986; 1987; 1990; Jackson & Jacobs, 1980; Jacobs & Jackson 1981; 1982; 1983; Jackson, Jacobs, Burrell, & Allen, 1986). This latter group of scholars seeks to use the |argument.sub.1~/|argument.sub.2~ distinction to better understand and explain the nature of interpersonal argument. However, this research fails to investigate a central element of everyday argument--the perceptions of the participants. The purpose of this study is to use the |argument.sub.1~/|argument.sub.2~ distinction to understand how arguments are maintained and evolve. Both the arguments made in the dispute as well as the perceptions of the interactants in the dispute were coded and analyzed in order to understand how disputes were organized and maintained in friendship dyads.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEPTIONS

Existing studies of the relationship between |argument.sub.1~ and |argument.sub.2~ have, thus far, failed to account for an important element of |argument.sub.2~, the perceptions of the individuals who are having an argument. The lack of consideration for interpersonal perception seriously limits the findings of previous research in interpersonal argumentation.

While the work of Trapp (1983; 1985; 1986; 1987; 1990) and Jackson and Jacobs (1980; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1986) is vital, it fails to investigate the perceptions of the participants in argument. These studies involve systematic coding of interaction by outside observers using predetermined categories. Trapp (1986), for example, asked students to read transcripts and identify which interactions they believed were arguments. The actual participants in the interaction were not known to the coders and the arguers' views of the interaction were not considered in defining which interactions were, indeed, arguments. Similarly, Jackson and Jacobs (1980; 1981; 1982; 1983) have tended to rely on their own interpretations of argument or have likewise asked students to read transcripts and code them according to whether or not the students thought an argument was taking place (Jackson, Jacobs, Burrell, & Allen, 1986). In short, whether or not the interaction is an argument has been determined by individuals who knew nothing about the situations or the actors except what the transcripts revealed.

Other researchers have challenged the prevailing reliance on coding schemes, arguing that they imply the existence of a "behavioral reality" and suggesting that such behaviors may be subject to alternative interpretations (Golding, 1978; Knudson, Sommers & Golding, 1980; Margolin, 1990). The views of one person in a dispute may be very different from the views of the other, and neither of their views may coincide with the viewpoint of the individual coder, regardless of the reliability of the coding scheme (Golding, 1978; Knudson, et al., 1980). According to several scholars, analysis that excludes the perceptions of the interactants falls short in its ability to explain how or why an interaction progressed as it did. According to Menzel (1978), "any one behavior is likely to constitute more than one act" (p. 146). He adds that most acts "are links in chains of interaction, and are likely to have diverse meanings to the several interaction partners" (p. 147). Schutz (1967) contends that true understanding of another person means much more than direct observation. It involves "grasping what is really going on in the other person's mind, grasping those things of which the external manifestations are mere indications" (p. 113). Thus, to these scholars, any understanding of human behavior that relies solely on observation without taking account of actor meanings and intentions falls short as a means of understanding behavior.

In addition, scholars of interpersonal conflict suggest that including an analysis of the perceptions of the dispute is vital (Glick & Gross, 1975; Knudson, et al., 1980). Swenson (1973) argues, "it is impossible to understand why a person behaves in a certain way in a certain situation unless you understand how he perceives that situation. Behavior by itself explains nothing" (p. 12). Thus, without an analysis of the participants' perceptions researchers are not privy to critical information that may provide insight into the strategies and practices of individual disputants.

Accordingly, this study investigated how friends managed their arguments. Specifically, I analyzed both the arguments these friends enacted and the perceptions of each participant in order to better understand the relationship between the arguments made (|arguments.sub.1~) and the process of having an argument (|arguments.sub.2~). That is, I was interested in knowing how perceptions shape an argument, how arguments shape perceptions, and what that information adds to our understanding of interpersonal argument.

The findings reported here reflect the ways in which perceptions help shape and manage the arguments between these friends. I will briefly outline the method of the study and data analysis, identify and exemplify various functions of interpersonal perceptions, and provide some implications based on these results of what we know about interpersonal argument and how we study it.

METHOD

Six relationships were studied--three pairs each of male and female friends recruited from an eastern university. Subjects ranged in age from 19 to 23 and met four criteria. First, they regarded themselves as "close friends," screening out relationships such as siblings, spouses, or co-workers. Three of the six pairs were also roommates. Second, the volunteers were friends for at least one year. This time frame secured participants whose friendship had developed over time and exhibited interaction patterns that were characteristic of their relationship (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Third, friends were of the same gender. I wanted to avoid some of the potential complexities of cross-sex relationships (Rawlins, 1982). And, finally, the friends had to have previously engaged in disputes with each other on some issues.

The data for this study were gathered over three meetings. During the initial meeting, I met with each dyad, explained the procedures for the study, and attained their informed consent. Each person provided basic demographic information, identified some commonly discussed and disagreed upon topics, and ranked these topics according to the frequency that the issue was disputed in the relationship.

The primary purpose of the second meeting was to videotape the friends interacting. This meeting involved two procedures. First, the friends prepared "lines of argument" on the topics they were to discuss. This preparation allowed the friends to access and rehearse lines of reasoning that they might anticipate using in a typical dispute with this friend (Willard, 1978). Once the lines of argument were written down, the notes were collected because I did not want the friends to "read" their arguments to each other. The participants were then taken to a room where a video camera was discreetly placed in a corner. The pair was informed that no one would be in the room while they talked, but that the camera would be taping them. They were then asked to think about issue "X" (a common topic of dispute identified by both members of the dyad) and consider that it had emerged in a discussion between them. The issue was rephrased into a question to be resolved. For example, in one friendship an issue was posed, "How much time should be spent partying and how much time should be spent studying?" They were asked to "resolve the issue" and to retrieve me from another room when they were finished. The procedure was then repeated for another topic. Each dyad interacted on a minimum of three topics. After a debriefing session, separate final meetings were scheduled with each participant.

The third meeting took place in a private video viewing room. Its purpose was to obtain each participant's stated perceptions of their own and other's actions during their interaction. A stimulated recall procedure, coupled with a free response format, was employed. Each participant watched the videotape of their interaction and stopped the tape at any point to comment on the events. The session was audiotaped to preserve the participants' comments verbatim.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data began by transcribing the...