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.
Aristotle. (1984). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Beck, D., & Fisch, R. (2000). Argumentation and emotional processes in group decision-making: Illustration of a multi-level interaction process analysis approach. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 183-201.
3.
Bradley, P.H., Hamon, C.M., & Harris, A.M. (1976). Dissent in small groups. Journal of Communication, 26, 155-159.
4.
Brashers, D., & Meyers, R.A. (1989). Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In B. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 542-550). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
5.
Brashers, D.E., Adkins, M., & Meyers, R.A. (1994). Argumentation in computer-mediated decision making . In L. Frey (Ed.), Communication in context: Studies of naturalistic groups (pp. 262-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Brashers, D.E., Adkins, M., Meyers, R.A., & Mittleman, D. (1995). The facilitation of argumentation in computer-mediated group decision making interactions. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Special fields and cases: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 606-621). Amsterdam: Foris.
7.
Burnett, A., & Badzinski, D.M. (2000). An exploratory study of argument in the jury decision-making process. Communication Quarterly, 48, 380-396.
8.
Burnstein, E. (1982). Persuasion as argument processing. In H. Bandstatter, J. H. Davis , & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 103-124). New York: Academic Press.
9.
Canary, D.J. (1992). Manual for coding conversational arguments. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Department of Speech Communication.
10.
Canary, D.J. (2004, November). Looking forward to research on argument sequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL .
11.
Canary, D.J., Brossmann, J., Brossmann, B.G., & Weger, H., Jr. (1995). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs, 62, 183-212.
12.
Canary, D.J., Brossmann, B.G., & Seibold, D.R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups . Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18-37.
13.
Canary, D.J., Ratledge, N.T., & Seibold, D.R. (1982, November). Argument and group decision-making: Development of a coding scheme. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
14.
Canary, D.J., & Sillars, A.L. (1992). Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 737-764). New York: Foris.
15.
Canary, D.J., Weger, H., Jr., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 159-179.
16.
Considine, J., Meyers, R.A., & Timmerman, C.E. (2006). Evidence use in group quiz discussions: How do students support preferred choices? Journal for Excellence in College Teaching, 17, 65-89.
17.
Ellis, D.G., & Maoz, I. (2002). Cross-cultural argument interactions between Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 30, 181-194.
18.
Folger, J.P., Hewes, D.E., & Poole, M.S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 115-161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2005). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
20.
Frey, L., & Sunwolf. ( 2005a). The communication perspective on group life. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 159-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Frey, L., & Sunwolf. ( 2005b). The symbolic-interpretive perspective of group life . In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 185-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Frey, L.R. (1996). Remembering and “re-membering”: A history of theory and research on communication and group decision making . In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 19-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Gebhardt, L.J., & Meyers, R.A. (1995). Subgroup influence in decision-making groups: Examining consistency from a communication perspective. Small Group Research, 26, 147-168.
24.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
Gouran, D.S. (1969). Variables related to consensus in group discussions of questions of policy. Speech Monographs, 36, 387-391.
27.
Gouran, D.S. (1985). A critical summary of research on the role of argument in decision-making groups. In J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice : Proceedings of the fourth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp 723-736). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
28.
Gouran, D.S. (1990). Exploiting the predictive potential of structuration theory. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook13 (pp. 313-322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Gouran, D.S. (1999). Communication in groups: The emergence and evolution of a field of study. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 3-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Gouran, D.S. (2004, November). Moving forward/Looking back: The functions of argument in inducing and managing conflict in decision-making and problem-solving groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
31.
Gouran, D.S., Brown, C., & Henry, D.R. (1978). Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision-making discussions. Communication Monographs, 45, 51-63.
32.
Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Hewes, D.E. (1986). A socio-egocentric model of group decision making . In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 265-291). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
Hewes, D.E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 179-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Hill, T.A. (1976). An experimental study of the relationship between opinionated leadership and small group consensus. Communication Monographs, 43, 246-257.
36.
Hirokawa, R.Y., & Pace, R. (1983). A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision-making. Communication Monographs, 50, 369-379.
37.
Hoffman, L.R., & Kleinman, G.B. (1994). Individual and group in group problem solving: The valence model redressed. Human Communication Research, 21, 36-59.
38.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic cases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
39.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205-237). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
40.
Jarboe, S. (1999). Group communication and creativity processes. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 335-368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Ketrow, S.M., Meyers, R.A., & Schultz, B. (1997). Processes and outcomes related to non-rational argument in societal groups. In J. F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a time of change: Proceedings of the tenth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 103-109). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
42.
Lemus, D.R., & Seibold, D.R. (2004, February). Testing the predictive potential of argument structures in computer-mediated groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM.
43.
Lemus, D.R., Seibold, D.R., Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2004). Argument in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54, 302-320.
44.
Lovaglia, M., Mannix, E.A., Samuelson, C.D., Sell, J., & Wilson, R.K. (2005). Conflict, power, and status in groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
McPhee, R.D., Poole, M.S., & Seibold, D.R. (1982). The valence model unveiled: Critique and alternative formulation. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook5 (pp. 259-278). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association/Transaction.
46.
Meyers, R.A. (1989a). Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions . Human Communication Research, 15, 357-381.
47.
Meyers, R.A. (1989b). Testing persuasive arguments theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence . Communication Monographs, 56, 112-132.
48.
Meyers, R.A. (1997). Social influence and group argumentation. In L. R. Frey & J. K. Barge (Eds.), Managing the tensions of group life: Communication in decision-making groups (pp. 183-201). Burlington , ME: Houghton Mifflin.
49.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1995). Multi-stage versus single-stage coding of small group argument: A preliminary comparative assessment. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 93-100). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
50.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1998). Argument and group decision-making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261-281.
51.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 288-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (2002). Rethinking traditional approaches to argument in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 141-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
Meyers, R.A., & Brashers, D.E. (2003). Influencing others in group interactions: Individual, subgroup, group, and intergroup processes. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication theory and practice: An anthology (8th ed., pp. 108-121). Los Angeles: Roxbury .
54.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., Bradford, L., & Wachtel, T. (1999, August). Competence and consistency in group argument: Exploring communicative characteristics and patterns. In T. Hollihan (Ed.), Argument at century's end : Proceedings of the eleventh NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 25-39). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
55.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcomes links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3-30.
56.
Meyers, R.A., Brashers, D.E., Winston, L., & Grob, L. (1997). Sex differences and group argument: A theoretical framework and empirical investigation. Communication Studies , 48, 19-41.
57.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. (1987). Interactional and non-interactional perspectives on interpersonal argument: Implications for the study of group decision-making . In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair , & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches (pp. 205-214). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
58.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. (1989). Assessing number of cognitive arguments as a predictor of group shifts: A test and alternative interactional explanation. In B. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 576-583). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
59.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. (1990a). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook13 (pp. 268-302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
60.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. (1990b). Persuasive arguments and group influence: Research evidence and strategic implications. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 136-159). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Meyers, R.A., Seibold, D.R., & Brashers, D. (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47-68.
61.
Meyers, R.A., Timmerman, C.E., & Considine, J. (2006, November). Distributions of disagreement: Structuring mechanisms for group evidence and outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association , San Antonio, TX. Morris, A.W., Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A. (1991). The influence of individual differences in message production on argumentation in group decision-making: Theory development and propositions. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (pp. 582-589). Amsterdam: International Society for the Study of Argument.
62.
Pavitt, C. (1993). Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions. Communication Studies, 44, 216-227.
63.
Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship: Input-process-output and functional models. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran , & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313-334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
Perelman, C.H., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Poole, M.S. (1999). Group communication theory. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran , & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
Poole, M.S., Hollingshead, A.B., McGrath, J.E., Moreland, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary perspectives on small groups . In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
Poole, M.S., McPhee, R.D., & Seibold, D.R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions . Communication Monographs, 49, 1-19.
67.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process . Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
68.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory development in group research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 237-264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
69.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1996). The structuration of group decisions. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 114-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
Price, V., Cappella, J.N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication, 19, 95-112.
71.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE/Open University Press.
72.
Seibold, D.R., Canary, D.J., & Tanita-Ratledge, N. (1983, November). Argument and group decision-making: Interim report on a structurational research program . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC.Seibold, D.R., Cantrill, J.G., & Meyers, R.A. (1994). Communication and interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 542-588). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73.
Seibold, D.R., & Lemus, D.R. (2005). Argument quality in group deliberation: A structurational approach and quality of argument index. In C. A. Willard (Ed.), Critical problems in argumentation (pp. 203-215). Washington, DC: National Communication Association .
74.
Seibold, D.R., McPhee, R.D., & Poole, M.S. (1980, April). New prospects for research in small group communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago.
75.
Seibold, D.R., McPhee, R.D., Poole, M.S., Tanita, N.E., & Canary, D.J. (1981). Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes . In C. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second SCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation (pp. 663-692). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
76.
Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A. (1986). Communication and influence in group decision-making . In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 133-155). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
77.
Seibold, D.R., Meyers, R.A., & Sunwolf. ( 1996). Communication and influence in group decision-making . In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 242-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78.
Seibold, D.R., & Myers, K.K. (2005). Communication as structuring. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John , & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as... Stances on theory (pp. 143-152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79.
Semic, B.A., & Canary, D.J. (1997). Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions . Communication Quarterly, 45, 355-378.
80.
Stiles, W.B. (1978). Manual for a taxonomy of verbal response modes . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
81.
Sunwolf & Seibold, D.R. (1998). Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 64, 282-307.
82.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83.
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles . Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 371-393.
