Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Learn about Basics of Communication

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Christmann, U.
Right arrow Articles by Groeben, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, 315-341 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X00019003003

Components of the Evaluation of Integrity Violations in Argumentative Discussions

Relevant Factors and their Relationships

Ursula Christmann

University of Heidelberg

Christoph Mischo

University of Heidelberg

Norbert Groeben

University of Cologne

The effects of six components relevant in the evaluation of integrity violations were tested within a completely crossed six-factor design. The following components were included in the analysis: severity of an argumentative rule violation (high vs. low), degree of subjective awareness in committing a rule violation (intentional, by negligence, unknowingly), presence versus absence of excuses and corrections, frequent versus infrequent rule violations, far-reaching positive versus far-reaching negative intentions, and high versus low subject matter and argumentative competence of the speaker. The data were analyzed by using a logistic regression approach and by the configuration-frequency analysis. All hypotheses were largely confirmed (N = 317): Severe rule violations, negative far-reaching intentions of the speaker, high argumentative competence and subject matter knowledge of the speaker, no corrections and excuses by the speaker, and frequent rule violations lead with significant frequency to an unfairness verdict. Among all variables included in the analysis, severity of a rule violation proved to be the most powerful. In addition, specific predictor combinations, which lead to an unfairness verdict or a neutral evaluation with significant frequency, were identified.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Language and Social PsychologyHome page
C. Mischo
Cognitive, Emotional, And Verbal Responses In Unfair Everyday Discourse
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 2003; 22(1): 119 - 131.
[Abstract] [PDF]