Arguments, Conflicts, and Decisions - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 121

With respect to argumentativeness, the interaction emerges at the level of its
two subscales, argument approach and argument avoidance. People with high
approach scores tend to bother less with editing overall, while avoidant arguers
show strong concern for not harming others when editing. Not surprisingly, verbal
aggressiveness reduces the amount of editing and also correlates with lack of interest
for harming others. Finally, masculinity associates with a general disregard for harm
to self, other, or relationship and a predominance of effectiveness considerations,
whereas femininity scores do not predict editorial choices at all.
Taken together, these results offer a view of the role of conflict in argument
editing that is remarkably coherent with its parallel role in argument engagement.
Indeed, it is very significant that the predominant editorial styles are focused
either on the potential for success in conflict resolution (effectiveness editors)
or on minimizing the dangers of generating additional conflicts and/or escalating
the original disagreement (person-centered editors). In contrast, the only editorial
standard not directly focused on conflict (discourse competence) is typically
delegated to an ancillary role, as something to be considered only after other
conflict-related concerns have been satisfied. Sometimes, we do edit our arguments
to avoid falsity or irrelevance, but this is not our dominant inclination: making
sure that every argument counts toward conflict resolution and/or avoidance is
considered to be by far more urgent and important. Once again, we see here how
argumentative decisions strive to achieve a balance between two opposing forces in
conflict management: resolving the original disagreement, without flaring any other
unwanted controversy along the way.

7.3.3 Argument Termination: Duration Undermines Positive

Resolution and Facilitates Conflict Escalation

So far, we have reviewed empirical evidence on how conflict shapes argumentative
decisions, in particular regarding argument engagement and argument editing. In
this section, the focus shifts on argument termination: while there are not yet
empirical findings to be considered on this topic, it is possible to formulate some
predictions on what factors will influence the decision to terminate an argument
and what role conflict may play in that choice. This, in turn, will help stimulating
empirical verification of these hypotheses.
Once an argument is joined, each participant typically remains free to withdraw
from it at any time: special circumstances might limit this freedom, e.g., in
legal trials, but this is rarely the case in everyday arguments. What an arguer
typically cannot unilaterally decide is to bring the argument to a conclusion that
satisfies his/her goals, since this often requires the agreement of the counterpart (in
persuasion or negotiation) or the achievement of some objective criteria (greater
understanding in inquiry, satisfactory self-expression in eristic confrontation, etc.).
But it is well within their power to concede the point to the counterpart, to cut short