Arguments, Conflicts, and Decisions - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 123

argument requires more resources than a short one, regardless of how it is concluded
or what other effects it produces.
Based on these commonsense considerations, some hypotheses can be formu-
lated on how argument duration might affect (negatively, for the most) the expected
utility associated to the choice of prosecuting the argument, in three different ways:
(a) Duration increases the costs but not the benefits : the costs of arguing inevitably
increase with duration, in terms of time, breath, cognitive effort, social expo-
sure, and lost opportunities — all the other things one could have done, instead
of being stuck in the argument. In contrast, benefits are typically independent
from the duration of the argument: for instance, in persuasion or in negotiation,
what is gained by winning the argument or by reaching an agreement remains
the same, whether it took one minute or one year to achieve that result — again,
assuming no other factor is at play, such as a need for indirectness to avoid being
perceived as impolite or aggressive. Even in the special circumstances where
prolonged discussion may increase the benefits of arguing (e.g., in inquiry dia-
logues, according to the taxonomy in Walton 1998 ), benefits typically increase
at a slower rate than costs, with very few exceptions — one such exception
would be a very productive brainstorming session, in which all participants
are getting out of the exchange more than they put into it. However, we are
all too familiar with how depressing brainstorming sessions can be, precisely
because we often perceive them as a huge waste of time for relatively small
payoffs, and not the other way around. This, I argue, is the typical dynamics of
costs and benefits in prolonged discussion, even in inquiry dialogues. Whenever
costs increase and benefits remain stable, or costs increase faster than benefits,
the cost/benefit balance of arguing deteriorates as a function of duration (the
exact shape of each function is irrelevant here). This means that (1) the longer
the argument, the less convenient it becomes, up to the point where (2) arguing
becomes an absolute liability, since the arguer loses utility even if the argument
is successfully concluded.
(b) Duration increases the likelihood of negative consequences (dangers) :pro-
longed argumentation is likely to put a strain on the arguers' relationship, and
arguers factor this risk in their decision to persevere in an argument, rather
than dropping it (see also Gilbert 1997 ). Indeed, some empirical evidence
suggests that arguers perceive full-blown arguments as inherently dangerous
and potentially damaging, so much so that polite, well-mannered exchanges
are considered as incomplete arguments that were cut off before they could
harm the relationship (Hample et al. 1999 ). In general, argument duration
can only heighten the perception of similar dangers, not only because people
quickly tire of being opposed and become more and more resentful toward their
opponent (cognitive fatigue and emotional strain) but also because exploring
the initial disagreement without finding any solution changes the perception of
the counterpart's standpoint. As discussed more thoroughly in previous work
(Paglieri 2009 ), interpersonal disagreement is more easily condoned before
discussing it, and the very fact of engaging in argumentation raises the stakes for