Arguments, Conflicts, and Decisions - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 126

will be dropped, without even considering the other criteria — contrary to what an
expected utility maximizer would do. 7
In turn, this heuristic view of decision making would also affect how duration
influences argument termination: whereas prolonged discussion is likely to discour-
age further continuation on some criteria (as mentioned, longer arguments are more
prone to create frictions and hostility between the parties; see also Gilbert 1997 ;
Paglieri 2009 ), it might have the opposite effect on other criteria (e.g., the more
invested arguers have become in the discussion, the more damaging backing off will
be for their self-esteem). Thus, the overall impact of argument duration on argument
termination would depend on what different criteria the arguers consider and how
they rank them in their lexicographic search for a discriminating cue. Ultimately,
the validity of different theories of choice in accounting for argumentative decisions
will have to be ascertained empirically, along the lines pioneered by the studies
reviewed in previous sections.
If we now turn our attention to conflict considerations, we see them looming large
in factors B and C above. Among the dangers increased by prolonged discussion,
both exacerbation of the original disagreement and emergence of new conflicts
figure prominently, albeit not exclusively. In parallel, expectations of a positive
solution to the initial conflict of opinions shrink as a function of duration, thus
making arguing a less compelling option. By now, readers will be familiar with
this pattern, since it is the same observed in argument engagement and argument
editing: to a large extent, the decision to either continue or stop an argumentative
engagement depends on how this will impact on conflict management.

7.4 Conclusions and Future Directions

Empirical evidence on a garden variety of argumentative decisions confirms that a
decision-theoretic approach can make better sense of the apparent tension between a
polemical view of argumentation (arguments as fights) and a rational one (arguments
as rational debates). To put it simply, the expectation of rationally resolving a
conflict of opinions is a prime motive in prompting us to argue, but at the same time
we are keenly aware of the dangers of conflict escalation inherent to argumentative
exchanges, and such awareness can lead us to avoid arguing, to proceed cautiously,
or to abandon an argument before it reaches its completion. As arguers, we
constantly tread the thin line between “finding an agreement” and “making things
worse”: conflict is a paramount concern on both sides, but in very different ways —
as something to be resolved on the one hand and as something to be avoided on the
other. From these considerations, we can take home two important lessons.

7 Incidentally, the findings reviewed in Sect. 7.3.1 provide preliminary support to lexicographic
decision making in argument engagement, since arguers consider only a very limited and rigidly
prioritized subset of considerations in deciding whether to enter an argument or not.