Arguments, Conflicts, and Decisions - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 129

Benoit P, Benoit W (1990) To argue or not to argue: how real people get in and out of interpersonal
arguments. In: Trapp R, Schuetz J (eds) Perspectives on argumentation: essays in honor of
Wayne Brockriede. Waveland, Prospect Heights, pp 55-72
Besnard P, Hunter A (2001) A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif Intell 128:203-235
Burnstein A, Vinokur A, Trope Y (1973) Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumenta-
tion: a more direct test of alternative explanations for group induced shifts in individual choice.
J Exp Soc Psychol 9:236-245
Cionea I, Hample D, Paglieri F (2011) A test of the argument engagement model in Romania. In:
Zenker F (ed) Argumentation: cognition & community. Proceedings of OSSA 2011. CD-ROM.
OSSA, Windsor
Cohen D (2005) Arguments that backfire. In: Hitchcock D (ed) the uses of argument. Proceedings
of OSSA 2005. OSSA, Hamilton, pp 58-65
Crawford V (1982) A theory of disagreement in bargaining. Econometrica 50(3):607-638
Esser J (1998) Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research. Organ Behav Hum
Decis Process 73(2-3):116-141
Gigerenzer G, Goldstein D (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded
rationality. Psychol Rev 103:650-669
Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
Goodwin J (2005) What does arguing look like? Informal Logic 25:79-93
Goodwin J (2007) Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27:69-90
Hample D (2005) Arguing: exchanging reasons face to face. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah
Hample D (2006) Argument production. In: van Eemeren FH, Hazen MD, Houtlosser P, Williams
DC (eds) Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: views from the Venice argumentation
conference. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 9-22
Hample D (2009) Commentary on Fabio Paglieri's “Ruinous arguments: escalation of disagree-
ment and the dangers of arguing”. In: Ritola J (ed) Argument cultures: proceedings of OSSA
2009. CD-ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1-4
Hample D, Benoit P (1999) Must arguments be explicit and violent? A study of naive social actors'
understandings. In: van Eemeren F, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard C (eds) Proceedings of
ISSA 1998. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 306-310
Hample D, Dallinger J (1990) Arguers as editors. Argumentation 4:153-169
Hample D, Dallinger J (1992) The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments.
Argumentation Advocacy 28:109-122
Hample D, Benoit P, Houston J, Purifoy G, Vanhyfte V, Wardwell C (1999) Naive theories of
argument: avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argumentation Advocacy
35:130-139
Hample D, Werber B, Young D (2009) Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumenta-
tion 23:21-37
Hample D, Paglieri F, Na L (2011) The costs and benefits of arguing: predicting the decision
whether to engage or not. In: van Eemeren F, Garssen B, Godden D, Mitchell G (eds)
Proceedings of ISSA 2010. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 718-732
Hicks D (1991) A descriptive account of interpersonal argument. In: Parson DW (ed) Argument in
controversy. Speech Communication Association, Annandale, pp 167-181
Infante D, Rancer A (1982) A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. J Pers Assess
46:72-80
Infante D, Wigley C (1986) Verbal aggressiveness: an interpersonal model and measure. Commun
Monogr 53:61-69
Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol
50(6):1141-1151
Janis I (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston
Johnson R (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah