A Content Analysis Of Arguing Behaviors A Case Study Of Romania As Compared To The United States

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rafa20
Argumentation and Advocacy
ISSN: 1051-1431 (Print) 2576-8476 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rafa20
A Content Analysis of Arguing Behaviors: A Case
Study of Romania as Compared to the United
States
Ioana A. Cionea, Ana-Maria Hopârtean, Carrisa S. Hoelscher, Irina A. Ileş &
Sara K. Straub
To cite this article: Ioana A. Cionea, Ana-Maria Hopârtean, Carrisa S. Hoelscher, Irina
A. Ileş & Sara K. Straub (2015) A Content Analysis of Arguing Behaviors: A Case Study of
Romania as Compared to the United States, Argumentation and Advocacy, 51:4, 255-272, DOI:
10.1080/00028533.2015.11821853
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2015.11821853
Published online: 02 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View Crossmark data

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY
51 (Spring 2015): 255-272
A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ARGUING
BEHAVIORS: A CASE STUDY OF ROMANIA AS
COMPARED TO Tim UNITED STATES
Ioana A. Cionea, Ana-Maria Hopartean, Carrisa S. Hoelscher,
Irina A. Ile§, and Sara K. Straub
This paper examines how arguing behaviors are enacted and structured among members oftwo cultures. We
present the results ofa content analysis ofRomanian (N = 766) and U.S. American (N = 236) naive actors'
self-reports. Differences emerged between the two cultures in respect to topics of argument, argumentation
partners, the contextual appropriateness ofarguing, the role ofarguing, and also within each culture, based on
how arguing was conceptuali;:td (i.e., a quarrel or a debate/discussion). No cross-cultural differences werefound
in the goals people pursued while arguing. The discussion offers a characteriQltion ofarguing behaviors in the
two cultures. Implications ofthese results and limitations ofthe study are also addressed.
Key Words: arguing in Romania, content analysis of arguing behaviors, arguing and culture,
structuration theory
Arguing is a pervasive form of interaction between people (Brockriede, 1975; Hample,
2005), embedded in the social fabric of human interactions. It is "a situated practice" (Poole,
2013, p. 608) in which members of a group advance statements but also enact and create
social norms and rules that structure their argumentative interactions (Seibold & Meyers,
2007). Thus, the arguing practices of a social group reveal information about the functions
of arguing and the rules that govern it within that group. For example, when an employee
argues with a supervisor about a work-related topic, the employee communicates informa-
tion but also the social acceptability of arguing with one's supervisors.
Argumentation research has a well-established tradition in the United States (U.S.), where
scholars have examined how individuals argue from multiple perspectives (e.g., rhetoric,
informal logic, and interpersonal argumentation). The same is not true of other cultures
where argumentation undoubtedly occurs but knowledge of its specific functions, manifes-
tations, and consequences is limited. The goal of this manuscript is to examine naive actors'
perceptions of interpersonal argumentation in Romania from an ernie standpoint, and based
on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984). Data from the U.S. are used as a comparison point
against which arguing behaviors in Romania are discussed.
Such an investigation is useful for several reasons. First, it provides a description ofarguing
behaviors in a different culture, which enhances cross-cultural argumentation knowledge.
Specifically, this study explains Romanian youth's daily argumentation practices such as
topics they argue about, people they argue with, and goals they pursue via arguing. In
addition, the study examines Romanians' perceptions ofthe appropriateness ofinterpersonal
arguing and its role in Romanian life and society. Because extant research examining
Romanian communication practices is rare, understanding social and cultural perceptions of
Joana A. Cionea, Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma; Ana-Maria Hopartean, Facultatea de $tiinte
Economice # Gestiunea A{acerilor, Universitatea Babq-Bolyai; Carrisa S. Hoelscher, Department ofCommunication, University
ofOklahoma; Irina A. Re§, Department ofCommunication, University ofMaryland; Sara K. Straub, Department ofCommu-
nication, University of Oklahoma. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the National
Communication Association, Washington DC, 2013. The authors wish to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewersfor their
helpfol comments that have improved the manuscript's quality. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joana
A. Cionea, Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, 670 Elm Avenue, Norman, Oklahoma 73079. Email:
icionea@ou.edu

256
ARGUING BEHAVIORS SPRING 2015
arguing is valuable to people interested in studying Romanian cultural customs as well as to
people who anticipate interacting with Romanians. More Romanians now work or study
abroad; an estimated 3 million Romanians (roughly 15% of the population) worked abroad
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012), and approximately
28,000 Romanian students studied abroad in 2010 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2014).
Second, the study highlights social and cultural influences at play in a former Eastern
European communist country that have led to a unique array of values (Smith, Dugan, &
Trompenaars, 1996). Romania's case is interesting because the country has undergone social,
economic, and political changes following the 1989 revolution and the integration into the
European Union in 2007. This transition may have affected public and interpersonal
argumentation. For example, Robila and Krishnakumar (2005) found that increased eco-
nomic pressures were associated positively with marital conflict (i.e., arguing) among Ro-
manian women, whereas Bancila, Mittelmark, and Hetland (2006) found that stressful
interpersonal relationships increased Romanians' levels of psychological distress, regardless
of gender. Thus, Romania represents a case study that illustrates the complexities of arguing
behaviors in other post-communist Eastern European democracies. In what follows, the
manuscript outlines key concepts of structuration theory that aid the analysis, conceptualizes
arguing behaviors, and presents an overview of Romania compared to the U.S.
STRUCTIJRA'TION THEORY AND ARGUING BEHAVIORS
According to Giddens (1984), "human social activities (...) are recursive. That is to say,
they are not brought into being by social actors but continually recreated by them via the
very means whereby they express themselves as actors" (p. 2). This claim suggests that
arguing, as a social activity (Hample, 2005), is continuously recreated in argumentative
exchanges. The present study addresses the question of, "how do argument processes unfold
and function within and between groups?" (Seibold & Meyers, 2007, p. 315).
Several scholars (e.g., Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985, 1986, 1996; Seibold, McPhee, &
Poole, 1980; Seibold & Myers, 2005) have applied structuration theory to group arguments
and deliberation. According to Meyers, Seibold, and Brashers (1991), group arguments
illustrate a structure and a system that highlights an "observable interactive practice" (p. 48).
These structures can unveil rules and resources (e.g., logical principles) members of a group
rely on, and how they deliberate to reach conclusions (Poole, 2013). If the group is a culture,
structuration theory can reveal how its members organize argument behaviors-that is, what
repertoire of resources they rely on for reenacting the structure imposed on such behaviors,
and how the cultural group conceptualizes arguing as a system of everyday practices.
Seibold and Meyers (2007) explained that "viewed as a system, argument is communica-
tive patterns of disagreement, reason giving and reason defending, and resolution seeking"
(p. 315). This notion resembles previous definitions of arguing. For example, O'Keefe (1977)
explained that, in one sense, an argument is an interactional exchange between two people.
Willard (1989) also supported this idea of argument as interaction, based on two individuals'
incompatible positions. Similarly,Jackson andjacobs (1980) viewed arguments as "disagree-
ment relevant speech events" (p. 254). In these conceptualizations, the focus is on individual
actors, which makes this approach the most suitable for the present cross-cultural analysis,
given that we rely on na'ive actors' reports. Although these reports may be biased or
incomplete, they reflect individuals' perceptions, illuminating how they appropriate and
reenact cultural norms.

257
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY CIONEA ET AL.
This theoretical conceptualization is applicable across cultures insofar as people in other
cultures also argue with others. According to structuration theory, social practices are
"ordered across space and time" {Giddens, 1984, p. 2). Structuring properties "make it
possible for discernibly similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time and
space" (Giddens, 1984, p. 17). In other words, arguing is a social practice instantiated in a
particular culture, at a particular moment in time, but drawing from a culturally common
reservoir of similar systemic structural properties.
Furthermore, argumentative exchanges have been classified in many ways, depending on
goals and normative rules (Walton, 1998). In argumentation theory, most attention has been
paid to the argumentative discussion, also termed critical discussion or persuasive dialogue
(Barth & Krabbe, 1982; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984; Walton & Krabbe, 1995). Other
forms exist, including negotiation, deliberation, and eristic dialogues (Walton & Krabbe,
1995). Walton (1998) explained that the prototypical example of an eristic dialogue, and the
most frequent in everyday interactions, is a quarrel. While other forms of dialogue are
constructive and follow logical reasoning, the quarrel is often destructive, plagued by logical
fallacies, and highly emotional. Cionea (2013) for example, found that persuasion, negotia-
tion, and information seeking tended to be associated with positive interaction goals such as
expressing positive feelings and relational concerns, whereas the eristic dialogue tended to
be associated with negative ones such as dominance and expressing negativity.
Several empirical studies have provided support for this somewhat dichotomous classifi-
cation ofarguments as either positive exchanges (i.e., argumentative discussions) or relatively
negative ones (i.e., quarrels). For example, Benoit (1982) found that naYve actors distin-
guished between an argument and a discussion. The former elicited descriptions that
resemble a quarrel: loud voices, emotional displays, and negativity. The latter elicited
characterizations that resemble the constructive dialogues Walton (1998) outlined: problem
solving, understanding the other's point of view, information exchange, and negotiation.
Hample and Dallinger (2002) replicated these results. Hample (2005) concluded that quar-
reling "is the more punishing experience" (p. 26).
Given the focus of this study, another relevant element in the conceptualization of arguing
behaviors is the conceptual vocabulary of the Romanian language. In Romanian, "to argue"
has different translations: 1) to quarrel, which is a negative exchange characterized by loud
voices, tension, and emotional outbursts, and 2) to debate or discuss something, which
involves an intellectual exchange of reasons and explanations, civility, and persuasion.
Therefore, participants in each culture were asked to report on a specific type ofargument a
quarrel or a debate/discussion.
ARGUING BEHAVIORS IN ROMANIA AND THE UNITED STATES
The two cultures selected for comparison were convenient and different, yet these
differences ought to affect the content of arguing behaviors, not the very existence of arguing
in interpersonal exchanges. In other words, the structuration of arguing as a social practice
ought to permit arguments among members of both cultures; individuals ought to rely on
cultural rules and resources for enacting and reinforcing the structure each culture has
created for arguing.
There are also cultural and sociological reasons that make these cultures interesting cases
for analysis. These reasons affect the available resources on which individuals will rely while
arguing, which may lead to different instantiations of argument structures. From a cultural

258
standpoint, the U.S. is an individualistic culture, relatively masculine and with a moderate to
low power distance index (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Romania is a relatively
collectivistic culture, moderately masculine, and with a high power distance index (Albu,
2006; Hofstede et al., 2010). These differences may affect arguing behaviors. For example,
individualism and collectivism suggest that, in the U.S., people may be more inclined to
argue for self-oriented goals, whereas in Romania, people may be more inclined to argue for
collective goals. In the U.S., people may argue with superiors or authority figures but this
may not be the case in Romania, given the power distance scores of each culture.
From a sociological, political, and economic standpoint, the U.S. is an older democracy
and a multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, with a powerful capitalist economy (Central Intelli-
gence Agency, 2013). Romania is a typical Eastern European young democracy, still
recovering from decades of communism, with few ethnic groups and a transitioning, still
imbalanced, economy (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013; Krauss, 2006; Nadolu, Nadolu, &
Asay, 2007). In an older democracy, such as the U.S., the structures that regulate arguing
behaviors and their enactment in public practices may be more clearly articulated, whereas
in a younger democracy, such as Romania, the mechanisms that structure argumentation in
the public sphere may be in their infancy, or not yet delineated well. For example, Cristea
(2013) noted that debates or discussions in the Romanian public sphere were essentially
quarrels, with ad hominem attacks and hasty generalizations, suggesting a need to cultivate
appropriate forms of arguing.
To investigate how argument processes unfold, this study examines everyday practices in
the two cultures. One emergent property of culturally embedded arguments reflective of a
group's structures and systems for interaction involves the topics people argue about.
Therefore, we examine these topics in individuals' everyday exchanges. Argument topics, as
content matters, are essentially localized; that is, they are instantiated from the broader
system into the specific exchange. For example, people in the U.S. may argue about
immigration issues, whereas people in Romania may argue about personal finances, or
vice-versa, depending on the urgency and prominence of such topics in their everyday lives.
In serial arguments research (i.e., repetitive arguments about the same topic with the same
person; K. Johnson & Roloff, 1998), several authors have explicitly coded participants'
reports of topics across cultures. For example, Cionea and Hample (2013) found that most
serial arguments in the U.S. were about personal issues and behaviors (e.g., time spent
together, being on time, cleaning ofcommon spaces). Cionea and Hopfutean (2011) reported
that, in Romania, serial arguments were mostly about mundane issues (e.g., where to spend
time, whose tum it was to clean), and relational issues (e.g., transgressions). Thus, the
expected argument topics in both cultures concern aspects ofpeople's everyday lives such as
making decisions, discussing issues of interest, or ironing out misunderstandings. The
question we pose, however, examines if these topics differ depending on whether the
argument is structured as a quarrel or as a debate/discussion (i.e., argument type).
RQI: Is there a difference in argument topics a) within each culture or b) across the two cultures based on
argument type?
Closely related to argument topics are argumentation partners, or the people with whom one
argues on a regular basis. Previous research (e.g., Benoit, 1982; Hample & Allen, 2012;
Hample & Krueger, 2011; A.Johnson, 2002, 2009) found that individuals in the U.S. argued
with friends, romantic partners, family members, work or school colleagues, and roommates.
These are all people encountered regularly during everyday activities. Individuals in other

259
cultures come into contact with similar types of people, but the question is whether one
quarrels with such people or debates with them, given that culture may influence the
acceptability of arguing. On the one hand, collectivism suggests that Romanians are likely to
argue with members of outgroups more than with members of ingroups. On the other hand,
disapproval of others' behavior and advice giving are frequent in Romania. Therefore,
Romanians may be inclined to argue with a variety of people, especially those close to them.
Arguing is also a way of accomplishing things in a culture where bureaucracy is omnipresent,
and one must often quarrel with public functionaries to receive assistance. In the U.S., higher
individualism and lower power distance suggest that people may argue with a variety of
others, including people of higher social status or employers. The following research
question is proposed:
RQ2: Is there a difference in one's argumentation partners a) within each culture or b) across the two cultures
based on argument type?
In addition to topic and partners, argument goals can shed light on the function of arguing in
interpersonal exchanges as goals drive human behavior (Berger, 1997). People report several
primary goals for arguing-instrumental (meant to accomplish something concrete such as
persuading someone of one's point of view), dominance (either seeking or resisting), identity
(arguing in defense of one's identity), and play (i.e., arguing for fun) (Hample, 2005).
Secondary goals include cooperation or competition with one's argumentation partner
(Hample, 2005). It is likely that members of other cultures, too, pursue such goals given the
omnipresence of arguing in everyday interactions. Preference for a type of goal, however,
may be influenced by what is culturally perceived as valuable goal pursuit. For example, if
a culture values achievement and power, dominance goals may motivate arguing; if a culture
values cooperation, relational goals may motivate arguing. To examine these possibilities,
the following research question is proposed:
RQ3: Is there a significant difference in argument goals a) within each culture or b) across the two cultures
based on argument type?
An important aspect affecting the structuration of arguments concerns the standards or rules
dictating acceptable contexts for arguing. We examine perceptions of both situational appro-
priateness and person appropriateness (i.e., individuals with whom arguing is inappropriate).
Appropriateness norms are informed by values and beliefs regarding arguing but also by
broader social and political considerations. For example, high power distance (Albu, 2006;
Hofstede, 2001) suggests Romanians may not be inclined to argue with elders, superiors, or
those of higher social status, which would not be the case in the U.S., whose power distance
level is lower. In addition, politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) suggests individuals
suppress arguing in situations that threaten another's face. Power distance and politeness
considerations prevent one from behaving in a face-threatening manner (e.g., arguing),
especially with higher status individuals. Indeed, research suggests people consider issues of
politeness and context in cognitively editing their messages (e.g., Hample & Dallinger, 1987).
Thus, the following research questions are proposed:
RQ4: Is there a significant difference in situations in which arguing is perceived as inappropriate a) within each
culture or b) across the two cultures based on argument type?
RQ5: Is there a significant difference in persons with whom arguing is perceived as inappropriate a) within
each culture or b) across the two cultures based on argument type?

260
Finally, an element we believe is important for understanding argumentation systems
pertains to the role this form of interaction has in people's lives and in society. We believe
the role ofarguing in one's life to be a personalized representation of the cultural perception of
the role ofarguing in one's society. In other words, culture sanctions the value and importance
of arguing via its norms and rules. Individuals learn these sanctions through enculturation.
At the individual level, the cultural perspective is affected by a multitude offactors, including
predisposition to approach or avoid arguments (Infante & Rancer, 1982), educational
opportunities (e.g., whether argumentation training is available), or upbringing (e.g., growing
up in an argumentative family). The role of arguing in one's culture may reflect social
considerations, including the value of public debate and open discussion. This logic suggests
that U.S. Americans (referred to as Americans hereafter) may perceive arguing as a way of
enacting democracy or exercising their freedom of expression. Romanians, however, have
both a communist legacy of stifled public discourse and a current political scene inundated
by inflammatory public discourse, which suggests Romanians may not believe arguing has
a constructive role in their culture. The following research questions are proposed:
RQ6: Is there a significant difference in arguing's role in one's life a) within each culture or b) across the two
cultures based on argument type?
RQ7: Is there a significant difference in arguing's role in one's society a) within each culture or b) across the
two cultures based on argument type?
ME'IHOD
Participants
Romania. Participants in the study were 166 undergraduate and graduate students at a
large Northwestern university. They ranged in age from 18 to 53 years old (M = 22.05, SD =
4.09). More participants were females (n =128) than males (n = 36) and two participants did
not report their sex. Fifty-six participants were freshmen, 12 were sophomores, 40 were
juniors, and 55 were graduate students. Three participants did not indicate their class
standing. Most participants were of Romanian (n = 145), followed by Hungarian (n = 17)
ethnicity, which is typical for Romania. The remaining participants were a combination of
the previous two ethnicities (n = 1), some other ethnicity (n = 1), or did not answer this
question (n = 2).
United States. Participants in the study were 236 undergraduate students at a large
South-Atlantic university. They ranged in age from 18 to 27 years old (M = 19.91, SD =
1.55). Of the 236 participants, 109 were male and 126 were female, and one participant did
not answer this question. Eighty-five participants were freshmen, 59 were sophomores, 47
were juniors, 44 were seniors, and one participant indicated another class standing. Most
participants were White (n = 143), some participants were Asian (n = 30), some were Black
or African-American (n = 36), Hispanic or Latino/Latina (n = 14), and 13 participants were
a combination of these ethnicities.
Procedures
Romania. Participants were recruited from English courses in a Business School and
completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire voluntarily. The questionnaire contained two
forms: one with questions pertaining to a quarrel and another with questions pertaining to a
debate/discussion. Questionnaires were randomly distributed, but not all of them were

261
returned. Ninety-six participants described arguing behaviors in quarrels and 70 participants
described arguing behaviors in debates/discussions. Each questionnaire contained a consent
form (which participants were instructed to detach from the rest of the questionnaire),
demographic questions, and open-ended questions about arguing behaviors. All materials
were in Romanian (following translation and back-translation procedures).
United States. Participants were recruited from Communication courses, completed the
study online, and received extra credit for their participation. The first page of the online
questionnaire contained a consent form. Ifrespondents agreed to participate, they continued
to the demographic questions. The rest of the online questionnaire contained the same two
forms as the Romanian questionnaire did. Participants were randomly assigned to complete
one of the forms. One hundred and twelve participants described arguing behaviors in
quarrels and 124 described arguing behaviors in debates/discussions. All materials were in
English. The Institutional Review Board ofthe South-Atlantic University where the U.S. data
were collected approved the research.
Instruments
Participants answered several open-ended questions indicating what they argued about,
with whom they argued, what they usually tried to achieve when arguing, whether there
were situations in which it was not appropriate to argue or people with whom it was not
appropriate to argue, and what the role of arguing was in their personal life and in the
Romanian or American society, respectively (See Tables 1 through 7).
REsULTS
Data Unitization and Coding
Participants' open-ended answers contained multiple responses for most questions. For
example, when asked with whom they argued, participants indicated several persons; when
asked what they wanted to accomplish by arguing, participants indicated several goals.
Therefore, all answers were first unitized to create coding units (Krippendorf, 2004). Two
native Romanian speakers worked with the Romanian data and two native English speakers
worked with the U.S. data. Each coding unit consisted of a single argument topic, person,
goal, situation, or role. The inter-coder agreement for the unitization process was assessed
with Guetzkow's (1950) Uindex, which indicates the disagreement between coders (Folger,
Hewes, & Poole, 1984). An index value was calculated for each question unitized, and
individual values were then averaged to create an overall index for each culture. The final
Uvalue was .01 (i.e., .99 agreement) for the Romanian data and .09 (i.e., .91 agreement) for
the U.S. data.
For the Romania data, the unitization process yielded 296 coding units for topics, 305
coding units for argumentation partners, 223 coding units for arguing goals, 190 coding units
for situations in which arguing was perceived as inappropriate, 238 coding units for persons
with whom it was not appropriate to argue, 222 coding units for the role of arguing in one's
life, and 204 coding units for the role of arguing in Romanian society. The U.S. data yielded
451 coding units for topics, 365 coding units for argumentation partners, 291 coding units for
arguing goals, 293 coding units for situations in which arguing was inappropriate, 294 coding
units for persons with whom it was not appropriate to argue, 310 coding units for the role of
arguing in one's life, and 304 coding units for the role of arguing in American society.

262
Next, a coding scheme was developed based on patterns identified in participants'
responses for each question, in both cultures. The categories created were discussed among
coders and functional definitions of each category were developed, with examples from
participants' answers {see Table 1). The coders (same individuals who unitized the data) were
trained by discussing the categories and their definitions, then randomly selecting a few
answers from the data set and examining the codes that coders assigned to these answers.
Then, each coder coded the unitized answers independently. lntercoder reliability (assessed
with Cohen's kappa) was .87 for the Romanian data and .88 for the American data, which
indicates excellent agreement between coders (Landis & Koch, 1977). Disagreements were
resolved through discussions among each pair of coders.
Research Questions
To address the research questions, the frequency of responses in each category of the
coding scheme for each question was separated based on argument type (quarrel or debate/
discussion) and culture (Romania or U.S.). Coding units were reduced further to eliminate
duplicate codes provided by the same person, in the same category. For example, if a
respondent indicated he/she argued about sports, music, and movies (all coded as entertain-
ment matters), the response was counted as one unit, instead ofthree units. Ztests comparing
the number of answers in a category to the total number of answers for that type of argument
or that culture were then performed using an online calculator (Social Science Statistics,
2014).
RQ1a asked whether arguing topics differed in each culture depending on whether the
argument was a quarrel or a debate/discussion. In Romania, individuals quarreled signifi-
cantly more about trivial matters than they debated/discussed such topics, z= 3.71, p< .001,
and about matters of appropriateness, z = 2.73, p < .01, but they debated/discussed their
future more than they quarreled about it, z = 2.00, p < .05. In the U.S., individuals
debated/discussed socio-political matters, z = 2.02, p < .05, and occupational matters,
z = 2.29, p < .05, significantly more than they quarreled about them. They quarreled more
about relational matters than they debated/discussed such issues, z = 5.14, p < .001.
RQ1b asked whether a significant difference in argument topics existed between Romania
and the U.S. with respect to quarrels and debates/discussions. Romanians quarreled more
than Americans did about matters of appropriateness, z= 3.08, p < .01, whereas Americans
quarreled more than Romanians did about entertainment matters, z = 3.19, p < .01, and
relational matters, z= 5.14, p< .001. They also debated/discussed trivial matters, z= 2.38,
p < .05, and entertainment matters, z= 2.61, p< .001, more than Romanians did. Finally,
significantly more Americans indicated that they simply did not engage in debates/discus-
sions, compared to Romanians, z = 2.28, p < .05.
RQ2a asked whether argumentation partners differed in each culture based on whether
the argument was a quarrel or a debate/discussion. Results indicated several differences
existed within each culture based on argument type. Specifically, Romanians reported
quarreling with their romantic partners more than they debated/discussed issues with them,
z = 3.10, p < .01. They debated/discussed issues with their friends, z = 2.70, p < .01, and
professional others (e.g., work colleagues), z= 2.36, p < .05, more than they quarreled with
such individuals. Americans debated/discussed issues with their acquaintances more than
they quarreled with such individuals, z = 2.17, p < .05.

263
TABLE 1.
ARGUMENT TOPICS: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Romania United States
Debate/ Debate/
Quarrel discussion Quarrel discussion
Q.uestion: On average, during a week, what do you
usually argue about?
Trivial matters (e.g., small things, menial issues) 25 5 28 23
Entertainment matters (e.g., sports, pop culture, movies, or a 3 8 25 32
playful exchange)
Everyday matters (e.g., day-to-day activities such as where to eat, 2I 20 36 39
wliat to do)
Financial matters (e.g., money, salary, spending) 6 3 6 9
Socio-political matters (e.g., politics, economy, public decisions) 3 IO 11 2I
Relational matters (e.g., misunderstandings, communication, nature 4 I 11 2I
of relationship)
Matters of appropriateness (e.g., inappropriate behaviors, hurtful 20 6 11 8
words, lying)
Future matters (e.g., career plans, decisions about one's future) I 6 4 5
Occupational matters (e.g., work performance, group projects) I4 23 I2 24
Do not argue 'Jharticipants indicated they do not argue with others) 3 0 7 8
Other (some o er topic) I7 27 I8 9
Residual (missing answer; ambiguous answer; answer could not be I2 12 9 9
understood)
RQ2b asked whether individuals with whom one argued differed across the two cultures,
depending on the type of argument. Results indicated several differences existed between the
two cultures. Specifically, Americans quarreled more than Romanians did with their friends,
z = 3.07, p < .01, and their roommates, z = 2.57, p < .05, whereas Romanians engaged in
more debates/discussions than Americans did with professional others, z= 2.97, p < .01.
RQ3a asked whether goals differed within each culture. The only difference in Romania
was in respect to learning. Romanians reported trying to learn more in debates/discussions
than in quarrels, z= 2.74, p < .01. No differences emerged with respect to goals in the U.S.
TABLE 2.
ARGUMENT PARTNERS: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
Q!.lestion: On ave~ during a week, who do you
usually argue witli?
Romantic partners 24 9 22 I4
Friends 22 37 50 42
Family members 56 40 50 38
Professional others (e.g., work colleagues, supervisors, school 12 23 11 7
colleagues)
11 9 29 I8
Roommates
Acquaintances (e.g., familiar people but not as close as family 4 4 2 7
members or friends)
8 I
Other (some other person) I3 11
Residual (missing answer; ambiguous answer; answer could 11 3 4 3
not be understood)

264
TABLE 3.
ARGUMENT GOALS: CATEGORIES AND fREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
QJI.estion: What do you usually try to achieve when
arguing with someone?
Personal expression (e.g., express one's self, voice one's opinion) 28 22 27 30
Dominance/Power (e.g., win, show one is right, feel superior) 22 22 34 34
Persuasion/Compliance gaining (e.g., convince others, make others 20 15 30 36
behave in a certain way)
18 12
Problem-solving (e.g., find a solution, resolve something, negotiate 18 9
something)
Learning (e.g., learn different viewpoints, sharpen one's skills) 5 14 5 14
Other (some other goal) 15 3 4 5
Residual (missing answer; ambiguous answer; answer could not be 4 3 3 5
understood)
RQ3b asked whether arguing goals differed across the two cultures. No significant differ-
ences were found.
RQ4a asked whether cultures differed in perceptions of situational appropriateness for
arguing depending on argument type. Romanians indicated that it was inappropriate to
quarrel in any situation when compared to debating/discussing something, z= 2.73, p< .01,
and that it was not appropriate to debate/discuss taboo topics such as religion or race, z =
1.97, p < .05. No differences existed in the U.S. based on argument type.
RQ4b asked whether situations in which arguing was inappropriate differed across the two
cultures, depending on the type of argument. Americans reported that quarreling was
inappropriate significantly more often than Romanians did in situations eliciting respect (e.g.,
when the elderly are involved), z= 2.29, p < .05. Americans also believed it was inappro-
priate to debate/discuss issues in sacred situations (e.g., church service), z = 2.30, p< .05,
more than Romanians did. Romanians believed it was inappropriate to quarrel in any
situation significantly more than Americans, z = 3.07, p < .01. They also believed it was
inappropriate to debate/discuss issues when lacking sufficient evidence significantly more
than Americans, z= 3.82, p < .001.
RQ5a asked whether differences in perceived appropriateness to argue with specific
individuals existed within each culture, depending on argument type. Romanian participants
reported it was inappropriate to quarrel with close others significantly more than to debate/
discuss issues with them, z= 4.13, p < .001, and that it was inappropriate to debate/discuss
issues with individuals who were unreasonable significantly more than to quarrel with them,
z = 4.50, p < .001. No significant differences emerged for the U.S.
RQ5b examined potential differences in quarrels and debates/discussions between the
two cultures. Americans believed it was inappropriate to engage in debates/discussions with
authority figures significantly more than Romanians did, z = 2.06, p < .05. Romanians
believed quarrelling was inappropriate with close others more than Americans did, z= 3.09,
p < .01, and that it was inappropriate to debate/discuss issues with unreasonable individuals
more than Americans did, z = 3.90, p < .001.
RQ6a asked about the role of arguing in one's life within each culture depending on
argument type. Romanians indicated quarrels allowed emotional release significantly more

265
TABLE 4.
INAPPROPRIATE SITUATIONS: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
QJI.estion: Are there situations in which it is not
appropriate to argue with others?
When power differentials exist (e.g., socially superior others are 6 4 4 7
whresent)
en in public 9 3 15 11
When in sacred places/occasions (e.g., funerals, weddings, when in 6 2 11 15
church)
When respect is elicited but not necessariR; because the other 4 3 15 15
person IS more powerful (e.g., the elder y or respected
individuals are mvolved)
When lacking evidence (e.~., when knowing one is incorrect, when 10 16 7 5
one cannot back up one s ~ents)
When arguments have harm consequences or threaten the other 3 7 7 14
herson (e.g., tension would be increased, the argument would
urt the other person or put the other person in a bad light)
When taboo topics are involved (etf·• religion, race, ethnic issues) 0 3 3 8
It is never appropriate to argue wi others 12 1 2 1
Other (some other situation) 10 14 15 13
understood)*
• The large number of residual answers here is due to the fact that numerous participants responded "Yes" or "No"
to this question, without further details that could be coded.
than debates/discussions, z = 2.02, p < .05 did. Also, Romanians identified quarrels as
having no role more than debates/discussions, z= 2.78, p< .01. Romanians further reported
TABLE 5.
INAPPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
QJI.estion: Are there an; people with whom it is not
appropriate to argue.
Authority figures/superior others (e.g.,/ceople who have more 26 14 37 39
power or more .kri.owledge, such as octors, professors, or
supervisors)
33 3 15 10
Close others (e.g., friends, family)
The elderly 12 11 23 21
Lessioweiful/disadvantaged others (e.g., children, ill or upset 4 1 7 3
in ·viduals)
Unreasonable others (e.g., individuals who are too stubborn, 14 2 3
/heople who are indoctrinated or become too aggressive)
2 7 6
0 er (some other person) 11
not be understood)*
• The large number of residual answers here is due to the fact that numerous participants responded "Yes" or "No"
to this question, without further details that could be coded.

266
TABLE 6.
ARGUING'S ROLE IN ONE'S LIFE: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF RFsPONSFS FOR EACH CuLTURE
AND ARGUMENT TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
Q,lestion: What do ~ou believe is the role of arguing in
your personal life.
Personal expression (e.g., allows one to express one's self, voice 10 11 37 34
one's opinion)
2 4 19 10
Dominance/Power (e.~., allows one to show one is right, superior
or to win arguments
6 3 17 13
Persuasion/Compliance ~aining {e.g., allows one to convince
others, make others be ave in a certain waru)
9 8
Problem-solving (e.g., allows one to find a so ution or resolve 13 10
something)
28 38 14 20
Learning (e.~, allows one to learn different viewpoints, sharpen
one's skills
Emotional release (e.g., allows one to release stress, tension) 8 1 16 8
No role (i.e., ar~ing does not have a specific role) 15 2 19 9
Other {some o er role) 19 6 4 12
not be understood)
debates/discussions promoted learning more than quarrels, z= 2.82, p < .01. No significant
differences emerged for the U.S.
RQ6b asked whether the two cultures differed in respect to the perceived role of arguing
in one's life, depending on argument type. Americans indicated quarrels permitted personal
expression, z = 3.39, p < .001, and enacting dominance, z = 3.27, p < .01, more than
Romanians. Americans also believed debates/discussions enabled them to express them-
selves, z= 2.39, p < .05, significantly more than Romanians did. Romanians believed that
arguing's role in their lives was to enable learning significantly more than Americans did,
regardless ofwhether the argument was a quarrel, z= 3.35, p < .001, or a debate/discussion,
z = 4.69, p < .001.
Finally, RQ7 inquired about the perceived role of arguing in society. RQ7a asked whether
the role of quarrels and debates/discussions differed within each culture. Romanians per-
ceived quarrels allow emotional release, z = 2.40, p < .05, more than debates/discussions.
Americans believed debates/discussions distracted people from important issues or were a
waste of time more than quarrels, z= 2.46, p < .05.
RQ7b asked whether differences existed between the two cultures, depending on argu-
ment type. Americans believed quarrels' role in society was to permit personal expression,
z= 2.93,p< .01, to enact dominance, z= 3.18,p < .01, and to enable persuasion, z= 3.11,
p < .01, and believed debates/discussions enabled personal expression, z = 2.09, p < .05,
and dominance, z = 2.84, p < .01, more than Romanians did. Romanians believed that
quarreling had no role in society, z= 2.85, p < .01, or that its function was to distract from
other issues or waste time, z = 2.38, p < .05 more than Americans.
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND DIRECTIONS FOR FuRTHER REsEARCH
The goal of this analysis was to examine how arguing practices are structured
(according to naive actors' reports) in a cultural group and compare these structuration

267
TABLE 7.
ARGUING'S RoLE IN SoCIETY: CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF REsPONSES FOR EACH CULTURE
AND ARGUMENT 'TYPE
Debate/ Debate/
Q,lestion: What do Y-OU believe is the role of arguing in
American/Romanian society?
Personal expression (e.g., allows people to express themselves, 3 5 17 23
voice their opinions)
Dominance/Power (e.g., allows people to show superiority and 12 4 35 27
win arguments)
Persuasion/Compliance gainin~ (e.g., allows people to convince 2 5 16 17
others, to chan~e viewpoints
Problem-solving/ onflict resolution (e.g., allows people to find 9 5 12 8
solutions, resolve issues)
Learning (e.g., allows people to learn different viewpoints, to 6 10 9 9
enhance argumentation skills)
Emotional release (e.g., allows people to release stress and tension) 8 0 6 5
Public function (e.g., allows the exercise of democracy, it is a form 6 8 9 14
of public opinion, something used in the public arena)
Distraction (e.g., arguing is a waste of time, it is used to distract 7 3 9
peo~le from important issues)
No roe (i.e., arguing does not have a specific role) 11 3 2 2
Other (some other role) 25 9 8 11
understood)
understood)
practices between two cultures: Romania and the U.S. We found several differences,
both within each culture, depending on how arguing is defined, and between the two
cultures.
First, topics of arguments differed across the two cultures. On the one hand, Americans
reported discussing/debating and quarreling about a wider variety of topics, compared to
Romanians, from entertainment matters, to trivial or relational issues. Arguing is used to
exchange opinions about a multitude of subjects in the U.S., which speaks to its ubiquity as
a form of interaction. On the other hand, more individuals in the U.S. than in Romania
reported that they did not engage in debates/discussions with others. One tentative expla-
nation is that Americans are lower in argumentativeness, although argumentativeness was
not measured in this study, unfortunately. In addition, Romanians reported quarrelling
significantly more than Americans did but only about appropriate behaviors. Romanians
also debated/discussed matters related to their future such as career plans, more than
Americans. This behavior may be reflective of Romania's social and economic uncertainty.
Individuals are perhaps doubtful of their future prospects, which leads them to discuss their
plans with others, and possibly ask for advice from ingroup members.
Topics of argument also differed within each culture, depending on whether arguing was
defined as debate/discussion or a quarrel, particularly in Romania. In this culture, quarrels
are the way to address matters of appropriate behavior and trivial matters. Quarreling about
trivial topics more than debating/discussing such matters may be the result of other factors
such as stress or lack of communication. In the U.S., quarrels were used more than
debates/discussions only to address relational matters. It may be that arguing occurs at a

268
point where one has already repressed feelings about misunderstandings in a relationship,
which triggers recourse to quarreling rather than to the calm discussion of such issues.
Second, there were both within and between culture differences in argumentation part-
ners. Americans engaged their friends and roommates in quarrels significantly more than
Romanians did. This behavior may be motivated by situational factors. The sample for our
study consisted ofundergraduate students, who are at a stage in their lives when they interact
frequently with friends and roommates, which comports with literature suggesting propin-
quity associates with argument frequency (Benoit, 1982; A.Johnson, 2002, 2009). Romanians
reported debating/discussing things more with their professional colleagues (who could be
other students at the university) than Americans did. These results might be explained by
contextual or perceptual factors. For instance, whether the argument is a quarrel or a
debate/discussion nuances reports about argumentation partners. Romanians indicated they
quarreled with romantic partners more than they debated/discussed issues with them, but
they debated/discussed things with their friends or professional others more than they
quarreled with them. In the U.S., a distinction was made in respect to acquaintances, with
which one debated/discussed issues more than one quarreled. Thus, two possible mecha-
nisms are at work for understanding the two groups' reports about their argumentation
partners. First, increased contact increases argument frequency and second, appropriateness
norms and rules about engaging influence with whom people are likely to engage.
The results above can be understood better when examined in conjunction with results
pertaining to the appropriateness of arguing. Cultural considerations seem to operate for
Romanians who reported it was inappropriate to quarrel with close others more than to
debate/discuss issues with them. This finding was stronger for Romanians than for Ameri-
cans. This behavior suggests an interest in not engaging in arguments with members of one's
ingroup (Tajfel, 1974), which may be reflective ofthe culture's collectivistic orientation, as we
had speculated. Quarreling with individuals whom one is close to (e.g., family members,
romantic partners, or friends) may threaten ingroup harmony or relations (Hofstede, 2001).
Therefore, arguing is something to be done with outgroup members, as reflected by the
finding mentioned above that Romanians debate/discuss occupational matters (e.g., things
learned in school) with professional colleagues.
An interesting significant difference was the perceived inappropriateness of debating/
discussing things with individuals who are unreasonable in the case of Romanians (but not
Americans). This result suggests practicality: arguing with those who are not reasonable
enough to accept other opinions, or who are stubborn beyond reason, may be perceived as
a waste of time, and, therefore, avoided. This result also implies that there may be perceived
limits to persuasion: not everyone's mind can be changed, no matter how much a speaker
tries.
Importantly, appropriateness standards regarding argumentation partners did not differ in
the U.S. based on argument type. One aspect in which Americans scored significantly higher
than Romanians was the perceived inappropriateness of debating/discussing issues with
authority figures. This finding was contrary to our expectations. We believed Romanians
would be more hesitant than Americans to argue with authority figures given the culture's
higher power distance index as compared to the U.S. On the contrary, Americans were the
ones to enact such power distance considerations in arguments. It may be the case that
Romanians do not show the same respect to authority due to the legacy of communism, a
time when the state exerted its authoritarian power forcefully, which made people resentful,
and potentially resistant to this type ofpower. Another explanation could be that Romanians

269
believe that they have to argue to accomplish instrumental tasks, which may involve arguing
with superiors or people in higher positions. Stefenel (2010) found that Romanians tended
"to stand up for [their] own rights and interests in a conflict situation" (p. 9), which suggests
arguing could be used for this purpose and, therefore, perceived as appropriate, regardless
of one's interlocutor and his or her status.
With respect to situations in which arguing was perceived as inappropriate, several
interesting results emerged. Romanians indicated that debating/discussing something with-
out adequate evidence to support one's claims was inappropriate. In other words, Roma-
nians believe that arguing for the sake of it (i.e., arguing as play; Hample, 2005), or sharing
an unsupported opinion, is unacceptable. It may be the case that Romanians do not believe
they have the necessary evidence to carry on some discussions, which is why they also report
engaging in fewer debates/discussions than Americans (RQ1). Popular wisdom dictates that
one should speak only when one has something to contribute to the discussion. This result
is worth pursuing further because it implies different argument engagement behaviors in the
two cultures; Romanians may be more selective of which arguments to engage in based on
how much evidence they have to support their claims. They may also believe that not
everything they think is worth expressing, be it out of modesty or perceived lack of
knowledge about a topic.
Romanians also indicated, significantly more than Americans did, that it was never
appropriate to quarrel with others, which reflects cultural values about polite interactions.
Children are taught in Romania that it is not nice to quarrel with others and that they should
strive for peaceful interactions. Romanians use hedging techniques to avoid offending their
conversation partners (Ilie, 2010) and avoid explicit disagreement, polemics, or contradic-
tion (~erbanescu, 2003), which are all viewed negatively. Interestingly, this may be the
reason why taboo topics, such as religion or race issues, were also perceived as inappropriate
to discuss/debate.
Americans identified several situations in which it was not appropriate to quarrel with
others or debate/discuss things with others, including situations that elicit respect or sacred
situations such as churches or formal events (for debates/discussions only). This behavior
appears to be driven not necessarily by low power distance considerations, but perhaps by
politeness or face concerns.
Finally, despite minimal differences reported by individuals with respect to arguing goals
(i.e., Romanians perceived debates/discussions as an opportunity to learn more than during
quarrels; RQ3), arguing has more nuanced and complex functions in one's life and in society
in the U.S. as compared to Romania. Americans indicated that arguing (in either sense of the
term) allowed them personal expression, with quarrels also used to enact dominance.
Romanians indicated significantly more than Americans did only that arguing (in either
sense of the term) enabled individuals to learn new things. At the societal level, a similar
pattern emerged. Americans reported arguing's role was to permit personal expression and
enact dominance, with quarrels also believed to allow people to persuade others. Romanians
reported quarrels functioned as a distraction from important matters, were a waste of time,
or had no role in Romanian society. Brashers, Adkins, and Meyers (1994) explained that
group arguments are "constructed and maintained in interaction" (p. 267). Our results
suggest different structuration practices of group arguments in the two cultures. The re-
sources upon which individuals draw to establish these structures are, historically speaking,
different. For example, freedom of expression is an important American value, which
informs the activity of arguing; individuals can express their ideas via arguing. The legacy of

270
communism, as well as public talk shows and electoral debates, exemplify in Romania
aggressive attitudes, ad hominem attacks, and abusive language (Ilie, 2010). The resulting
structure that emerges based on these realities is one that views arguing as lacking public
functions.
So what does this study reveal about arguing behaviors? In Romania, arguing structures
are clearly delineated as a function of one's understanding of arguments as quarrels or
debates/discussions. More differences emerged between these two types in Romania than in
the U.S. Second, some of the boundaries of arguing structures at the interpersonal level are
different than in the U.S. Specifically, when or with whom it is appropriate to argue is
delineated differently in Romania than in the U.S. We have speculated that the influences of
communism and cultural values, such as individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 2001), may
affect how arguing is organized within a system ofbehaviors. Third, the enactment of arguing
behaviors in everyday interactions serves similar goals in the two cultures but occurs in
different forms (e.g., topics argued, situations, role of arguing in one's life). In the U.S., this
study provides additional support for previous findings that have identified how naive actors
experience arguing (e.g., Benoit, 1982; Hample, 2005). We have added to that literature our
finding that quarrels and debates/discussions have some different uses, although the two
share more similarities than differences in the U.S.
The results of this comparative examination enhance our understanding of argumen-
tation practices and the cross-cultural experience of arguing in several ways. Reliance on
structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) has enabled us to examine how different resources,
such as cultural beliefs and values, or sociological and political conditions, contribute to
different articulations of arguing structures in two cultures. This idea suggests that
researchers ought to identify and examine what resources members of a cultural group
draw upon in their argumentation behaviors in order to understand how such systems
are formed. In addition, our analysis revealed that some structuration practices (e.g.,
goals) are similar, suggesting some pan-cultural features of arguing. Thus, people in
different cultures may use arguing to fulfill similar interpersonal communication needs,
supporting structuration theory's proposition that similar practices may be enacted at
different times, in different places (Giddens, 1984). Furthermore, differences between the
two cultures speak to group argumentation practices. Given the lack of research in and
about Romania, this study provides a useful description of arguing behaviors in that
culture. It also identifies how argument functions at the interpersonal level to regulate
interactions among members of this cultural group. At the societal level, the study
reveals that arguing is perceived to fulfill different roles in the two cultures, with more
complex possibilities for Americans than for Romanians. Finally, Romanians distinguish
between debates/discussions and quarrels in multiple ways, consequently differentiating
between their uses in everyday interactions potentially more than Americans do. A
possible reason is language itself: one word with multiple meanings in English, versus
different words for the different meanings in Romanian. The obvious implication here is
that researchers examining arguing behaviors in other cultures must be careful when
translating terms if they want to make accurate cross-cultural comparisons.
This study is not without limitations. First, cultural dimensions or values that may
explain the differences found were not directly measured; rather possible cultural
considerations were discussed based on pre-existent cultural scores. The main interest of
the study was to identify a basic set of behaviors that could serve as an initial entry point
into understanding arguing behaviors; from that standpoint, the study provided impor-

271
tant information about these practices in the two cultures. Further research should be
conducted to uncover cultural factors that affect arguing behaviors. Second, the Roma-
nian sample was composed of mostly women, so results ought to be interpreted with this
limitation in mind. Romanian women may be more hesitant to argue than Romanian
men. Their gendered socialization {Guan, Bond, Dinidi, & Iliescu, 2008) stressed that
women should not be argumentative, which may result in their reporting socially
desirable arguing practices or minimizing arguing's role in their lives. Finally, in both
cultures, the sample surveyed consisted of college students. Although this sample is
adequate for comparison, students may not have been exposed to all forms of arguing
{e.g., they may not have engaged in workplace arguments or spousal arguments). A more
diverse sample of individuals {e.g., different age, occupation, geographical location)
would be more representative of the spectrum of arguing behaviors in the two cultures.
Nevertheless, this research constitutes a foundation for investigating arguing, from an
ernie perspective, to characterize cultures and compare them in an effort to understand
where and why differences in arguing behaviors exist.
REFERENCES
Albu, M. {2006). Aspects regarding Hofstede's cultural dimensions model. Buletinul Universitlz/ii GaQ-Petrol Ploieyti
[The Bulletin of the Petrol-Gas University in Ploieitl], LVlll, 77-82. Retrieved from http://www.upg-bulletin-se.ro/
archive/2006-4/I0.%20Albu.pdf
Bancilli, D., Mittelmark, M. B., & Hetland,]. {2006). The association ofinterpersonal stress with psychological distress
in Romania. European Psychologist, 17,39-49. doi:l0.1027/1016-9040.11.1.39
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. {1982). From axiom to dialogue. New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Benoit, P.J. {1982, November). The ndlve social actor's concept ofargument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
Berger, C. R {1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, flU: Erlbaum.
Brashers, D. E., Adkins, M., & Meyers, R A. {1994). Argumentation and computer-mediated group decision making.
In L. R Frey {Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies ofnaturalgroups (pp. 263-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brockriede, W. {1975). Where is argument? Thejournal ofthe American Forensic Association, 9, 179-182.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. {1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Central Intelligence Agency. {2013). The World Factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/
the-world-factbook/
Cionea, I. A. {2013). A dual perspective on the management ofrelational transgressions in romantic relationships {Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. {3587414)
Cionea, I. A., & Hample, D. {2013, August). Serial argument topics. Paper presented at the 18th biennial meeting of the
NCA!AFA conference on argumentation, Alta, UT.
Cionea, I. A., & Hopartean, A.-M. {2011, November). Serial arguments: An explaratory investigation in Romania. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Cristea, D. {2013,January 28). Cultura dezbaterii Ia romani. [Argument culture among Romanians]. Retreived from
http://www.contributors.ro/editorial!cultura-dezbaterii-la-romani/
Folger,]. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M.S. {1984). Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M.J. Voigt {Eds.), Progress
in communication sciences {pp. 115-161). Norwood, flU: Ablex.
Giddens, A. {1984). The constitution ofsociety: Outline ofthe theory ofstructuration. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Dincli, M., & Iliescu, D. {2008). Social axioms among Romanians: Structure and demographic
differences. Retrieved from http://alingavreliuc.files.wordpress.corn/ 2010/10/ social-axioms-among-romanians-
structure-and-demographical-differences-subrnission.pdf
Guetzkow, H. {1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. journal ofClinical Psychology, 6,
47-58. doi: 10.1002/10974679{195001)6:1::AIDJCLP2270 0601113.0.C0;2-I
Hample, D. {2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, flU: Erlbaum.
Hample, D., & Allen, S. {2012). Serial arguments in organizations. journal ofArgumentation in Context, 1, 312-220.
doi: I0.1075/jaic.l.3.03ham
Hample, D., & Dallinger,J. M. {1987). Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication
Research, 14, 123-144. doi:IO.Illl/j.14682958.1987.tb00124.x
Hample, D., & Dallinger,J. M. {2002, October). Argumentframing andgender orientation. Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Minneapolis, MN.
Hample, D., & Krueger, B. {2011). Serial arguments in classrooms. Communication Studies, 62,597-617. doi:I0.1080/
10510974.2011.576746
Hofstede, G. {2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organi.?:fttions across cultures
{2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

272
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organiqltions: Software ofthe mind (3'd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Ilie, C. (2010). Managing dissent and interpersonal relations in the Romanian parliamentary discourse. In C. Ilie
(Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny (pp. 193-221). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. journal ofPersonality
Assessment, 46, 72-80. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
Jackson, S., &Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Qyarterly
journal ofSpeech, 66,251-265. doi:10.1080/003356380093 83524
Johnson, A. J. (2002). Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public-issue and personal-issue arguments. Communi-
cation Reports, 15, 99-112. doi:10.1080=08934210209367757
Johnson, A.J. (2009). A functional approach to interpersonal argument. Differences between public- and personal-
issue arguments. Communication Reports, 22, 13-28. doi: 10.1080/08934210902798528
Johnson, K. 1., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of
perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327-343.
Krauss, S. (2006). Does ideology transcend culture? A preliminary examination in Romania.journal ofPersonality, 74,
1219-1256. doi:10.11111j.1467-6494.2006.00408.x
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodowgy (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Landis,]. R, & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33,
159-174. doi:10.230712529310
Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Brashers, D. (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions:
Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Westernjournal ofSpeech Communication, 55,
47-68. doi: 10.1080110570319109374370
Nadolu, B., Nadolu, D.l., &Asay, S.M. (2007). Family strengths in Romania. Marriage &Family Review, 41,419-446.
doi:10.13001J002v41n03_09
O'Keefe, D.J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. journal ofthe American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). International migration outlook 2012. Country notes:
Recent changes in migration movements and policies. Romania. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/
IM0%202012_Country%20note%20Romania.pdf
Poole, M. S. (2013). Structuration research on group communication. Management Communication Qyarterly, 27,
607-614. doi:10.1177/0893318913506265
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D. R, & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly
journal ofSpeech, 71, 74-102. doi:10.1080/ 00335638509383719
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, RD. (1986). A structurational approach to theory development in group
research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 237-264). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R D. (1996). The structuration ofgroup decisions. In R Y. Hirokawa & M. S.
Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 114-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robilii, M., & Krishnakumar, A. (2005). Effects of economic pressure on marital conflict in Romania. journal ofFamily
Psychology, 19, 246-251. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.246
Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. SmaU
Group Research, 38,312-336. doi:10.1177/1046496407301966
Seibold, D. R., McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (1980, April). New prospects for research in small group communication.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago, 11.
Seibold, D. R., & Myers, K. K. (2005). Communication as structuring. In G.J. Shepherd,]. St.John, & T. Striphas
(Eds.), Communication as ... Stances on theory (pp. 143-152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Social Science Statistics. (2014). Z test calculator Jor 2 population proportions. Retrieved from http://www.socscistatistics.
cornltests/ztest/Default2.aspx
~erblinescu, A. (2003). Scripturi culturale ~i acte de vorbire indirecte in limba romlina [Cultural scripts and indirect
speech acts in the Romanian language]. In L. DasciiluJinga &L. Pop (Eds.), Diawgulin limba romimll vorbita. Omagiu
profesorului Sorin Stati la a 70-a aniversare [Dialogue in spoken Romanian language. Homage to Professor Sorin Stati
on his 70th anniversary] (pp. 95-112). Bucharest, Romania: Oscar.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A
dimensional analysis across 43 nations. journal of Cross-Cultural Psychowgy, 27, 231-264. doi:10.1177I
0022022196272006
Stefenel, D. (2010). The effect of cultural patterns on interpersonal communication behavior: A trans-cultural
investigation in Romania and Greece. Sibiu AbnaMater Universityjournals, Series C. Social Sciences, 3, 5-10. Retrieved from
http://www.uarnsibiu.ro/publicatii/Series%20C%20-%20Social%20Sciences/Sociale%2020100/o20Nr%203.pdf
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93. doi:10.1177/
053901847401300204
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2014). Students .from a given country studying abroad: Romania. Retrieved from
http:/Idata.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNESCO&f=series%3AED_FSOABS
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts ofargument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in diawgue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory ofargumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

A Content Analysis Of Arguing Behaviors A Case Study Of Romania As Compared To The United States

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Content Analysis Of Arguing Behaviors A Case Study Of Romania As Compared To The United States

Similar to A Content Analysis Of Arguing Behaviors A Case Study Of Romania As Compared To The United States (20)

More from Daniel Wachtel

More from Daniel Wachtel (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Content Analysis Of Arguing Behaviors A Case Study Of Romania As Compared To The United States