| Abstract: | Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) is a noninteractionl theory of group decision making that predicts decision outcomes from the cognitive arguments individuals generate prior to discussion. PAT proponents do not view discussion as a crucial determinant of decision outcomes, but rather as one possible medium for information exchange. On this view, they assume members’ cognitive arguments correspond to arguments produced in discussion and group influence is a function of these stable structures produced outside interaction. As part of a larger research program undertaken to evaluate PAT, this article assesses PAT assumptions about argument and argument influence. Following a review and critique of PAT, five hypotheses are advanced to test its assumptions. Results revealed little correspondence between cognitive and discussion arguments in number, content, or persuasiveness. Additionally, PAT assumptions about argument influence were not supported. Implications for PAT and for the role of communication in group decision making are discussed. |
