Analysing and evaluating problem-solving discussions

In this article, the conceptual instrument that pragma-dialectical argumentation theory offers is elaborated for the analysis and evaluation of problem-solving discussions. The elaboration is aimed expressly at taking into account the discussion character of the discourse, in order to show how the developing process evolves and what the obstacles are therein. In addition, it focuses expressly on the verbal behaviour of the participants and on showing how this behaviour controls the evolving process. The analysis and evaluation is based on insights and methods of conversational analysis and discourse analysis. One fragment of a problem-solving discussion is analysed and evaluated.     

The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited

This article explains the design and development of the pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In this approach fallacies are viewed as violations of the standards for critical discussion that are expressed in a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. After the problem-solving validity in resolving differences of opinion of the rules of this code has been discussed, their conventional validity for real-life arguers is demonstrated. Starting from the extended version of the theory in which the strategic maneuvering taking place in argumentative discourse is included, the article explains that the violations of the rules that are committed in the fallacies involve derailments of strategic maneuvering. This culminates in a discussion of the exploitation of hidden fallaciousness as an unreasonable way of increasing the effectiveness of argumentative discourse – a vital topic of research in present-day pragma-dialectics.

     

Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussion

In this article, after arguing that present approaches to improving problem-solving discussions for various reasons are not satisfactory, I turn to the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentative discourse to derive a normative framework that can serve as a point of departure to enhance the quality of problem-solving discussions. I then show how this approach can be used as analytical and evaluative instrument that can help the analyst to establish whether participants in actual practice act in a fashion that is in accord with the norms posited. Two real-life problem-solving discussions provide the material for this demonstration.     

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS: AN INVESTIGATION OF GROUP PHASES

The present study sought to determine whether “successful” problem-solving groups can be distinguished from “unsuccessful” problem-solving groups on the basis of the phases that characterize their problem-solving discussion. The results, while based on a limited sample of nine groups, provide strong evidence to indicate that no single uniform sequence of phases is necessarily associated with either “successful” or “un-successful” group problem-solving. Rather, the study found that both “successful” and “unsuccessful” groups take their own unique “paths” to solving their problems, perhaps depending on the conditions and circumstances present at critical points in the problem-solving process. Interestingly, however, while the study discovered that there are several different sequences of phases associated with both “successful” and “unsuccessful” group problem-solving, a comparison of those different sequences revealed one general difference. Specifically, it was discovered that “successful” groups tend to begin their discussion by attempting to analyze the problem before attempting to search for a viable solution to it, while “unsuccessful” groups tend to begin the discussion by immediately attempting to search for a viable solution to the problem before attempting to analyze the problem.     

A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion

According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a critical discussion whether the protagonist's standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist's criticism. In this paper, the authors formulate the latest version of their basic rules for the performance of speech acts in the various stages that can beanalytically distinguished in a critical discussion that can lead to the resolution of a single and non-mixed difference opinion.     

Pragma-dialectical Theory and Interpersonal Interaction Outcomes: Unproductive Interpersonal Behavior as Violations of Rules for Critical Discussion

The purpose of this research review is to examine the usefulness of reconstructing problematic interpersonal conflict behavior as violations of rules for critical discussions. Dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior sheds light on the ways in which dialectical fallacies influence not only the course of a critical discussion, but also the personal and relationship outcomes experienced by arguers. Conflict sequences such as cross complaining and demand/withdraw are shown to be problematic, in part, because they prevent parties from resolving their difference through rational dialogue. The paper concludes by presenting some implications of the pragma-dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior.     

Conflict management: A premarital training program in mutual problem solving

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured educational program designed to train premarital couples in communication and mutual problem-solving skills. Twenty-six couples participated in an eight-week, 24-hour problem-solving training program, while 28 similar couples participated in an eight-week, 24-hour relationship discussion group. Results indicated that the problem-solving group, as compared to the relationship-discussion group, showed a significant increase in communication and mutual problem-solving skills. Discussion focused on the benefits for premarital couples of learning effective problemsolving procedures as well as the need for follow-up assessments of both behavioral skill level and relationship satisfaction and adjustment.     

The role of problem-solving appraisal in the process and outcome of career counseling

Because problem-solving appraisal has been demonstrated to be a critical variable in psychological adjustment, this study examined its potential role as both a static and dynamic client attribute influencing the process and outcome of career counseling. Participants were 151 adults who received an average of five sessions of naturally occurring career counseling; data were collected before, during, and after counseling. The results indicated that: (a) in line with a static attribute model, clients' pre-counseling problem-solving appraisal scores predicted post-counseling career and psychological outcomes as well as career decidedness even after partialling out clients' pre-decidedness scores; (b) in line with a dynamic attribute model, clients who experienced positive changes in problem-solving appraisal in counseling were more likely to have more positive career resources to use in their career transitions as well greater goal directedness; (c) participation in career counseling related to positive change in problem-solving appraisal scores at a level similar to problem-solving training workshops; and (d) clients' changes in problem-solving appraisal related to changes in the working alliance over time.     

Public Debate – An Act of Hostility?

This paper focuses on eristic in political debate of the forensic, or confrontational, type. First, some findings on the enactment and persuasiveness of hostility in a series of Danish TV-debates 1975–85 are presented, including a list of the clearly hostile debater's characteristics and a subdivision of conspiracy arguments. This presentation serves to illustrate that hostility is less persuasive than argumentation practitioners and theorists tend to assume. Next, the widespread notion of debate as a genre half-way between the quarrel and the critical discussion is challenged in a discussion of Douglas N. Walton's distinction between types of dialogue. It is maintained that the normative model of confrontational debate excludes the quarrel and that debate should not be perceived as second-rate critical discussion.     

Multifamily interventions in the context of inherited genetic conditions: A scoping review

This scoping review sought to examine the existing literature on multifamily interventions with families dealing with inherited genetic conditions. It also seeks to identify gaps in the evidence to help guide future research and intervention development. Four databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus and PsycInfo) were systematically searched and analysed, resulting in five publications for inclusion. The main findings evidence two main themes: characteristics of multifamily interventions, and evaluation of the intervention and impact on participants. These findings suggest that multifamily interventions can provide families with extended support beyond the care usually offered by genetic healthcare services and contribute to enhancing positive change in key aspects of adaptation and coping with an inherited genetic conditions. Multifamily discussion groups are a methodology that is particularly suitable when working with families in this context. Collaboration between genetic healthcare services and accredited systemic family therapists is required to sustain the implementation of multifamily discussion groups and their feasibility. Research on the effectiveness, feasibility and economic viability of multifamily interventions is also needed.     

The Collective Preference for Shared Information

Decision-making groups prefer to discuss shared information that all members know instead of unshared information that a single member knows. This bias toward discussing shared information can lead groups to make suboptimal decisions when unshared information is critical for good decision making. This preference for discussing shared information may stem from group members' positive evaluations of each other's task capabilities when shared information is communicated. Members who already are perceived as capable (i.e., those high in status, experts, and leaders) need not bolster their image by communicating shared information. Instead, they discuss unshared information more than members perceived as less capable. As members low in status gain respect by communicating shared information, they may risk mentioning unshared information later during discussion. Assigning group leaders, informing members of their expert roles, and allowing ample time for discussion may increase groups' discussion of unshared information.     

Interpersonal problem-solving skills training with aggressive young children

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an interpersonal problem-solving training program with aggressive young children. There were 13 children in the experimental group and 11 children in the contact control group. Both experimental and contact control group children were evaluated at pretest, posttest, and follow-up on the Behavioral Interpersonal Problem Solving Test (BIPS). Experimental group subjects were exposed to the interpersonal problem-solving skills training program for 50 training sessions. The contact control group participated in reading-story sessions during the same time period. Results and discussion reflect the efficacy of the training procedure and the nature of the change in interpersonal problem-solving behavior in aggressive young children.     

Strategic Maneuvering with Dissociation

This paper explores the possibilities for strategic maneuvering of the argumentative technique that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame/London, 1969) called dissociation. After an exploration of the general possibilities that dissociation may have for enhancing critical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, the use of dissociation in the successive stages of a critical discussion is examined. For each stage, first, the dialectical moves that dissociation can be employed in are specified, then, the specific ways in which dissociation contributes to fulfilling the dialectical tasks that are associated with these moves are delineated, and, finally, the rhetorical gain that␣dissociation can bring in the fulfillment of these tasks is discussed. Some general conclusions are drawn for research that aims at understanding the potential of an argumentative technique for strategic maneuvering.     

A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Inquisition

Disagreement space consists of all the commitments and understandings required for an utterance to take on its discourse function. These are virtual standpoints that can be called out for explicit argumentation. This paper shows how the Inquisition systematically controlled disagreement space, preventing some apparently important standpoints from ever being argued about, and requiring attention to others that may not have initially seemed relevant. This control of disagreement space constituted violation of the rules for critical discussion. The essay suggests that the idea of disagreement space be slightly enlarged, to show the distinctions among virtual, possible, and actual disagreement spaces. The Inquisition's extra-argumentative power is what permitted its specification of the possible disagreement space. The analysis suggests that pragma-dialectics may have application in the criticism and analysis of social institutions.     

The Influence of the Internet on the Psychosocial Predictors of Collective Action

The Internet has emerged as an important communication platform for the support of collective action, but little is known about how it influences the psychosocial motives for participation. Two quantitative studies were conducted within two different mobilizing contexts, in which offline collective actions were launched through computer‐mediated communication. We examined whether and how the frequency with which people participated in online political discussions moderated the effects of the psychosocial predictors of collective action, specifically politicized identity, anger, collective efficacy, and morality. Results showed that collective action intention was predicted by politicized identity only when participants reported a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. However, anger did not predict collective action when people had the chance to express this emotion through a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. Moreover, collective efficacy and morality supported collective action intention in participants who reported a higher versus lower frequency of online discussion. We theorize on how computer‐mediated communication, and its specific features, can be studied as a mobilizing context that influences the psychosocial motives to participate in collective action. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Fate of the Moros: A Cross-cultural Exploration of Strategies in Complex and Dynamic Decision Making

The ways in which people deal with complex and dynamic problems are shaped by their learning experiences within their culture as well as the functional constraints within which they have to operate. An experiment is described that explores the interaction of culture and ways of problem solving. University students from India and Germany had to work on one of two different versions of a computer-simulated interactive complex problem. The anaylsis focuses on the strategic aspects of problem solving. Indian and German problem solvers clearly differed in their approach: German students used a more active and control-oriented strategy and committed fewer strategic and tactical errors. The results form the basis of a discussion on the factors important in the development of problem-solving expertise.     

基于过程数据的问题解决能力测量及数据分析方法

问题解决能力是指在没有明显解决方法的情况下个体从事认知加工以理解和解决问题情境的能力。对问题解决能力的测量需要借助相对更复杂、更真实、具有可交互性的问题情境来诱导问题解决行为的呈现。使用虚拟测评抓取问题解决的过程数据并分析其中所蕴含的潜在信息是当前心理计量学中测量问题解决能力的新趋势。首先, 回顾问题解决能力测量方式的发展：从纸笔测验到虚拟测评。然后, 总结对比两类过程数据的分析方法：统计建模法和数据挖掘法。最后, 从非认知因素的影响、多模态数据的利用、问题解决能力发展的测量、其他高阶思维能力的测量和问题解决能力概念及结构的界定五个方面展望未来可能的研究方向。     

Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective

In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed that identifying and acknowledging fallacies in ordinary discussions always has a conditional character. Differences between the pragma-dialectical perspective, the Standard Treatment, and the formal logic approach to fallacy analysis are discussed.     

Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process

Implementation integrity is a potentially critical issue for problem-solving teams (PST) and most response-to-intervention models. The current study hypothesized that providing performance feedback, which has consistently been shown to increase implementation integrity, to PSTs would enhance the procedural integrity of the process. The PSTs for three elementary schools were provided performance feedback with a 20-item checklist created from the literature. A multiple-baseline design across schools revealed an immediate change in level after providing performance feedback. The resulting percentages of non-overlapping data were 90.9%, 90.0%, and 100%. However, PSTs still did not monitor student progress, assess the effectiveness of the intervention, or measure the integrity with which the intervention was implemented even after receiving feedback. Thus, providing performance feedback could be a method to increase the fidelity with which critical components of data-based problem-solving are implemented, but these data suggest the need for additional research.     

Robust Improvements on Reasoning Performance Following Discussion in Japan

Group discussion significantly improves performance on intellective problems. However, most experiments have been conducted in Western cultures. Cross‐cultural psychology suggests that members of Eastern cultures might be less likely to benefit from group discussion. One experiment in Japan suggested that this was not the case, but this experiment suffered from some limitations. To address these limitations, Japanese participants were asked to solve an intellective task four times: individually (pre‐test), in small discussion groups (test), individually again (transfer task, post‐test), and individually after a delay (delayed post‐test). The results revealed a robust improvement during group discussion. Groups in which at least one member had found the correct answer individually agreed on it during the discussion. Moreover, and in contrast with results obtained in Western cultures, most groups with no such member also found the correct answer. The gains obtained during discussion were maintained in the transfer tasks. This result provides further evidence that the improvement of reasoning performance in group discussion is a universal phenomenon, and provides support for the practice of collaborative learning in Japan.