偶然的争论——决策群体中的交替转向与冲突发展

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Karolina Ziembowicz, Agnieszka Rychwalska, Andrzej Nowak
{"title":"偶然的争论——决策群体中的交替转向与冲突发展","authors":"Karolina Ziembowicz, Agnieszka Rychwalska, Andrzej Nowak","doi":"10.1177/10464964221118674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Turn-taking is the most basic sequential process in group interactions. However, few studies have analyzed how turn-taking patterns impact group dynamics and outcomes. Research has shown that turn-taking in group interactions usually takes the form of a dyadic ABA pattern, in which two speakers talk interchangeably. In this paper, we propose that in groups discussing a controversial topic (abortion rights), ABA patterns transmit conflict. It was found that ABA patterns correlate with reciprocal exchanges of contradictory arguments, which, when prolonged, escalate into conflicts marked by heightened negativity, dominance, disagreement, and opinion strength. Content in ABA patterns conveyed later in the conversation becomes more conflictive, compared to non-dyadic ordering. The interacting group members in the ABA pattern were less satisfied with the group, as manifested by a lower level of perceived quality of the discussion, and they gave mutual assessments of influence, dissimilarity, and disagreement.","PeriodicalId":47912,"journal":{"name":"Small Group Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arguments at Odds—Dyadic Turn-Taking and Conflict Development in Consensus-Making Groups\",\"authors\":\"Karolina Ziembowicz, Agnieszka Rychwalska, Andrzej Nowak\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10464964221118674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Turn-taking is the most basic sequential process in group interactions. However, few studies have analyzed how turn-taking patterns impact group dynamics and outcomes. Research has shown that turn-taking in group interactions usually takes the form of a dyadic ABA pattern, in which two speakers talk interchangeably. In this paper, we propose that in groups discussing a controversial topic (abortion rights), ABA patterns transmit conflict. It was found that ABA patterns correlate with reciprocal exchanges of contradictory arguments, which, when prolonged, escalate into conflicts marked by heightened negativity, dominance, disagreement, and opinion strength. Content in ABA patterns conveyed later in the conversation becomes more conflictive, compared to non-dyadic ordering. The interacting group members in the ABA pattern were less satisfied with the group, as manifested by a lower level of perceived quality of the discussion, and they gave mutual assessments of influence, dissimilarity, and disagreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Small Group Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Small Group Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221118674\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Small Group Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221118674","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

轮流是群体互动中最基本的顺序过程。然而,很少有研究分析轮流模式如何影响群体动态和结果。研究表明,群体互动中的轮次转换通常采用二元ABA模式,即两个说话者交替交谈。在本文中,我们提出,在讨论一个有争议的话题(堕胎权)的群体中,ABA模式会传递冲突。研究发现,ABA模式与矛盾论点的相互交流有关,当时间延长时,矛盾论点会升级为以消极性、主导性、分歧和意见强度增强为特征的冲突。与非二元排序相比,在对话后期传达的ABA模式中的内容变得更加矛盾。ABA模式中的互动小组成员对小组不太满意,这表现在讨论的感知质量较低,他们对影响、差异和分歧进行了相互评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arguments at Odds—Dyadic Turn-Taking and Conflict Development in Consensus-Making Groups
Turn-taking is the most basic sequential process in group interactions. However, few studies have analyzed how turn-taking patterns impact group dynamics and outcomes. Research has shown that turn-taking in group interactions usually takes the form of a dyadic ABA pattern, in which two speakers talk interchangeably. In this paper, we propose that in groups discussing a controversial topic (abortion rights), ABA patterns transmit conflict. It was found that ABA patterns correlate with reciprocal exchanges of contradictory arguments, which, when prolonged, escalate into conflicts marked by heightened negativity, dominance, disagreement, and opinion strength. Content in ABA patterns conveyed later in the conversation becomes more conflictive, compared to non-dyadic ordering. The interacting group members in the ABA pattern were less satisfied with the group, as manifested by a lower level of perceived quality of the discussion, and they gave mutual assessments of influence, dissimilarity, and disagreement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Policy: Small Group Research is an international and interdisciplinary journal presenting research, theoretical advancements, and empirically supported applications with respect to all types of small groups. Through advancing the systematic study of small groups, this journal seeks to increase communication among all who are professionally interested in group phenomena.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信