ABSTRACT
This chapter summarizes a program of research undertaken to examine a prominent cognitive-informational theory of group argument—persuasive arguments theory (PAT). An examination of PAT seems especially germane for communication researchers, for PAT predicts particular group outcomes without direct analysis of interaction. Four tasks are undertaken in this chapter. First, key assumptions of two metatheoretical approaches to argument —the cognitive-informational (Cl) and the social-interactional (SI) perspectives—are surveyed. Second, PAT is identified as a particularly prominent Cl approach to group argument, and its theoretical underpinnings are detailed. Third, a critique of PAT is offered that identifies three conceptual difficulties: (a) an assumption of correspondence between individual cognition and group discussion, (b) a focus on noninteractional predictor factors, and (c) a methodological commitment to research conducted at the individual level of analysis. Finally, an alternative approach to group argument — structuration — is presented as a perspective capable of integrating the Cl and SI approaches within a single framework that accords interaction a central role.
