Cognitive, Emotional, And Verbal Responses In Unfair Everyday Discourse

Abstract

Research about argumentational unfairness has focused primarily on the cognitive evaluation of argumentational rule violations, applying written argumentational scenarios, and structured answering format. This study investigates cognitive, emotional, and verbal responses to unfair contributions (nonrational vs. noncooperative speech acts) using an open-ended answering format in various presentation modalities (written, auditory, and role-play). No differences appeared between reactions to nonrational versus noncooperative contributions or between the different presentation modalities. The results replicate previous findings and provide support for the validity of attributional models in unfair everyday discourse, as well as for the position that argumentative behavior is rule governed by reciprocal expectancies.