Two Types of Disagreement in Group Discussions of Japanese Undergraduates

Etsuo Mizukami (), Ikuyo Morimoto, Kana Suzuki, Hiroko Otsuka, Hideki Kashioka and Satoshi Nakamura
Additional contact information
Etsuo Mizukami: Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International
Ikuyo Morimoto: Kwansei Gakuin University
Kana Suzuki: Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International
Hiroko Otsuka: The Institute of Behavioral Sciences
Hideki Kashioka: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International
Satoshi Nakamura: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International

Group Decision and Negotiation, 2009, vol. 18, issue 3, No 6, 279-298

Abstract: Abstract In this study we investigated the nature of disagreement, which is a necessary component of a good discussion. We obtained 27 group discussion scenes by Japanese undergraduates that were evaluated by two ways: impression rating and ranking. As a result of factor analysis for the impression rating data, five factors were extracted: activeness, multidirection and unification of discussion, relationships of participants, development and sophistication of discussion, and sincerity of the participants, and each factor scores of each scene was simultaneously calculated. Each scene’s rank score was also calculated by relative comparisons. A significant positive correlation was found between the mean factor and the rank scores except for Factor 3 (relationships of participants). To consider the reason for the difference relating to Factor 3’s score, we scrutinized the discussion process of four scenes of the different patterns of the factor and rank scores. From the analysis of conversations, we suggested that this difference reflected ways of disagreement. By introducing a probative discourse tags for discussion (pDTD), we reasoned that the frequency of disagreement made Factor 3’s score negative and the absence of the second part of adjacency pairs made the rank score worse. The explicit speech and actions of blame such as emotional and aggressive expression, and neglect of treatment for the minor opinion made also the discussion unfair, but we think that these behaviors might erupt from the ground made by the accumulated implicit behaviors such as the absence of the second part. We finally concluded that the criticism type of disagreement increased the rank scores, and its censure type produced lower results, and the proper ways of disagreement in group discussions were discussed.

Keywords: Group discussions; Disagreement; Factor scores; Rank scores; Discourse tags for discussion (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-008-9152-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:grdene:v:18:y:2009:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-008-9152-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/10726/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10726-008-9152-8

Access Statistics for this article

Group Decision and Negotiation is currently edited by Gregory E. Kersten

More articles in Group Decision and Negotiation from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().