RESEARCH RESULTS: HOW PARTICIPANTS BENEFIT

He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. —Edmund Burke, Reflection of the Revolution in France

The research on constructive controversy has been conducted in the last thirty- five years by several different researchers in a variety of settings using many dif­ferent participant populations and many different tasks within an experimental and field-experimental format (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3).

Quality of Decision Making, Problem Solving, and Learning

Effective decision making and problem solving includes higher-level reasoning, accurate understanding of all perspectives, creative thinking, and openness to influence (that is, attitude change). Compared with concurrence seeking

Table 3.2. General Characteristics of Studies

Reprinted with permission from D.

Creative Controversy: Intellectual Conflict in the Classroom. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Company, 1995.

(Effect Size = 0.68), debate (Effect Size = 0.40), and individualistic efforts (Effect Size = 0.87), constructive controversy tends to result in higher- quality decisions (including decisions that involve ethical dilemmas) and higher-quality solutions to complex problems for which different viewpoints can plausibly be developed. Skillful participation in a constructive controversy tends to result in (a) significantly greater mastery and recall of the information, reasoning, and skills contained in one’s own and others’ positions, (b) more skillful transfer of this learning to new situations, and (c) greater generaliza­tion of principles learned to a wider variety of situations than do concurrence seeking, debate, or individualistic efforts. Being exposed to a credible alterna­tive view results in recalling more correct information, more skillfully transfer­ring learning to new situations, and generalizing the principles they learned to a wider variety of situations. The resolution of a controversy is likely to be in the direction of correct problem solving, even when the initial conclusions of all group members are erroneous and especially when individuals are exposed to

Table 3.3. Meta-Analysis of Academic Controversy Studies: Weighted Effect Sizes (ES$)

Reprinted with permission from D.

a credible minority view (as opposed to a consistent single view) even when the minority view is incorrect.

Consider the following question: can the advocacy of two conflicting but wrong solutions to a problem result in a correct solution? The value of the con­structive controversy process lies not so much in the correctness of an opposing position, but rather in the attention and thought processes it induces. More cog­nitive processing may take place when individuals are exposed to more than one point of view, even if one or more of the points of view is incorrect. A number of studies with both adults and children have found significant gains in performance when erroneous information is presented by one or both sides in a constructive controversy. Thus, the resolution of the conflict is likely to be in the direction of correct performance. In this limited way, two wrongs came to make a right.

Cognitive Reasoning

When difficult issues are being discussed and effective decisions are needed, higher-level reasoning strategies are needed. Controversy tends to promote more frequent use of higher-level reasoning strategies than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.62), debate (ES = 1.35), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.90). Contro­versy tends to be more effective than modeling and nonsocial presentation of information in influencing nonconserving children to gain the insights critical for conservation. In classrooms where students are free to dissent and are also expected to listen to different perspectives, students tend to think more criti­cally about civic issues and be more tolerant of conflicting views.

Perspective Taking

Understanding and considering all perspectives is important if difficult issues are to be discussed, the decision is to represent the best reasoned judgment of all participants, and all participants are to help implement the decision. Con­structive controversy tends to promote more accurate and complete under­standing of opposing perspectives than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.91), debate (ES = 0.22), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.86).

Creativity

Constructive controversy tends to promote creative insight by influencing indi­viduals to (a) view problems from different perspectives and (b) reformulate problems in ways that allow the emergence of new orientations to a solution. Compared with concurrence, seeking, debate, and individualistic efforts, con­structive controversy increases the number of ideas, quality of ideas, creation of original ideas, the use of a wider range of ideas, originality, the use of more varied strategies, and the number of creative, imaginative, novel solutions. Being confronted with credible alternative views has resulted in the generation of more novel solutions, varied strategies, and original ideas. Participants tend to have a high degree of emotional involvement in and commitment to solving the prob­lems the group was working on.

Attitude Change About the Issue

Open-minded consideration of all points of view is critical for deriving well- reasoned decisions that integrate the best information and thought from a variety of positions. Participants should open-mindedly believe that opposing positions are based on legitimate information and logic that, if fully under­stood, will lead to creative solutions that benefit everyone. Involvement in a controversy tends to result in attitude and position change. Participants in a con­troversy tend to reevaluate their attitudes about the issue and incorporate oppo­nent’s arguments into their own attitudes.

Motivation to Improve Understanding

Effective decision making is typically enhanced by a continuing motivation to learn more about the issues being considered. Most decisions are temporary because they may be reconsidered at some future date. Participants in a con­structive controversy tend to have more continuing motivation to learn about the issue and come to the best reasoned judgment possible than do participants in concurrence seeking (ES = 75), debate (0.45), and individualistic efforts (ES = 0.64). Participants in a controversy tend to search for (a) more informa­tion and new experiences (increased specific content) and (b) a more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process (increased validity) in hopes of resolving the uncertainty. There is also an active interest in learning the others’ positions and developing an understanding and appreciation of them. Lowry and Johnson (1981), for example, found that students involved in a contro­versy, compared with students involved in concurrence seeking, read more library materials, reviewed more classroom materials, more frequently watched an optional movie shown during recess, and more frequently requested infor­mation from others.

Attitudes Toward Controversy

If participants are to be committed to implement the decision and participate in future decision making, they must react favorably to the way the decision was made. Individuals involved in controversy liked the procedure better than did individuals working individualistically, and participating in a controversy con­sistently promoted more positive attitudes toward the experience than did par­ticipating in a debate, concurrence-seeking discussions, or individualistic decisions. Controversy experiences promoted stronger beliefs that controversy is valid and valuable.

Attitudes Toward Decision Making

If participants are to be committed to implement the decision and participate in future decision making, they must consider the decision worth making. Indi­viduals who engaged in controversies tended to like the decision-making task better than did individuals who engaged in concurrence-seeking discussions (ES = 0.63). Interpersonal attraction and support among participants’ decision making, to be effective, must be conducted in ways that bring individuals together, not create ill will and divisiveness. Within controversy there is dis­agreement, argumentation, and rebuttal that could create difficulties in estab­lishing good relationships. Constructive controversy, however, has been found to promote greater liking among participants than did debate (ES = 0.72), con­currence-seeking (ES = 0.24), or individualistic efforts (ES = 0.81). Debate tended to promote greater interpersonal attraction among participants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.46). In addition, constructive controversy tends to promote greater social support among participants than does debate (ES = 0.92), concurrence-seeking (ES = 0.32), or individualistic efforts (ES = 1.52). Debate tended to promote greater social support among partici­pants than did individualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). The combination of frank exchange of ideas coupled with a positive climate of friendship and support not only leads to more productive decision making and greater learning, it discon­firms the myth that conflict inevitably leads to divisiveness and dislike.

Self-Esteem

Participation in future decision making is enhanced when participants feel good about themselves as a result of helping make the current decision, whether or not they agree with it. Constructive controversy tends to promote higher self­esteem than does concurrence-seeking (ES = 0.39), debate (ES = 0.51), or indi­vidualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). Debate tends to promote higher self-esteem than does individualistic efforts (ES = 0.45).