Trait Argumentativeness Research Articles

Initial report of the Argumentativeness Index of Behavioral Indicators for measuring trait argumentativeness

ABSTRACT Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness Scale has withstood the test of time, but questions remain among some scholars as to specific scale items and how those items might affect structural and predictive validity. Infante and his colleagues have always called upon others constructively to improve on the measurement of trait argumentativeness. This investigation answers that call by developing a new measure, the Argumentativeness Index of Behavioral Indicators, that dramatically differs in structure and method of measurement from the Argumentativeness Scale. This new scale uses an alternative to Likert items. Items were designed to reflect a tendency toward specific behaviors rather than attitudes. Argumentativeness Index of Behavioral Indicators is a scalar alternative to the Argumentativeness Scale, but not necessarily a replacement. The goal of the present investigation was not to change the Argumentativeness Scale as an operational definition of argumentativeness but, rather, to provide an alternative operational definition of trait argumentativeness.

Trait argumentativeness as a correlate of bolster and counterargue tendencies in resistance to persuasion research

ABSTRACT Research on resistance to persuasion has examined a number of relevant variables such as one’s bolstering of one’s own argument and, for example, generating counterarguments in order to resist a persuasive message. Is resistance to persuasion a function of a widespread practice of bolstering and/or counterarguing? Or, is resistance to persuasion more meaningfully examined from an individual differences approach based on relative levels of trait argumentativeness within samples? Three hypotheses were offered and tested. Results suggested that empirical investigations of the relationship of bolstering arguments and generating counterarguments to resistance to persuasion should report argumentativeness levels of research participants. Trait argumentativeness may have a very substantial role in the effect sizes reported in resistance to persuasion research. High argumentatives significantly preferred counterarguing over bolstering in resistance to persuasion whereas low argumentatives significantly preferred bolstering over counterarguing, suggesting a root difference between high and low argumentatives requiring further investigation for verification.

Instructional Dissent as an Expression of Students' Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness Traits

The purpose of this study was to investigate if college students' verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness traits promote their tendencies to engage in instructional dissent (i.e., expressive, rhetorical, vengeful). Participants were 172 undergraduate students who completed a self-report survey measuring these traits and their dissent practices in reference to a particular class. Results indicated that (a) students' trait verbal aggressiveness was associated positively with communicating rhetorical and vengeful dissent, (b) students' trait argumentativeness was associated positively with communicating rhetorical dissent only, and (c) both verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness were not associated with communicating expressive dissent. These results imply that instructional dissent is not a student reaction completely dependent upon perceived instructor wrongdoings in the classroom; it is also influenced by distal personality factors.

A Meta-Analysis of Trait–Behavior Correlations in Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression

This article addresses controversy over the validity of two popular scales used to measure trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. The first half of the article offers a rejoinder to the Infante, Rancer, and Wigley article. It is argued that original conceptualizations of the scales are logically incoherent and lack empirical correspondence with research findings. The second part of the article offers a meta-analysis of scale–behavior and –nonbehavioral associations. The results show that research testing scale–behavior convergence is sparse and that the little research that currently exists is inconsistent with convergent and predictive validity. The Infante scales correlate consistently and to a greater extent with self-reported communication than with actual behavior, suggesting that the scales assess cognitive–affective rather than communication behavior tendencies.

Individual differences in distinguishing licit from illicit ways of discharging the burden of proof

Within argumentation theory, the burden of proof (BoP) refers to an incurred obligation to provide evidence or justification in support of one's position in an argument. The nature of BoP rules in conversational arguments and the basis of lay individual's sensitivity to such rules were explored across two studies. College students were presented with hypothetical two-person arguments featuring four different types of response to a challenge. Study 1 established which of these responses represent legitimate defenses, involving a licit discharging of the BoP, and which do not. Participants made a subtle distinction between two uses of challenge as a defense in this regard. Study 2 identified several dispositional characteristics that predict individual differences in the ability to distinguish between licit and illicit ways of discharging the BoP. These characteristics include knowledge of the norms or rules that enable argumentation to approach the ideal of a critical discussion, trait argumentativeness, a positive theory of argument, and both separation and connection as alternative ways of knowing. Results are discussed in terms of the pragma-dialectical ( van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004) and presumptive ( Walton, 1996b) models of argumentation.

The Relationship Between Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, and Communication Satisfaction in Incarcerated Male Youth

This study examined trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and communication satisfaction among incarcerated male youth ( n = 136). In addition, they responded to hypothetical anger-inducing conflict scenes. A moderate and positive relationship was found between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, whereas a moderate but negative relationship between verbal aggressiveness and satisfaction with communication was found. Analysis of the behavioral intention data indicated that incarcerated youth responded to hypothetical scenes with avoidance, assertiveness, verbal aggression, or physical aggression. The physical aggression category represented the greatest intended behavior across the scenes, followed by verbal aggression. Also, youth who would engage in physical aggression were also higher in verbal aggression. Implications of these findings suggest enhancing the communicative skills of incarcerated male youth to reduce these tendencies.

Reported Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Levels: The Influence of Type of Argument

Arguments in interpersonal relationships can be divided into two types: public issue arguments and personal issue arguments. This study examines the ability of type of argument, trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, and gender to predict reported argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness levels related to a particular argument episode. Reported argumentativeness levels were higher in the public argument condition, and reported verbal aggressiveness levels were higher in the personal argument condition. Trait argumentativeness predicted reported argumentativeness levels better in the public argument condition than the personal argument condition, suggesting that type of argument may serve as a moderator for the relationship between trait argumentativeness levels and argument-specific argumentativeness levels. Implications for using these two scales to examine interpersonal argument are discussed.

Correlations among applicants' communication apprehension, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in selection interviews.

This study explored the influence of applicants' perceived apprehension during communication on self-reported argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in selection interviews. One week prior to selection interviews with corporate interviewers, 51 college students who were actively seeking career-oriented employment completed a questionnaire on their situational apprehension, trait argumentativeness, and trait verbal aggressiveness. The major findings were that (a) Trait Argumentativeness was significantly and negatively correlated with Trait Verbal Aggressiveness; (b) Apprehension was significantly and positively correlated with Trait Verbal Aggressiveness; (c) Apprehension was significantly and negatively correlated with Trait Argumentativeness; and (d) descriptive statistics indicated applicants experienced high Apprehension before the interviews.

Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education

Communication traits comprise an important part of communication theory, yet, little is known about either their longitudinal stability over the life course or their cross‐sectional uniformity in the adult population. We report a cross‐sectional study (N = 639) of trait argumentativeness as a function of age and higher education, and test hypotheses based on physiological, cultural, and developmental perspectives. Argumentativeness associates negatively with age and positively with level of higher education. Optimal scaling shows that the age‐related argumentativeness decrease among men is greatest through the twenties and levels off around age forty‐five. By contrast, the decrease among women begins slowly around age thirty and accelerates through the fifties. The education effect is stronger among men than women, and neither the age nor education effects are significant in a high‐argumentative subsample (median split).

Relationships between group skills, temperament, and argumentativeness

The relationships between students’ self‐perceived group skills, personality temperament, and trait argumentativeness are reported. Temperaments based on Keirsey's FourTypes Sorter are not substantially related to group skills, and tend to give oppositely‐signed correlations by gender. Argumentativeness is broadly related to group skills, generally but not always in a positive manner.

Aggressive communication and informational reception apprehension: The influence of listening anxiety and intellectual inflexibility on trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness

Recent training efforts designed to strengthen student argumentation skills and decrease verbally aggressive tendencies have yielded mixed results (Rancer et al., 1997, 2000). Inherent in these efforts is the belief that an individual's use of verbal aggression is implicitly related to law argumentative behavior and a weak system for generating arguments (Infante, 1988). As an extension of this research, we examined the relationships among trait‐like argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), trait‐like verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986) (VA), and Wheeless, Preiss, and Gayle's (1997) construct of informational reception apprehension (IRA). Results indicated that two IRA factors, listening anxiety and intellectual inflexibility, were significant predictors of both aggressive communication traits. Further, both IRA factors accounted for greater variance in trait‐like argumentativeness than in trait‐like VA. Implications of these findings as they relate to Infante's (1987) “argumentative skill deficiency model,” as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.

The relationship between perceived instructor communicator style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness

The purpose of this study was to examine the interrelationships among perceived instructor communicator style, perceived instructor trait argumentativeness, and perceived instructor trait verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Participants were 236 undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of communication courses at a large Eastern university. Results indicated that (a) perceived instructor trait argumentativeness was positively related to the perceived instructor communicator style attributes of impression leaving, contentious, open, dramatic, dominant, precise, relaxed, attentive, and animated; (b) perceived instructor trait verbal aggressiveness was positively related to the perceived instructor communicator style attributes of contentious and precise, and negatively related to the perceived communicator style attributes of impression leaving, relaxed, friendly, attentive, and animated; and (c) perceived instructor use of verbally aggressive messages was related in some way to the perceived instructor communicator style attributes of contentious, impression leaving, friendly, attentive, animated, relaxed, dramatic, and precise.

Argumentativeness and the theory of reasoned action

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) suggests that intentions to argue will be a direct function of attitudes about arguing and beliefs about what important others think about arguing. This study applied TORA to the prediction of persons’ intentions to argue on the topic of free condom distribution. Trait argumentativeness was found to mediate normative influences on intentions. The subjective norm as a predictor of intentions differed across levels of argumentativeness. Ego‐involvement was found to be the overall most important determinant of argumentative intentions across argumentative levels. Finally, extrinsic religious orientation affected attitudes in normative beliefs about arguing the issue.

Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions

Many studies have been published that assume connections between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, and argument behavior. However, research is limited regarding the links between these personality factors and actual communication behavior (i.e., observations of messages spontaneously exchanged between participants). To explore directly the manner in which these personality factors correspond to argument behavior, a view of argument as minimally rational discourse was adopted. This view stresses that argument constitutes a social, communicative activity and occurs in various kinds of argument structures that reflect rational logic. In this study, the relative frequency of argument development was coded from 31 friendship dyad conversations. Results revealed that argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness did not correlate meaningfully with the development and defense of one's ideas. However, the composition of the dyad in terms of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness did affect the proportion of ideas developed through argument. The findings suggest that the argumentativeness and aggressiveness research cannot presume linear associations to argument behavior, at least in the domain of friendship discussion. Yet, the findings provide confirmation that these personality constructs can affect minimally rational argument.

Argumentativeness in Roommates' Relationships

221 college students completed measures of their trait argumentativeness along with measures involving their relations with their roommates. Argumentativeness was not related to satisfaction with communication or to social attraction.

ARGUMENTATIVENESS IN ROOMMATES' RELATIONSHIPS

221 college students completed measures of their trait argumentativeness along with measures involving their relations with their roommates. Argumentativeness was not related to satisfaction with communication or to social attraction.

Argumentativeness in the workplace: A trait by situation study

Trait argumentativeness and argumentativeness in the workplace, a particular situation, were examined with regard to gender of the respondent, rank/status of the respondent in the organization, and existence of a formal employee participation program. A main effect for gender showed men displayed the trait to a greater degree than women. There was a strong correlation between general trait argumentativeness and workplace argumentativeness, measured at a two‐week interval, which adds strength and validity to the trait measure of argumentativeness. The influence of the cross‐situaiional consistency nature of the trait was evidenced in this study.

Relations between argumentative motivation, and advocacy and refutation on controversial issues

The interactionist perspective to argumentativeness posits that situational factors interact with traits to influence communication behavior. This study extended this line of research by exploring how topics of argument relate to argumentativeness. Specifically, the study tested whether argument activity (advocacy and refutation) on different types of issues interacts with a person's level of trait argumentativeness. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine whether argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness interact in terms of reports of using types of verbally aggressive messages. Results indicated that, in general, individuals reported greater frequency of advocacy than refutative behavior during arguments. High argumentatives engaged in more advocacy and refutation than moderates or lows. Across levels of argumentativeness, political issues were argued most often. High argumentatives reported arguing more than moderates and lows about social, political, personal behavior, moral‐ethical, and others’ behavior issues. Individuals high in verbal aggression reported engaging in more verbally aggressive messages. Implications of these findings to the interactionist approach to the study of communication and to communication education were suggested.

Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management

Previous research suggests that altering predispositions toward communication may be an effective prerequisite in training efforts that emphasize communication skill development. Utilizing a theoretical framework that maintains that a predisposition is controlled by a set of beliefs, this study sought to (a) identify beliefs about arguing that could explain variance in argumentativeness, and (b) determine beliefs that discriminate individuals who vary in the trait. Five composite beliefs about arguing (enjoyment, self‐concept, pragmatic outcomes, dysfunctional outcomes, and ego‐involvement) were found to explain significant variance in underlying motivation to argue and to discriminate between individuals who vary in the predisposition. Implications of the identification and use of these beliefs for communication pedagogy and curriculum design in argumentation and conflict management courses are discussed.

Student Receiver Apprehension as a Correlate of Trait Argumentativeness

Student Receiver Apprehension as a Correlate of Trait Argumentativeness