Andrew S. Rancer

Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness: A Review of Recent Theory and Research

A good deal of research on argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness has been conducted in the communication discipline in this and the previous decade. The research has been based on a personali...

Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing

This study sought to increase our understanding of the communication predisposition of Argumentativeness by determining the particular beliefs which differentiate three types of argumentative individuals. One hundred thirty‐eight subjects were asked to elicit beliefs they have about arguing. Subjects’ level of trait argumentativeness were also obtained. Content analytic procedures were used to classify the beliefs into eight categories identified as belief structures about arguing. High argumentatives provided the greatest number of positive beliefs about arguing, low argumentatives the least, and low argumentatives affected the greatest number of negative beliefs about arguing and highs the least. Discriminant analysis produced two significant functions labelled Cultivation and Antagonism. Individuals high in trait argumentativeness tend to perceive arguing primarily as an enjoyable, learning experience which demonstrates their rhetorical skills. Low argumentatives primarily view arguing as a hostile com...

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.

The Influence of Sex on Self-Perceptions and Social Stereotyping of Aggressive Communication Predispositions.

The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) determine whether sex differences exist in two aggressive communication predispositions, argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness; (2) test for potential sex‐based stereotypes regarding those traits. In the analysis of stereotyping, sex was considered on two levels: (1) sex of the perceiver; (2) sex of the generalized group being judged. Results revealed that male respondents are significantly higher than female respondents in both aggressive communication predispositions (measured with the traditional self‐report instruments). In addition, both male and female participants perceive that generalized males are more argumentative and verbally aggressive than are generalized females. Implications of these findings to cross‐sex communication, communication training, and conflict management are discussed.

Relations between Motivation to Argue and the Argumentativeness of Adversaries.

This study examined whether motivation to argue would be influenced by the trait argumentativeness of an individual, and the similarity of a potential adversary in the trait predisposition. One hundred thirty‐six participants identified as either high or low in trait argumentativeness anticipated they would engage in an argument with a similar or dissimilar adversary. Motivation to argue was assessed by a set of five dependent measures. Results indicated that the adversarys level of argumentativeness produced a difference on high, but not low, argumentative individuals’ motivation to argue. In general, high argumentatives were more motivated to argue than lows, and high argumentatives were more motivated to argue with an adversary similar to themselves in the trait predisposition.

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 persons 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 ot...

Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures

Research in the United States has identified argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as, respectively, constructive and counterproductive forms of communication predispositions. The present study tests the conceptual equivalence of the two constructs and the measurement equivalence of the Argumentativeness Scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982) and the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986) across cultures. College students from the United States (N = 755) and Japan (N = 716) responded to a questionnaire. The results indicated that: (a) the two—factor solution of the Argumentativeness Scale and the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale was a reasonable overall fit to both samples, with some culture‐specific unreliable items; (b) orthogonality of the two constructs held for both samples; (c) the factor structures (factor loading patterns and factor variance‐covariance structures) of the two scales were partially variant across the samples; and (d) the two scales had satisfactory construct validity for the ...

The relationship between self‐esteem and aggressive communication predispositions

Self‐esteem is a pervasive component of the self‐concept. This study explored the relationship between self‐esteem and the aggressive communication predispositions of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and two dimensions of self‐esteem: personal power and competence. Personal power emerged as the strongest predictor of argumentativeness. Significant negative relationships were observed between verbal aggressiveness and three dimensions of self‐esteem: defensive self‐enhancement, moral self‐approval and lovability. Defensive self‐enhancement emerged as the strongest predictor of verbal aggression. Implications of these findings to training in argument are discussed.

A longitudinal assessment of trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness between seventh and eighth grades

This study reports on a longitudinal assessment of adolescent students levels of aggressive communication traits. Two hundred thirty‐eight eighth grade students who completed a one‐week training program “Arguing Constructively”; were assessed approximately one year later on argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Results revealed no significant differences between measures of ARGgt taken immediately after the training and one obtained seven months to one year later. However, students’ levels of verbal aggressiveness were significantly higher seven months to one year later than immediately following post training. Implications of these findings, and suggestions for modifying the training program are offered.

Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as a function of locus of control

This study examined argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and general control expectancies. Two hundred ten (N=210) participants completed the Argumentativeness Scale, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale, and a modified version of the Three‐Factor Locus of Control Scale. Results indicate that individuals who reportan internal control orientation were found toreport lower levels of argument avoidance than externals. Externals reported higher levels of verbal aggressiveness than internals. Further, an external locus of control orientation was positively related to verbal aggressiveness. Internal locus of control orientation was negatively related to tendency to avoid arguments. The findings provide further evidence into the relationship between control expectancies and aggressive communication traits.