Dominic A. Infante

Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure

Verbal agressiveness is conceptualized as a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self‐concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication. This conception is positioned with respect to the trait structure of personality and also in relation to other aggressive personality traits: hostility, assertiveness, and argumentativeness. An interpersonal model is developed that specifies the types of verbally aggressive messages in interpersonal relations, their effects, and their causes. A rationale is developed for studying verbal aggression apart from other types of aggression, and several studies developing a Verbal Aggressiveness Scale are reported. Results indicate that the Scale is valid and reliable. Implications are discussed, especially in terms of understanding and controlling physical aggression.

Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence

A model of interpersonal physical violence is derived from the aggression literature and then is utilized to investigate interspousal violence. The model posits that verbal aggression is a catalyst to violence when societal, personal, and situational factors are strong enough to produce a hostile predisposition. Unless aroused by verbal aggression, a hostile disposition remains latent in the form of unexpressed anger. The framework suggests that persons in violent, marriages are more verbally aggressive than other people, and also produces the counterintuitive prediction that violent spouses are less argumentative than people in nonviolent marriages. A study is reported which compared clinical cases of abused wives and abusive husbands to a nonclinical population of husbands and wives. Strong support for the hypothesis was observed. Implications of the results are discussed in terms of understanding communication in violent marriages.

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...

Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes

Recent research suggests that verbal aggression may function as a catalyst to violence between spouses in marital disputes. Communication skills deficiencies may predispose spouses to rely upon verbal aggression in family conflict situations instead of more constructive forms of communication such as argumentation. This suggests a need to understand better the role of verbal aggression in interspousal violence. A study is presented which compared a sample of nonabused wives to a clinical sample of abused wives in terms of self‐reports of the use of verbal aggression by the husband and wife in their most recent dispute. While there were several differences between the two groups, of the ten types of verbally aggressive messages examined, character attacks most clearly differentiated violent from nonviolent marital disputes. Two hypotheses which predicted the degree of verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent disputes and the relationship between husband and wife usage were supported. Implications are di...

Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression

This article presents a unit for teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression in their interpersonal relationships. The basic contention here is that the communication discipline should devote considerable attention to verbal aggression because it is a highly destructive form of communication. It is suggested that while there are several courses of action the discipline may take, one which is presently feasible is to include the topic in some of our courses. Theory and research are reviewed, and material for teaching the understanding of verbal aggression is suggested. The second part of the unit deals with methods of controlling verbal aggression and also suggests appropriate classroom activities.

Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons

The nature of verbal aggression is discussed with an emphasis on its destructiveness. A need to learn more about people who are verbally aggressive is argued because past research has tended to emphasize the situation rather than the person. A study of 181 college students is reported which explored the types of verbally aggressive messages used, the types of messages received, perceptions of the hurt produced by the messages, and the reasons for using verbal aggression which differentiate high from low verbal aggressives. The results identified types of messages used, beliefs about hurt and reasons for use which distinguish high from low verbal aggressives. The results are discussed in terms of understanding the nature of trait verbal aggressiveness. Speculations are advanced as to why high verbal aggressives are prone to using self‐concept attacking messages.

The Relationship of Argumentativeness to Verbal Aggression.

This study investigated: (1) whether high, moderate, and low argumentatives differ in how easily they are provoked by an obstinate opponent to select verbally aggressive messages; and, (2) whether the sexes differ in preference for verbal aggression. The results indicated that persons who scored high on a measure of argumentativeness were least provoked to prefer verbal aggression. This finding supports the view that verbal aggression is mainly a result of a lack of argumentative skill. The study also found that situational variables affect the difference between the sexes in verbal aggression. Thus, earlier observations of differences in verbal aggression between the sexes may be exaggerated.

Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates

While previous research has focused on the communication characteristics of superiors which predict their subordinates’ satisfaction, this study investigated subordinates’ communication and satisfaction with the subordinate from the perspective of the superior. Superiors from a variety of organizations rated the communicator style and argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness of a subordinate with whom they were either satisfied, dissatisfied, or undecided regarding the subordinates job performance. The results supported a hypothesis about affirming communicator style and satisfactory subordinate job performance, and also a counterintuitive prediction about how argumentativeness relates to appraisal of subordinates.

Argument and verbal aggression in constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements

This study explored the extent to which argumentative and verbally aggressive behavior is perceived in family and organizational disagreement situations which are either constructive or destructive. The comparison of participants’ and observers’ perceptions was of interest. Three hypotheses were derived from a recently developed model of aggressive forms of communication. Participants (N = 137) described in writing an experienced family or organizational disagreement which was either constructive or destructive. Later, 137 persons (observers) read the descriptions. Both participants and observers rated the communication described in terms of argumentative and verbally aggressive conduct. Considerable support was observed for two of the three hypotheses. More argument and less verbal aggression were observed in constructive as compared to destructive disagreements regardless of context. More verbal aggression was reported in family as compared to organizational disagreements. Finally, participants, when co...

Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in situations requiring argument

Same‐sex dyads were created which consisted of a high or low argumentative paired with a moderate. The subjects argued a controversial topic and communication behavior was assessed by a same‐sex observer. Analysis revealed seven dimensions of communication behavior discriminated between high and low argumentatives: flexibility, interest, verbosity, expertise, dynamism, willingness to argue, and argumentative skill.