1
Com 451
Explicating a Concept
Argumentativeness
Arguing is a sometimes unpleasant, communication behavior many of us experience on a
regular basis. Arguments can be playful, enjoyable and education when handled properly yet
they can also escalate to an emotionally heated situation. The noticeable enjoyment or opposition
of arguing is very apparent in the communication of individuals and it is recognized as a
communication trait. Being able to recognize argumentativeness as a trait is important because it
gives insight on how and why individuals communicate the way they do.
Argumentativeness is a communication trait that at first glance seems as though it’s
accompanied by negative connotations however this is not the case. Argumentativeness is
defined conceptually in order to separate it from verbal aggressiveness that also occurs in
arguments. Infante and Rancer (1982) define argumentativeness by differentiating between
characteristics of individuals who display high argumentativeness and individuals who are low in
argumentativeness with the key difference being approaching or avoiding arguments (Infante &
Rancer, 1982). High argumentativeness personalities seek opportunities to challenge the
positions of others by defending and advocating their own positions. Feelings of anticipation and
exhilaration accompany opportunities for arguments while satisfaction and accomplishment are
feelings associated with after an argument (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Individuals representing
low argumentativeness avoid arguments from occurring because they cause uncomfortable
feelings.
In addition to the definitions commonly provided by the original researchers Infante and
Rancer, other researchers have added to the definition of argumentativeness through further
research. According to Ifert and Bearden (1998) more argumentative individuals are likely to
ARGUMENTATIVENESS
2
use supporting explanation as a strategy while less argumentative people who provide
unsupportive claims in relation to their argument (Ifert & Bearden, 1998). These strategies for
providing support may be the reason high argumentative people have more confidence during
arguments than low argumentative people.
The definition of argumentativeness has grown over time because researchers seek to
define and build off of previous definitions. In 1988, the definition of an interpersonal argument
recognized the basis of most arguments stemmed from opinions or behaviors. These opinions or
behaviors were later analyzed and specifically defined by researchers in 2002 (Johnson, Becker,
Wigley, Haigh, & Craig, 2007). Public issues arguments refer to arguments about opinion.
Specifically, they focus on concerns outside an interpersonal relationship that do not relate to
relationship satisfaction. Personal issue arguments focus on issues that relate directly to an
interpersonal relationship. The distinction between these arguments is necessary to consider
because an individual with high argumentativeness may be less likely to enjoy arguments that
pertain to their roles in interpersonal relationships. Researchers continue to develop concepts
provided in the original explanation of argumentativeness. These developments and elaborations
have allowed the definition of argumentativeness to grown rather than change over the years.
There are a number of similar concepts that often accompany argumentativeness in
research. Verbal aggression is a concept that relates to argumentativeness, however they are not
the same. Arguments and verbal aggression often begin when individuals disagree and defend
opposing positions. The primary differentiating factor between the two is verbal aggression
consists of arguing that attacks or demeans another person’s self-concept, this attacking of the
self-concept is referred to as the locus of attack (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Self-construal or
perceived control in communication interaction relates to argumentativeness by providing
ARGUMENTATIVENESS
3
additional insight to its cause (Merz, 2009). If an individual believes they are able to control the
communication situation they are more likely to approach an argument rather than avoid it.
Control allows the individual to clearly and successfully demonstrate their opinions and claims.
Due to the fact that argumentativeness is considered an incentive to communicate, it should also
be distinguished from communication apprehension. Communication apprehension is defined as
“an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication
with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). An individual who avoids arguments
is expected to have a high fear of communication situations because those situations often
require one to argue their opinion. However that is not always the case, an individual with high
argumentativeness may be uninterested or unprepared for the speech topic causing them to have
high communication apprehension. Communication apprehension and verbal aggression are both
related to ones level of argumentativeness therefor it is important distinguishing their
differences in order to avoid conceptual overlap.
The most popular operational definition for argumentativeness is the Argumentativeness
scale. The administration procedure consists of filling out a questionnaire that contains
statements about arguing over controversial issues. The respondents indicate how the true
statements are in relation to their self on a scale on one to five, one being rarely true and five
being almost always true. The scoring instructions provide insight on the respondents
argumentativeness trait and their tendency to approach or avoid argumentative situations. The
differentiating tendencies are found by adding the scores of the indicated questions. This scale
should be able to provide scores that predict the amount argumentativeness in the respondents
communication behavior.
ARGUMENTATIVENESS
The argumentativeness scale matches the conceptual definitions of argumentativeness
appropriately through its questions and word choice. Providing a range of questions that access
the feelings related to arguments allow researchers to categorize the recipients based off their
argumentativeness. The degree to which one enjoys or avoids arguments is based off the
conceptual definitions for argumentativeness. Individuals with high argumentativeness seek
arguments therefore questions meant to display high argumentativeness include words that
express anticipation and excitement. On the other hand, questions meant to display low
argumentativeness include questions that address unpleasant feelings of avoidance. After
argument feelings are also addressed in the scale in order to insure a visible difference in
satisfaction levels between those with high and low argumentativeness. The validity of this
questionnaire was assessed mainly through its comparison to other communication tendency
assessments. Argumentativeness is slightly related to communication apprehension,
predisposition to verbal behavior, and unwillingness to communicate which is why researchers
used these scales to support previously discovered correlations with argumentativeness.
One issue with the validity of this scale is the different definitions respondents may hold
for the word argument. Some members taking the survey may associate arguments with
disagreements within interpersonal relationships rather than arguing over controversial issues.
The items on the scale designed to measure argumentative avoidance do no use the word issue
therefore respondents may perceive the avoidance items as instances referring to fights or
disagreements over relationship roles. The questionnaire may not produce accurate results if the
respondent is applying the questions to an argument about role fulfillment in an interpersonal
relationship. The instructions on the questionnaire do state that the questions refer to
controversial issues however this may not provide enough clarity for respondents. One more
4
ARGUMENTATIVENESS
sentence explaining the difference between a controversial issue and a interpersonal behavior
issue would be an effective way of eliminating confusion.
5
ARGUMENTATIVENESS
6
References
Ifert, D. E., & Bearden, L. (1998). The influence of argumentativeness and verbal aggression to
responses to refused requests. Communication Reports, 11(2), 145-154.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.
Journal Of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72.
Johnson, A., Becker, J. H., Wigley, S., Haigh, M. M., & Craig, E. A. (2007). Reported
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness levels: the influence of type of argument.
Communication Studies, 58(2), 189-205.
McCronskey, J. C. (1977), Oral c: a summary of recent theory and research. Human
Communication Research, 4(1), 78–96.
Merz, M. (2009). The effects of self construal and perceived control on argumentativeness and
communication apprehension. Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(2),
59-75.