Understanding entry into controversy at work and at home

For this study, the argumentativeness scale was revised to operationalize the predisposition to engage in any discussion of a controversial issue. This study examined propensity for entry into potential disagreement through discussion of controversial issues, and compared such tendencies in the workplace and the home. Results showed nonconfrontation conflict management style to be overwhelmingly the best predictor of willingness to engage in controversy, with a negative relationship. No differences were found between spouse‐, coworker‐, and self‐perceptions of willingness to discuss controversial issues. However, spouses's perceptions were more closely associated with self‐perceptions. Finally, the relationship between the argumentativeness scale and its revision was explored and found to be strong but not redundant. Implications of this and other findings were discussed.     

Motives as predictors of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness of black and white adolescents

Motives of inclusion, affection, control, pleasure, escape, and relaxation (Rubin, Perse & Barbato, 1988) were investigated as predictors of adolescents' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. White and black girls and boys (N = 198) completed the Adolescent Argumentativeness Scale and Adolescent Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Roberto & Finucane, 1997). One Multiple Regression (stepwise) analysis found that control, inclusion, and affection predicted argumentativeness. A second analysis found that control predicted verbal aggressiveness. Race and sex were not significant in either model. Significantly, a positive relationship was found for argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness for whites and blacks, girls and boys. Suggestions for future research include re‐examination of the verbal aggression scale for adolescent samples.     

Advocating for controversial issues: The effect of activism on compliance‐gaining strategy likelihood of use

Previous research has demonstrated that compliance‐gaining strategies can he arrayed on an unidimensional continuum, anchored by positive, pro‐social strategies and negative, antisocial strategies (Hunter & Boster, 1987; Rolojf & Barnicott, 1978, 1979). Individual differences, including argumentativeness and verbal aggression (Boster & Levine, 1988), have been shown to affect one's ethical threshold. This ethical threshold is consistent with a Guttman simplex and determines both how many, as well as how antisocial, compliance‐gaining strategies individuals may consider using. Activists, who are highly involved and committed to their cause and who tend to be less verbally aggressive and more argumentative than the general public (Campo, 1999), are likely to have a lower threshold and to use more strategies. This study examines to what extent activism predicts one's ethical threshold, when controlling for the known effects of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and sex. Participants (N = 454) at two separate universities completed a repeated measures questionnaire that asked them to indicate their likelihood of use of 25 separate compliance‐gaining strategies. Based on respondents’ likelihood of use of these 25 strategies, the data were consistent with a Guttman simplex. A multiple regression model was tested, and indicated that one's ethical threshold is directly predicted by level of activism and verbal aggressiveness. Sex and argumentativeness were not found to be significant predictors in this revised model. In addition, activists used more strategies than non‐activists. Implications for advancing research related to activism and compliance‐gaining strategy selection are discussed.     

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 Japanese sample. Implications for research on aggressive communication in connection with Hall's (1981) theory of cultural variation, cross‐cultural conflict management, and measurement in cross‐cultural communication research are discussed.     

A Test of the Relationship Between Argumentativeness and Individualism/Collectivism in the United States and Finland

This study explored relationships between argumentativeness and collectivism/individualism in Finland and the United States. Data were gathered in the United States (n = 412) and Finland (n = 261). The analysis suggested: (a) collectivism was negatively correlated with argumentativeness, (b) individualism was positively correlated with argumentativeness, and (c) Finnish participants reported lower levels of argumentativeness than Americans. Cultural differences between the United States and Finland are discussed as reasons for the differences between the nations on argumentativeness.     

Argumentative skill deficiency and its relationship to quality of marriage

This study investigates the relationship between verbal aggression, argumentativeness, and marital quality in a sample of non‐distressed couples. The traits of verbal aggression and argumentativeness are predicted to have different effects on marital quality; specifically, verbal aggression is hypothesized to have an inverse relation to marital quality while argumentativeness is posited to have a positive relationship. Results show support for the first hypothesis and partial support for the second hypothesis. Implications of these results for conflict resolution in marriage are discussed.     

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.     

Need for Cognition as a Mediating Variable Between Aggressive Communication Traits and Tolerance for Disagreement

This study examined the need for cognition as a mediator between aggressive communication traits and tolerance for disagreement. Previous research suggests that argumentativeness is a positive predictor of tolerance for disagreement, while verbal aggressiveness is a negative predictor of tolerance for disagreement. Our findings indicate that need for cognition positively mediates the relationship between argumentativeness and tolerance for disagreement, as well as verbal aggressiveness and tolerance for disagreement.     

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.     

Teaching assistant argumentativeness and perceptions of power use in the classroom

This study explored the relationship between TA argumentativeness and self reports of power use in the classroom. Results indicated that TA argumentativeness was positively correlated with overall TA power use. Specifically, use of referent and expert power were positively correlated with TA argumentativeness. Significant differences existed between high and low argumentatives for overall power use. Significant differences between argumentativeness levels were also found for referent and expert power.     

Assessing the Radical Democracy of Indymedia: Discursive,Technical, and Institutional Constructions

This study examines the radical democratic principles manifest in Indymedia's discursive, technical, and institutional practices. By focusing on a case study of the Seattle Independent Media Center and contextualizing it within theories and critiques of radical democracy, this article fleshes out strengths, weaknesses, and recurring tensions endemic to Indymedia's internet-based activism. These findings have important implications for alternative media making and radical politics in general.     

Decision‐making collaboration scale: Tests of validity

A trait Decision‐Making Collaboration Scale was discussed and examined for reliability and validity. The scale represents on‐going scale development to measure decision‐making tendencies. The premise is that individuals are generally willing or not willing to participate collaboratively in decision‐making communication interpersonally. The 13‐item measure is described. Support for validity was addressed by investigating the relationships between the decision‐making construct with argumentativeness, verbal aggression, interpersonal communication competence, and willingness to communicate. Willingness to participate in collaborative decision making was moderately related to argumentativeness, competence, and willingness to communicate in a positive manner, while slightly related to verbal aggression in a negative manner. Some construct validity was offered by asking participants to report their decision‐making tendencies and comparing these reports to their friends’ ratings of them. No significant differences were found. Implications for future research are discussed.     

An Examination of Aggression and Adaption Traits with Moral Foundation

ABSTRACT

Moral Foundation Theory forwards that morality is a traitlike disposition that guides one's behaviors, attitudes, and communication. This study examined the relationship between participants' moral foundations and their aggressive and adaptation communication traits. Results of this study suggest that the foundations that concern others (i.e., harm/care and fairness/reciprocity) were associated negatively to verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, and Machiavellianism and associated positively with responsiveness, assertiveness, and cognitive flexibility. The foundations that concern socially binding constructs (i.e., in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity) were negatively related to Machiavellianism and cognitive flexibility.     

Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict

The Japanese allegedly are disinclined to argue. This study supports that allegation. Japanese university students were compared to American students using the Infante/ Rancer Argumentativeness Scale. The scale measures tendencies to approach arguments and to avoid them. Additionally it indicates the general argumentativeness trait of respondents. The Japanese were significantly less inclined to approach argument situations and had a significantly weaker argumentativeness trait than the Americans. No significant difference appeared for avoiding arguments.     

Examining variation among compulsive communicators in classroom settings

The present study investigates variance among compulsive communicators on the traits of communication apprehension, verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness and the relationship between these three communication traits and self‐perceived competence. Results confirmed a positive relationship between self‐perceived communication competence (SPCC) and argumentativeness and a negative relationship between SPCC and communication apprehension. The hypothesized relationship between SPCC and verbal aggressiveness was not confirmed within the sample studied. These results suggest that compulsive communicators are not a monolithic group but possess a range of competence.     

Family sex communication orientation

The United States leads all industrialized countries in unintended teenage pregnancies, teenage births, teenage abortions. Despite the seriousness of this problem, family communication researchers so far, for all practical purposes, have excluded it from the discipline's research agenda. Our study was designed to consolidate and examine a measure of children's attitudes toward family sex communication on the dimensions of comfort, information, and value — the Family Sex Communication Quotient scale (FSCQ) — and to test this orientation against other potential mediators of sex discussion in the family. Our tentative findings suggest: (1) family sex communication in general is infrequent and ineffective, (2) frequent and effective family sex communication may serve as a contextual model for children's communication patterns, (3) a strong family sex communication orientation, particularly as measured by the FSCQ which tested out to be a reliable measure and a significant and consistent mediator, seems to facilitate children's open discussion with dating partners and with parents and to develop responsible pre‐parenting attitudes, (4) discussing sex in the family does not promote an attitude of sexual license.     

Humor: Incongruity,disparagement, and David Letterman

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.     

Testing Hierarchical Models of Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

Support was found for a hierarchical model of argumentativeness theory (N = 1541) in which the second-order factors of motivation to argue and verbal aggressiveness exert top-down influence on subsidiary motives and attitudes. Emotional involvement with arguing and emotional involvement with verbal aggressing were added to clarify the originating theory and to improve model fit. The argumentativeness scale was heterogeneous, consisting of distinct ability and motivation to argue factors. Ability to argue had a direct negative effect and an indirect positive effect on verbal aggressiveness, with this positive effect mediated by motivation to argue. The positive effect of motivation to argue on verbal aggressiveness was moderated by college education, suggesting that students acquire a debate schema during their first semesters of college that enables them to better control their arguments, preventing escalation into verbal aggression. The methodological and theoretical implications of the results are discussed.     

Ghiglione,CBS's Don Hollenbeck: An Honest Reporter in the Age of McCarthyism,and Radio's Revolution: Don Hollenbeck's CBS Views the Press

This paper evaluates the evolution of community radio in postapartheid South Africa where a three-tier broadcasting system—public, commercial, and community—has replaced the monopoly of a state-run behemoth, the South African Broadcasting Corporation. The paper commences with an overview of South Africa's institutionalized culture of exclusion in the broadcasting sector and in other social spheres. A conceptual review of participatory communication precedes and provides foundation for the examination of the operations of two community radio stations located in two of South Africa's previously marginalized and disenfranchised communities. Although South Africa's adoption of community radio answers perpetual questions about the sustenance of community radio, the ongoing experience poses a few challenges.     

On archival pluralism: what religious pluralism (and its critics) can teach us about archives

Recent work has stressed the importance of pluralism in archival education, practice, and research. By examining the promises and perils of pluralism as it has been constructed in another field—religion—this article analyzes, expands, and delineates the notion of archival pluralism in a way that helps form the conceptual foundation for further work on pluralistic approaches to archival education, theory and practice. More specifically, it argues that archival pluralism can learn from four basic principles of religious pluralism—energetic engagement, understanding, strengthened commitment, and dialog—while at the same time avoiding four major perils: claims of universality, inattention to power, silencing dissent, and collapsing of difference. First, this article presents a brief discourse analysis tracing the emergence and development of archival pluralism in the literature to date. Next, turning to how pluralism has been constructed in another field, this article gives a brief overview of conceptions of religious pluralism using the work of two of its most prominent American scholars as guideposts and then addresses the strengths and weaknesses of this conceptualization of pluralism in the religious sphere. Next, this article proposes how religious pluralism’s main principles and pitfalls can be adapted and applied in the realm of memory keeping in order to strengthen the conceptual framework for archival pluralism. It concludes by suggesting aspects of a research agenda for future work in archival pluralism.