Argumentativeness

• Defined: “A predisposition to recognize controversial issues, advocate positions, and refute opposing positions” (Infante)
• Infante considers this a personality trait
• Argumentativeness isd proposed as a subset of “assertiveness”
• It Is generally considered to be a positive, constructive trait

• Assertiveness and argumentativeness are viewed as constructive predispositions
• Assertiveness includes being forceful, firm, using reasoning to defend personal positions while refuting the positions of adversaries
• Research has shown that “high argumentatives” are seen as more credible, eloquent, creative, and self-assured

• High argumentatives are willing to engage in argument, like to discuss controversial issues, initiate arguments, express disagreement
• Low argumentatives dislike arguing, shy away from conflict, withdraw from arguments, and are reluctant to voice disagreement

• The idea is to strike a balance between precipitating arguments needlessly and avoiding arguments altogether.
• One’s style of arguing should lie between the two extremes.

• Defined: a predisposition to attack the self-concept of others
• VA Is associated with name-calling, the use of threats, and ultimatums, negativity, resentment, and suspicion
• VA is generally considered a negative, destructive form of communication
• VA Is similar to Brockriede’s notion of the arguer as “rapist” or Walker's arguer as "abuser"

• Psychopathology (attacking for other unresolved issues)
• Disdain (expressing hate thought verbal attacks)
• Social learning (modeling behavior)
• Argumentative skill deficiency

• Verbal aggressiveness is an assault on another’s self concept, rather than his/her position.
• Individuals who rely on verbal aggressiveness are viewed as less credible, have less satisfying relationships, and resort to physical aggression more often.
• Consequences of verbal aggression include: lower self-concept, frustration, anxiety, anger, and resentment, embarrassment, physical aggression.
• Verbal aggressiveness is viewed as a skill deficiency whereby an individual lacks the verbal skills required to deal with normal disagreements and everyday frustrations.

• Name calling, insults, put-downs
• Character attacks, ridicule
• Racial epithets
• Threats, ultimatums
• Nonverbal aggression—rolling the eyes, gritting the teeth, looks of disdain

• The two traits are not inversely related.
• An individual can be high in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness
• Culture bias in argumentativeness
• Sex differences in the two traits:

• Avoid verbal aggressives: don’t engage people who are known to be verbally aggressive—don’t be an “enabler”
• Example: I’m not going to argue with you unless we both have a chance to speak our minds and unless you refrain from insults.”

• Be polite: allow the other to speak without interruption, use a calm voice, practice empathy, allow opponent’s to save face
• Example: “I can understand why you are so upset.  I would be to under the circumstances.”

• Define the argument: Make sure everyone agrees on what the issue or point of contention is
• Example: “We were arguing about where to spend Thanksgiving, not whether I’m selfish or inconsiderate.”
• Example: “Let’s deal with that issue in a minute.  I want to get back to what we were just talking about.”

• Recognize shifts from constructive to destructive
• Example: “I realize you are upset, but that was uncalled for.”
• Example: “please don’t shout at me.  I can hear you just fine.”

• Do argue, Don’t attack: focus on the issues not on personalities
• Example: “I’m not saying you are selfish or cheap, I’m saying you didn’t pay your share for the dinner, whatever the reason.”

• Be aware: Be attentive to the kinds of situations that can trigger aggressiveness:
• Win-lose scenarios, personal rejection, “sandbagging” (storing up grievances)

• Know when to stop arguing: leave-taking is also a communication skill:
• Example: “If you continue to call me names, I’m going home.”

• "Skill Deficiency Model”: lack of argumentation skills is a catalyst for aggression, violence.
• Watkins (1982): lack of effective conflict management skills is a major issue in domestic violence
• Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, & Shannon (1990): A catalytic reaction to violence is most likely to happen in marriages where both spouses have latent hostile dispositions and argumentative skill deficiencies.
• Walker (1984): Battered women attempted to prevent abuse by trying to pacify their spouses, or accommodate them in any way possible

• Infante, Chandler, & Rudd (1989). Spouses involved in violent relationships tend to exhibit lower argumentativeness and greater verbal aggressiveness.
• Rudd, Burant, & Beatty (1994): Battered women rely on different compliance-gaining strategies than women in nonviolent marriages.
• Battered women rely more on indirect strategies; ingratiation, promise, explanation, deceit, etc. Their choice of strategies reflects their limited power and control in the relationship.
• Rudd & Burant (1995): Battered women used more indirect strategies, followed by more power-based strategies (threat, direct request, aversive stimulus).  Non-violent couples tend to use a greater variety of strategies than abusive relationships (more middle-ground strategies).  Non-violent couples tend to de-escalate conflicts by ignoring some types of negative communication by their partners.