A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness

Infante, Dominic A.; Rancer, Andrew S.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13

Cited by 375 publications

(427 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

379

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, characteristics emerging from teachers who avoid arguments are withdrawing from expressing arguments with students, insisting on their point of view thinking that it's the right thing to do and imposing their opinion through punishments, threats or yelling. This finding is in consistency with the findings of Infante and Rancer (1982) suggested that low scores of argumentativeness are expected to depict individuals who avoid disputing, are quite compliant and easily manipulated in a way which violates even their most important interests. As a consequence, verbal aggressiveness is enhanced and plays the role of discipline, while at the same time PE teachers support that effective teaching is the outcome of a disciplinary class (Bekiari & Hasanagas, Psychology 2016c;Jones, 2014;Lefstein, 2002;Matsagouras, 2008;Mohapi, 2014;Nelson, 2002;Parker, 1995;Placek & Dodds, 1988;Sharkey & Fenning, 2012;Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Stormshak, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Five communicational PE teachers' profiles have been detected according to the approach and avoidance of arguments during the lesson, as well as the usage of verbal aggressiveness via the frequency and intensity of verbally aggressive messages. More precisely these are, "high argumentativeness-low verbal aggressiveness" "moderate argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness", "moderate argumentativeness-low verbal aggressiveness", "low argumentativeness-high verbal aggressiveness", "low argumentativeness-moderate verbal aggressiveness", as presented in previous research (Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996. According to the emerging profiles when PE teachers approach arguments and are capable of arguing, they are less likely to expose a verbally aggressive behavior (Bekiari, 2016;Infante & Rancer, 1996;Infante et al, 1984;.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Argumentativeness is defined as a person's tendency to support its beliefs on debatable disputes and at the same time trying to prove false the opinions of the interlocutor (Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996. Argumentativeness uses premise as a way for verbal persuasiveness in advocating the original aim (Hample, Han, & Payne, 2010) or give a character's impression (Hample & Irions, 2014).…”

Section: Argumentativenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in Physical Education: Perceptions of Teachers and Students in Qualitative and Quantitative Exploration

Deliligka¹,

Bekiari²,

Syrmpas³

2017

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is aiming at examining 1) physical education teachers' self-perceived verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness, 2) students' perceptions about verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness developed by their teachers, in order to assess the communicational accordance between students' and teachers' perceptions in elementary, junior and high schools. A combination of qualitative (study 1) and quantitative methods (study 2) has been implemented for this purpose. Fifteen PE teachers (6 females and 9 males), participated in the qualitative study; and 894 students (442 males, 452 females), participated in the quantitative study. According to the study 1, argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are features that co-exist to a person's behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Argumentativenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in Physical Education: Perceptions of Teachers and Students in Qualitative and Quantitative Exploration

Deliligka¹,

Bekiari²,

Syrmpas³

2017

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been studies with a focus on argumentative traits. Prunty et al found that the U.S. students were higher in trait argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982) than Japanese students, which is consistent with the finding by Suzuki (1990). However, when M. S. Kim et al (2001) compared three cultural groups-Korea, Hawaii, and the mainland U.S.-as a part of their model testing study, they found no significant differences in the overall argumentativeness scores.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Forms of written arguments: A comparison between Japan and the United States

Suzuki

2010

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studying cultural differences in argument forms helps us understand the nature of communicative problems that inevitably arise in intercultural conflict and negotiation.Although a number of studies have been conducted in the past to examine cultural differences in arguments, we still do not have sufficient evidence to support that cultural groups actually differ in the manners in which they construct arguments. Given the situation, this study empirically examines whether and how cultural groups differ in forms of written arguments. counterparts. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…quoted in Nakamura, 1964, p. 539) 14 . Moreover, studies that have compared the argumentativeness of different populations (using the scale developed by Infante & Rancer, 1982) have found only minor and inconsistent differences between Easterners and Westerners (Aune, Hunter, Kim, & Kim, 2001;Bresnahan, Shearman, Lee, Ohashi, & Mosher, 2002). Finally, experiments on collaborative reasoning show that Chinese and Korean children can shed very quickly the constraints that may be imposed during interactions with teachers to become fierce arguers between themselves (Dong, Anderson, Kim, & Li, 2008).…”

Section: Socio--cultural Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning

Mercier

2011

J Cogn Cult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the argumentative theory of reasoning, humans have evolved reasoning abilities (usually known as 'system 2' or 'analytic' reasoning) for argumentative purposes. This implies that some reasoning skills should be universals. Such a claim seems to be at odd with findings from cross-cultural research. First, a wealth of research, following the work of Luria, has shown apparent difficulties for illiterate populations to solve simple but abstract syllogisms. It can be shown, however, that once they are willing to accept the pragmatics of the task, these participants can perform at or near ceiling. Second, historical, sociological and anthropological research has been used to claim that some Eastern cultures have not developed argumentation. These claims are the result of oversimplifications and of a selective view of the data. A closer looks reveals instead very elaborate forms of argumentation, in Chinese culture particularly. Third, cross-cultural psychologists have carried out an extensive research program aimed at showing that Easterners do not rely on the principle of non-contradiction and that they use holistic rather than analytic thinking. A review of these experiments shows that no qualitative difference emerges in the way Easterners and Westerners deal with argumentation and that in the proper context both populations can easily have recourse to holistic or analytic thinking. It is possible to conclude from this critical review that the reasoning skills involved in argumentation seem to be universal even though they can be used in different ways in various cultural contexts. 2Abstract. According to the argumentative theory of reasoning, humans have evolved reasoning abilities (usually known as 'system 2' or 'analytic' reasoning) for argumentative purposes. This implies that some reasoning skills should be universals. Such a claim seems to be at odd with findings from cross--cultural research. First, a wealth of research, following the work of Luria, has shown apparent difficulties for illiterate populations to solve simple but abstract syllogisms. It can be shown however that once they are willing to accept the pragmatics of the task, these participants can perform at or near ceiling. Second, historical, sociological and anthropological research has been used to claim that some Eastern cultures have not developed argumentation. These claims are the result of oversimplifications and of a selective view of the data. A closer looks reveals instead very elaborate forms of argumentation, in Chinese culture particularly. Third, cross--cultural psychologists have carried out an extensive research program aimed at showing that Easterners do not rely on the principle of non--contradiction and that they use holistic rather than analytic thinking. A review of these experiments shows that no qualitative difference emerges in the way Easterners and Westerners deal with argumentation and that in the proper context both populations can easily have recourse to holistic or analytic thinking. It is possi...

show abstract

A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness

Cited by 375 publications

References 10 publications

Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in Physical Education: Perceptions of Teachers and Students in Qualitative and Quantitative Exploration

Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in Physical Education: Perceptions of Teachers and Students in Qualitative and Quantitative Exploration

Forms of written arguments: A comparison between Japan and the United States

On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About