Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination

Croucher, Stephen M.; DeMaris, Alfred; Diers-Lawson, Audra; Roper, Shannon

doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9385-z

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, one set of prejudice/threat scales assessing realistic and symbolic threat and negative stereotyping developed by González, Verkuyten, Weesie, and Poppe (2008) is evaluated. As with Croucher, DeMaris, Diers-Lawson and Roper (2017), we assert all sources of attributions have systematic biases (e.g., actor/observer discrepancies or social desirability bias). However, the triangulation of three different perspectives on an individual's prejudice/threat predisposition should provide a strong assessment of these instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The majority of studies on threat have often adapted or modified these instruments to the context of each particular study (e.g. Berrenberg et al 2002;Croucher 2013Croucher , 2016Croucher et al 2017). Concerning instrument adaptation, Scheibner and Morrison (2009) however acknowledged that the degree to which such modifications or alterations may compromise the validity of the instrument or increase measurement error is unclear.…”

Section: Measuring Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Desirability Bias among Prejudice Instruments An Integrated Threat

Croucher,

Nshom,

Rahmani

et al. 2019

J. inc. comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable amount of research has examined the extent to which members of dominant cultures perceive minority groups as threatening their way of life. While various instruments measure these perceptions of threat, few researchers have empirically analysed the statistical properties of these scales. Specifically, studies have not adequately explored social desirability of threat scales. The current study investigates the extent to which one set of threat scales is internally consistent or reliable (González et al., 2008), and explores social desirability within the González et al. (2008) integrated threat instruments by comparing self-reports to other reports (intimate other and friend reports). Results indicate the instruments are internally consistent and that self-reports and other reports of threat do not differ on most indices of threat.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Measuring Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Desirability Bias among Prejudice Instruments An Integrated Threat

Croucher,

Nshom,

Rahmani

et al. 2019

J. inc. comm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Educators' self-reports throughout the questionnaire may be impacted by social appropriateness rather than their genuine perceptions. As a result, another problem is that their genuine attitudes may not be reflected (Croucher et al, 2017).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisational justice, job performance and work engagement: The mediating role of perceived supervisory support

Ahamed

Patrick

Kareem

et al. 2023

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study establishes a relationship between organisational justice, work engagement, job performance, perceived supervisory support and their sub‐dimensions. The major research objectives of the study were to check if perceived supervisory support does mediate between organisational justice, work engagement and job performance of faculty in higher educational institutions. A research model was framed and tested to determine the direct and indirect effect of justice of faculty members on work engagement and job performance in the presence of supervisory support in higher education sector. The present study is based on 912 faculty members of higher educational institutions. Five valid, reliable and standard questionnaires were adopted to collect primary data from the higher educational institutions' faculty members in south India. From the study, it is proved that perceived supervisory support partially mediates organisational justice, work engagement and job performance.

show abstract

“…The vast majority of research on argumentativeness has used Infante and Rancer’s (1982) 20-item argumentativeness measure to empirically assess argumentativeness. There has been a considerable amount of validation research on the argumentativeness measure, with research increasingly questioning and disputing the validity and factor structure of the argumentativeness measure (Croucher et al , 2017; Kotowski et al , 2009; Levine et al , 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-national validity analysis of the argumentativeness measure

Croucher

Kelly

Burkey

et al. 2020

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The argumentativeness measure has been used in more than a 100 studies since 1982. The measure was developed and validated within a US university/college student sample. Despite its intended use, the measure is regularly used outside of the US and outside of the university/college setting without tests of validity. There is also intense debate as to the dimensionality of the measure, with one camp defending the bi-dimensionality of the measure and another proposing uni-dimensionality. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the utility of the measure outside of its intended population. Design/methodology/approach A total of seven samples were collected (n = 1860) from the UK, Germany, France, Turkey, the Philippines, Nicaragua and the US. In this study, Infante and Rancer’s (1982) original 20-item argumentativeness measure was used to assess argumentativeness. Confirmatory factor analyses was used to test content validity. Findings Fit statistics were consistently poor for the unidimensional factor structure. As there is debate as to whether the measure is uni or bi-dimensional, a bi-dimensional fit was also analysed. The measure performed slightly better in each sample using a bi-dimensional factor structure. However, fit statistics were still poor for each sample. Research limitations/implications Specifically, the seven samples are convenience samples. While such a sampling technique does limit the generalizability of a study’s findings, convenience samples are common when using the argumentativeness measure. These results present avenues for exploring the dimensionality of the argumentativeness measure and for revisiting cross-cultural examinations of argumentativeness. Practical implications Factor structure is a critical issue in validity. Whether authors specify their prediction or not, factor structure is always hypothesized as part of a study when measurements are used, and therefore, should be examined in every study as part of the scientific process. Making claims about human behaviour based upon measures with mis-specified factor structures or other validity issues can lead to the perpetuation of misinformation within the literature. Originality/value This is one of the few studies to empirically explore the psychometric properties of one of the most used measures in argument/conflict research. In doing so, this study enhances the understanding of decades of argumentativeness research.

show abstract

Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

Social Desirability Bias among Prejudice Instruments An Integrated Threat

Social Desirability Bias among Prejudice Instruments An Integrated Threat

Organisational justice, job performance and work engagement: The mediating role of perceived supervisory support

A multi-national validity analysis of the argumentativeness measure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About