Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguing to Display Identity

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A rarely studied motive for engaging in face-to-face arguing is to display one’s identity. One way people can manage their impressions is to give reasons (arguments) for their commitments. This appears to be the first study to focus on this reason for arguing. 461 undergraduates recalled an episode in which they had argued to display own identity. They filled out trait measures as well as instruments describing the episode. Identity display arguments do not require controversy, are not very emotional episodes, can partly serve many communication goals, and are polite. People who have high predilection to argue for identity display are both self- and other-oriented, although the correlations with self-oriented measures are stronger. This study not only describes episodes containing arguments for identity display, but also indicates the balance between self- and other-orientations that are involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, R.A., E.A. Witt, M.B. Donnellan, K.H. Trzesniewski, R.W. Robins, and D.A. Kashy. 2011. What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure? Assessment 18: 67–87. doi:10.1177/1073191110382845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arentt, J.J. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55: 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S.L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, A.M., S.J. Schwartz, W.M. Kurtines, and S.L. Berman. 2001. The process of exploration in identity formation: The role of style and competence. Journal of Adolescence 24: 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, D.A., and S.R. Wilson. 2000. Identity implications of influence goals: A cross-cultural comparison of interaction goals and facework. Communication Studies 51: 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W.K., A.M. Bonacci, J. Shelton, J.J. Exline, and B.J. Bushman. 2004. Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 83: 29–45. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W.K., E.A. Rudich, and C. Sedikides. 2002. Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 358–368. doi:10.1177/0146167202286007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caughlin, J.P. 2010. A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual integration and program overview. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships 27: 824–848. doi:10.1177/0265407510373262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J.P. 1990a. A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages, ed. J.P. Dillard, 41–56. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J.P. 1990b. The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In The psychology of tactical communication, ed. M.J. Cody, and M.J. McLaughlin, 70–91. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J.P., C. Segrin, and J.M. Harden. 1989. Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs 56: 19–38. doi:10.1080/03637758909390247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H.J., and S.B.G. Eysenck. 1975. Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, S.B.G., H.J. Eysenck, and P. Barrett. 1985. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Difference 6: 21–29. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, G.T. 2003. Predicaments of communication, argument, and power: Towards a critical theory of controversy. Informal Logic 23: 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. 2003. Arguing skill. In Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, ed. J.O. Greene, and B.R. Burleson, 439–478. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. 2005a. Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. 2005b. Argument frames: An initial investigation into operationalizations. In Critical problems in argumentation, ed. C.A. Willard, 568–576. Washington D.C.: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D. (in press). A theory of interpersonal goals and situations. Communication Research.

  • Hample, D., and D. Anagondahalli. 2015. Understandings of arguing in India and the United States: Argument frames, personalization of conflict, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. doi:10.1080/17475759.2014.1000939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., and I.A. Cionea. 2010. Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness. In Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research, ed. T.A. Avtgis, and A.S. Rancer, 372–387. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1995. A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly 43: 297–319. doi:10.1080/01463379509369978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., B. Han, and D. Payne. 2010. The aggressiveness of playful arguments. Argumentation 24: 405–421. doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9173-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., & Richards, A. S. (in press). Attachment style, serial argument, and taking conflict personally. Journal of Argumentation in Context.

  • Hample, D., A.S. Richards, and C. Skubisz. 2013. Blurting. Communication Monographs 80: 503–532. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.830316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., B. Warner, and H. Norton. 2006. The effects of arguing expectations and predispositions on perceptions of argument quality and playfulness. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D., B. Warner, and D. Young. 2009. Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation 23: 21–37. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9107-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69. doi:10.1080/03637758609376126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–265. doi:10.1080/00335638009383524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A.J. 2002. Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports 15: 99–112. doi:10.1080/08934210209367757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luyckx, K., S.J. Schwartz, M.D. Berzonsky, B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, I. Smits, and L. Goossens. 2008. Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality 42: 58–82. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcia, J.E. 1966. Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 551–558. doi:10.1037/h0023281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, K. 2005. Late adolescent identity development: Narrative meaning making and memory telling. Developmental Psychology 41: 683–691. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.R. 1997. Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals. In Message production: Advances in communication theory, ed. J.O. Greene, 71–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J.W., R.J. Booth, and M.E. Francis. 2007. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin TX: LIWC.net.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, R., and H. Terry. 1988. A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 890–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, and D.D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., Hample, D., & Wang, X. (2014). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Dale Hample & Amanda L. Irions

Authors
  1. Dale Hample
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda L. Irions
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dale Hample.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hample, D., Irions, A.L. Arguing to Display Identity. Argumentation 29, 389–416 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation