, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 405–421 | Cite as

The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments



Some people report that they argue for play. We question whether and how often such arguments are mutually entertaining for both participants. Play is a frame for arguing, and the framing may not always be successful in laminating the eristic nature of interpersonal argumentation. Previous research and theory suggest that playfulness may be associated with aggression. Respondents (N = 199) supplied self-report data on their arguing behaviors and orientations. We found support for the hypothesis that self-reported playfulness and aggression are directly associated. We found less evidence for our hypothesized inverse association between self-reported playfulness and indices of cooperation and avoidance. Self-reports of playfulness are not significantly associated with expert coders’ ratings of either playfulness or aggressiveness. The claim that an argument is playful should be met with skepticism, although playful arguments are possible.


Arguing Argument frames Play Aggressiveness Cooperation Argumentativeness Verbal aggressiveness 


  1. Bateson, G. 1987. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177–193). Northvale NJ: Jason Aronson. Chapter originally published, 1955.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S.L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dowd, E.T., C.R. Milne, and S.L. Wise. 1991. The therapeutic reactance scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development 69: 541–545.Google Scholar
  4. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hample, D. 2003. Arguing skill. In Handbook of communication and social interaction skill, vol. 11, ed. J.O. Greene and B.R. Burleson, 439–478. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Hample, D. 2005. Argument frames: An initial investigation into operationalizations. In Critical problems in argumentation, ed. C.A. Willard, 568–576. Washington DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  7. Hample, D. 2008. Reflections on framing arguments as playful. Paper presented to the biennial Wake Forest Conference on Argumentation, Venice, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hample, D., B. Warner, and D. Young. 2009. Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation 23: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levine, T.R., M.J. Beatty, S. Simon, M.A. Hamilton, R. Buck, and R.M. Chory-Assad. 2004. The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs 71: 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCroskey, J.C. 1978. Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs 45: 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Keefe, B.J., and P.J. Benoit. 1982. Children’s arguments. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard, 154–183. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of South CarolinaAikenUSA

Personalised recommendations