, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 23–43 | Cite as

Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination

  • Stephen M. CroucherEmail author
  • Alfred DeMaris
  • Audra R. Diers-Lawson
  • Shannon Roper


This study has two purposes. First, the study evaluates the reliability of self-reports of argumentativeness by comparing self-reported argumentativeness with two other reports of the same target: evaluations by friends and evaluations by intimates. Second, the study examines whether particular characteristics (e.g. gender, relational distance, years known, etc.) presage a larger or smaller disparity in different reporters’ reports. We found (a) the reliability of both the approach and avoidance subscales to be acceptable for the intimate partner’s responses, but only marginally acceptable when the scale was answered by a friend; (b) on a basic level, we did not find individuals over or under-estimating their level of argumentativeness, (c) self-over and under estimating has limited impact on the self-reporting of argumentativeness, though males are more likely to over-report argumentativeness; and (d) while relational history had little effect on other-reports, there were effects for same-sex couples that should be further explored.


Argumentativeness Social desirability Self-report Other-report Reliability analysis 


  1. Abbott, Robert D. 1975. Improving the validity of affective self-report measures through constructing personality scales unconfounded with social desirability: A study of personality research form1. Educational and Psychological Measurement 35: 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avtgis, Theodore A., Andrew S. Rancer, Penka Atansova Kamjeva, and Rebecca M. Chory. 2008. Argumentative and aggressive communication in Bulgaria: Testing for conceptual and methodological equivalence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 37: 17–24. doi: 10.1080/17475750802077354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer, Cherie L., and Donald J. Cegala. 1992. Trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness: Relations with parenting style. Western Journal of Communication 56: 301–310. doi: 10.1080/10570319209374418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cann, Arnie, Ashley M. Norman, Jennifer L. Welbourne, and Lawrence G. Calhoun. 2008. Attachment styles, conflict styles and humour styles: Interrelationships and associations with relationship satisfaction. European Journal of Personality 22: 131–146. doi: 10.1002/per.666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, David A., Jeffrey A. Ciesla, and James H. Steiger. 2007. The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods 12: 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coley, Rebekah L., and Jodi E. Morris. 2002. Comparing father and mother reports of father involvement among low-income minority families. Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 982–997. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Combs, Arthur W., Daniel W. Soper, and Clifford C. Courson. 1963. The measurement of self concept and self-report. Educational and Psychological Measurement 23: 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croucher, Stephen M. 2008. Looking beyond the hijab. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  10. Croucher, Stephen M., Ramune Braziunaite, Dini Homsey, Gaytre Pillai, Jagruti Saxena, Ashish Saldanha, Vikrant Joshi, Imran Jafri, Pavan Choudhary, Lalima Bose, and Komal Agarwal. 2009. Organizational dissent and argumentativeness: A comparative analysis between American and Indian organizations. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 38: 175–192. doi: 10.1080/17475759.2009.505057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croucher, Stephen M., Deepa Oommen, Manda V. Hicks, Kyle J. Holody, Samara Anarbaeva, Kisung Yoon, Anthony Spencer, Chrishawn March, and Abdulrahman I. Aljahli. 2010. The effects of self-construal and religiousness on argumentativeness: A cross-cultural analysis. Communication Studies 61: 135–155. doi: 10.1080/10510971003603994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwight, Stephen A., and Melissa E. Feigelson. 2000. A quantitative review of the effect of computerized testing on the measurement of social desirability. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60: 340–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, Anne R. 1970. Inmate adaptations and socialization in the prison. Sociology 4: 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher, Robert J. 1993. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 303–315. doi: 10.2307/2489277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzmaurice, Garrett, Nan Laird, and James Ware. 2004. Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Goodboy, Alan K., and Scott A. Myers. 2012. Instructional dissent as an expression of students’ verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness traits. Communication Education 61: 448–458. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.699635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, Kathryn, and Marina Krcmar. 2005. Predicting exposure to and liking of media violence: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Studies 56: 71–93. doi: 10.1080/0008957042000332250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, Charles N., and Dennis W. Organ. 1973. An evaluation of causal models linking the received role with job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly 18: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton, Mark A., and Paul J. Mineo. 2002. Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta-analytic review. In Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, ed. Mike Allen, Raymond W. Preiss, Barbara M. Gayle, and Nancy Burrell, 281–314. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Hsu, Chia-Fang. 2010. Acculturation and communication traits: A study of cross-cultural adaptation among Chinese in America. Communication Monographs 77: 414–425. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2010.499367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ifert, Danette E., Kathleen M. Long, and Shirley Fortney. 1998. Examining variation among compulsive communicators in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports 15: 426–435. doi: 10.1080/08824099809362142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Infante, Dominic A., and William I. Gorden. 1985. Superiors’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates’ satisfaction. Human Communication Research 12: 117–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00069.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Infante, Dominic A., and Andrew S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Infante, Dominic A., Andrew S. Rancer, and Charles J. Wigley. 2011. In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Communication Quarterly 59: 145–154. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.563439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, Amy J., Joshua M. Averbeck, Katherine M. Kelley, and Shr-Jie Liu. 2011. When serial arguments predict harm: Examining the influences of argument function, topic of the argument, perceived resolvability, and argumentativeness. Argumentation & Advocacy 47: 214–227.Google Scholar
  26. Kelley, Harold H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol. 15, ed. David Levine, 192–238. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kotowski, Michael R., Timothy R. Levine, Colin R. Baker, and Jeffrey M. Bolt. 2009. A multitrait–multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs 76: 443–462. doi: 10.1080/03637750903300247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakey, Sandra G., and Daniel Canary. 2002. Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to partner as critical factors in understanding interpersonal communication competence and conflict strategies. Communication Monographs 69: 217–235. doi: 10.1080/03637750216542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine, Timothy R., and Michael R. Kotowski. 2010. Measuring argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Psychometric concerns and advances. In Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research, ed. Timothy A. Avtgis, and Andrew S. Rancer. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Levine, Timothy R., Michael R. Kotowski, Michael J. Beatty, and Martin J. Van Kelegom. 2012. A meta-analysis of trait–behavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31: 95–111. doi: 10.1177/0261927X11425037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Limon, M.Sean, and Betty H. La France. 2005. Communication traits and leadership emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communications Quarterly 70: 123–133. doi: 10.1080/10417940509373318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Myers, Scott A., Chad Edwards, Shawn T. Wahl, and Matthew M. Martin. 2007. The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education 56: 495–508. doi: 10.1080/03634520701466398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicotera, Anne M. 1996. An assessment of the Argumentativeness Scale for social desirability bias. Communication Reports 9: 23–35. doi: 10.1080/08934219609367632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oetzel, John G. 1998. The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles. Communication Reports 11: 133–144. doi: 10.1080/08934219809367695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Organ, Dennis W., and Charles N. Greene. 1981. The effects of formalization on professional involvement: A compensatory process approach. Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paunonen, Sampo V., and Etienne LeBel. 2012. Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103: 158–175. doi: 10.1037/a0028165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Dennis W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12: 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Podsakoff, Philip M., and William D. Todor. 1985. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management 11: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rancer, Andrew S., and Theodore A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Rancer, Andrew S., Robert A. Baukus, and Philip P. Amato. 1986. Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports 3: 28–32.Google Scholar
  41. Roach, K. David. 1995. Teaching assistant argumentativeness and perceived power use in the classroom. Communication Research Reports 12: 94–103. doi: 10.1080/08824099509362044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sayer, Aline G., and Mary M. Klute. 2005. Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In Sourcebook of family theory and research, ed. Vern L. Bengston, Alan C. Acock, Katherine R. Allen, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson, and David M. Klein, 289–313. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Schriesheim, Janet F. 1980. The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schrodt, Paul, and Lawrence R. Wheeless. 2001. Aggressive communication and informational reception apprehension: The influence of listening anxiety and intellectual inflexibility on trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly 49: 53–69. doi: 10.1080/01463370109385614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schullery, Nancy M. 1998. The optimum level of argumentativeness for employed women. Journal of Business Communication 35: 346–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schullery, Nancy M., and Stephen E. Schullery. 2003. Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education. Western Journal of Communication 67: 203–223. doi: 10.1080/10570310309374767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singer, Judith D., and John B. Willett. 2003. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spitzberg, Brian H., and Michael L. Hecht. 1984. A component model of relational competence. Human Communication Research 10: 575–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00033.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stewart, Robert A., and K.David Roach. 1993. Argumentativeness, religious orientation, and reactions to argument situations involving religious versus nonreligious issues. Communication Quarterly 41: 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki, Shinobu. 2011. Trait and state approaches to explaining argument structures. Communication Quarterly 59: 123–143. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.541365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Uziel, Liad. 2010. Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 243–262. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venable, Karen V., and Matthew M. Martin. 1997. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12: 955–964.Google Scholar
  53. Weger, Harry. 2006. Associations among romantic attachment, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 29–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen M. Croucher
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alfred DeMaris
    • 2
  • Audra R. Diers-Lawson
    • 3
  • Shannon Roper
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Center for Family and Demographic ResearchBowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  3. 3.School of Business and the ArtsUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.School of Communication and the ArtsMarist CollegePoughkeepsieUSA

Personalised recommendations