A comparison of the relationship between extraversion and argumentativeness in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

References

• Autman, H., & Kelly, S. (2017). Reexamining the writing apprehension measure. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490617691968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2002). Aggressive communication across cultures: A comparison of aggressive communication among United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(3), 191–200.
   Google Scholar
• Blickle, G. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of argumentativeness: A decade later. Psychological Reports, 77(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.1.99
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blickle, G. (1997). Argumentativeness and the facets of the big five. Psychological Reports, 81(3_suppl), 1379–1385. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.81.3f.1379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croucher, S. M., Braziunaite, R., Homsey, D., Pillai, G., Saxena, J., Saldanha, A., Joshi, V., Jafri, I., Choudhary, P., Bose, L., & Agarwal, K. (2009). Organizational dissent and argumentativeness: A comparative analysis between American and Indian organizations. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2009.505057
   Google Scholar
• Croucher, S. M., & Kelly, S. (2019). Measurement in intercultural and cross-cultural communication. In E. E. Graham & J. P. Mazer (Eds.), Communication research measures III: A sourcebook (pp. 141–159). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., Burkey, M., Spencer, A., Gomez, O., Del Villar, C., & Eskiçorapçi, N. (2021). A multi-national validity analysis of the argumentativeness measure. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2020-0027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., Condon, S. M., Campbell, E., Galy-Badenas, F., Rahmani, D., Nshom, E., & Zeng, C. (2018). A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between cultural adaptation and argumentativeness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-05-2017-0045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croucher, S. M., Otten, R., Ball, M., Grimes, T., Ainsworth, B., Begley, K., & Corzo, L. (2013). Argumentativeness and political participation: A cross-cultural analysis in the United States and Turkey. Communication Studies, 64(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.727942
   Google Scholar
• Dilbeck, K. E., McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2009). Self-perceived communication competence in the Thai culture. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750903381598
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1963). The Eysenck personality inventory. Educational & Industrial Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, L. J. Brown, L. B. & Philipchalk, R.(1992). The development of an abbreviated form of the revised eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQR-A): Its use among students in England, Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia. Personality & Individual Differences, 13(4), 443–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronostay, D. (2019). Wer diskutiert mit? Die Bedeutung von Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen, Argumentierfreude, epistemologischen Überzeugungen und zugewiesenen Diskussionspositionen für die Beteiligung an kontroversen politischen Unterrichtsdiskussionen. Unterrichtswiss, 47(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-018-00033-4
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, M. Z., Johnson, C. E., & Barthel-Hackman, T. (1995). Correlates of talkaholism in New Zealand: An intracultural analysis of the compulsive communication construct. Communication Research Reports, 12(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099509362039
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D. (2018). Interpersonal arguing. Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Hample, D., & Anagondahalli, D. (2015). Understandings of arguing in India and the United States: Argument frames, personalization of conflict, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2014.1000939
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G.(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, W. T., & Cionea, I. A. (2021). Exploring the assumptions between debate participation, communication competence, communication apprehension, and argumentativeness with a global sample. Argumentation & Advocacy, 57(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1897274
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressive. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Wigley, C. J. (2011). In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Communication Quarterly, 59(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.563439
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, S., & Westerman, D. (2020). Doing communication science: Thoughts on making more valid claims. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1792789
   Google Scholar
• Kotowski, M. R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C. R., & Bolt, J. M. (2009). A multitrait-multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs, 46(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903300247
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T., Hullett, C. R., Mitchell Turner, M., & Knight Lapinski, M. (2006). The desirability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Communication Research Reports, 23(4), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600962698
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualizing and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369809
   Google Scholar
• Lewiński, M., Hample, D., Sàágua, J., & Mohammed, D. (2018). Arguing in Portugal: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1450888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Sug, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 369–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamberti, J., & Hample, D. (2022). Interpersonal arguing in Argentina. Argumentation & Advocacy, 58(3), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J., Heisel, A., & Richmond, V. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Deller, J., Albrecht, A.-G., Duehr, E. E., & Paulus, F. M. (2012). Cross-cultural generalization: Using meta-analysis to test hypotheses about cultural variability. In A. M. Ryan, F. T. L. Leong, & F. L. Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research: Applying organizational psychology in the workplace (pp. 91–122). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. Ä. (2014). Argumentativeness and aggressive communication. Theory, research, and application (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C., & Hample, D. (2015). Orientations to interpersonal arguing in the United Arab Emirates, with comparisons to the United States, China, and India. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44(4), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1081392
   Google Scholar
• Rojas-Méndez, J. I., & Hine, M. J. (2017). Countries’ positioning on personality traits: Analysis of 10 South American national tourism websites. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 23(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766716649227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subanaliev, T., Croucher, S. M., Turdabayeva, E., & Kelly, S. (2018). An exploratory analysis of argumentativeness in Kyrgyzstan. Russian Journal of Communication, 10(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2017.1399084
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61(3), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tohver, G. C. (2020). Eysenck giant three. In B. J. Carducci & C. S. Nave (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 155–159). Hoboken, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan, G. M., & Cattell, R. B. (1976). Personality differences between young new Zealanders and Americans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 99(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9924741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weger, H., Jr. (2006). Associations among romantic attachment, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Argumentation & Advocacy, 43(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2006.11821660
   Google Scholar