In Defense of the Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Scales

Abstract

The Argumentativeness (ARG) Scale and Verbal Aggressiveness Scale have been used in hundreds of studies over the past quarter century. As expected, psychometric research has examined their validity. Although this article focuses on recent criticisms by Kotowski, Levine, Baker, and Bolt, some major points refute earlier criticisms. This article argues that (a) a large body of research demonstrates validity of the scales, (b) dimensionality of the scales is quite unequivocal, (c) argumentative presumption favors using the original scales (unless and until newer scales demonstrate statistically significant greater criterion variance), (d) critics of the ARG Scale's predictive validity have failed to include 4 situational components of argumentativeness theory in their testing, (e) both scales are designed and supposed to measure extensive sets of relevant behaviors over time, not individual behaviors observed once, and (f) statistical inference cannot confirm nulls, so critics' claims of "no correlation" between scale scores and observable behaviors are not scientific.

Keywords:

• Communication Theory
• Interpersonal Communication
• Research Methods

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dominic A. Infante

Dominic A. Infante (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1971) is Professor Emeritus in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University.

Andrew S. Rancer

Andrew S. Rancer (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1979) is Professor in the School of Communication at the University of Akron.

Charles J. Wigley III

Charles J. Wigley III (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1986) is Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Canisius College.