Relations between argumentative motivation, and advocacy and refutation on controversial issues

The interactionist perspective to argumentativeness posits that situational factors interact with traits to influence communication behavior. This study extended this line of research by exploring how topics of argument relate to argumentativeness. Specifically, the study tested whether argument activity (advocacy and refutation) on different types of issues interacts with a person's level of trait argumentativeness. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine whether argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness interact in terms of reports of using types of verbally aggressive messages. Results indicated that, in general, individuals reported greater frequency of advocacy than refutative behavior during arguments. High argumentatives engaged in more advocacy and refutation than moderates or lows. Across levels of argumentativeness, political issues were argued most often. High argumentatives reported arguing more than moderates and lows about social, political, personal behavior, moral‐ethical, and others’ behavior issues. Individuals high in verbal aggression reported engaging in more verbally aggressive messages. Implications of these findings to the interactionist approach to the study of communication and to communication education were suggested.

Key concepts:

• Argumentativeness
• motivation to argue
• interactionist perspective
• advocacy and refutation
• argument issues
• verbal aggressiveness
• gender