Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing

This study sought to increase our understanding of the communication predisposition of Argumentativeness by determining the particular beliefs which differentiate three types of argumentative individuals. One hundred thirty‐eight subjects were asked to elicit beliefs they have about arguing. Subjects’ level of trait argumentativeness were also obtained. Content analytic procedures were used to classify the beliefs into eight categories identified as belief structures about arguing. High argumentatives provided the greatest number of positive beliefs about arguing, low argumentatives the least, and low argumentatives affected the greatest number of negative beliefs about arguing and highs the least. Discriminant analysis produced two significant functions labelled Cultivation and Antagonism. Individuals high in trait argumentativeness tend to perceive arguing primarily as an enjoyable, learning experience which demonstrates their rhetorical skills. Low argumentatives primarily view arguing as a hostile communication encounter which increases conflict between people. The study's value in enhancing our understanding of trait argumentativeness, and its pedagogical implications are discussed.