All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Type of argument as a situational constraint
Unformatted Document Text:  Argumentativeness 16 Limitations One limitation of this study involves the use of a convenience, undergraduate sample. This type of sample is common in the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness literature (i.e., Infante, 1981; Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Rancer, 1993; Levine & Boster, 1996; Semic & Canary, 1997). However, research has also expanded to include married couples (i.e., Sabourin et al., 1993), family (i.e., Bayer & Ceglia, 1992; Rancer, Baukus, & Amato, 1986), and organizational settings (i.e., Infante & Gorden, 1991). Examining whether the results of the current study exist in more diverse samples awaits further research. Another limitation of this study includes the recall of behavior from specific arguments. Whether these perceptions are accurate portrayals of actual argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors is unknown. Further research should examine actual argumentative encounters comparing both types of arguments. However, utilizing recall allowed the measure of a naturally occurring argument 2 , where asking individuals to argue in a lab setting to measure actual behavior may lead to artificiality. Future Directions Future directions include looking at actual argumentative interaction. One could give the original argumentativeness and verbally aggressiveness scales to seek to obtain a trait measure. Such a study could examine whether these trait scores predict actual argumentative behavior for both types of argument. Another future direction could examine the question of whether the argumentativeness scale is interpreted as focusing on argument 1 or argument 2 . Individuals could be asked how likely they are to approach or avoid an argument 2 about each topic. If they are more likely to avoid an argument 2 , this could explain the lower argumentativeness score from this study’s

Authors: Johnson, Amy.
first   previous   Page 16 of 24   next   last



background image
Argumentativeness 16
Limitations
One limitation of this study involves the use of a convenience, undergraduate sample.
This type of sample is common in the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness literature
(i.e., Infante, 1981; Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Rancer, 1993; Levine & Boster, 1996;
Semic & Canary, 1997). However, research has also expanded to include married couples (i.e.,
Sabourin et al., 1993), family (i.e., Bayer & Ceglia, 1992; Rancer, Baukus, & Amato, 1986), and
organizational settings (i.e., Infante & Gorden, 1991). Examining whether the results of the
current study exist in more diverse samples awaits further research.
Another limitation of this study includes the recall of behavior from specific arguments.
Whether these perceptions are accurate portrayals of actual argumentative and verbally
aggressive behaviors is unknown. Further research should examine actual argumentative
encounters comparing both types of arguments. However, utilizing recall allowed the measure of
a naturally occurring argument
2
, where asking individuals to argue in a lab setting to measure
actual behavior may lead to artificiality.
Future Directions
Future directions include looking at actual argumentative interaction. One could give the
original argumentativeness and verbally aggressiveness scales to seek to obtain a trait measure.
Such a study could examine whether these trait scores predict actual argumentative behavior for
both types of argument.
Another future direction could examine the question of whether the argumentativeness
scale is interpreted as focusing on argument
1
or argument
2
. Individuals could be asked how
likely they are to approach or avoid an argument
2
about each topic. If they are more likely to
avoid an argument
2
, this could explain the lower argumentativeness score from this study’s


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.