Argumentative Competence in Friend and Stranger Dyadic Exchanges
This manuscript investigates the role of argumentative competence in interpersonal dyadic exchanges. Specifically, this study examined the two sub-dimensions of competence, argumentative effectiveness and appropriateness, and their connections with argumentative traits, situational features, and argument satisfaction. In addition, self-perceived versus observed argumentative competence were compared. Participants in the study (N = 282, 141 dyads) completed measures before and after a face-to-face argumentative discussion with another person about one of two possible topics (student athlete pay and texting while driving). Results revealed that argumentation traits had little effect on argumentative competence, but competence was predicted by one’s knowledge about the topic. Argument satisfaction depended only on arguers’ own competence, not their partners’. Finally, a perceptual bias existed regarding argument effectiveness (but not appropriateness) in that participants rated themselves higher than did observers.
KeywordsArgumentative competence Argumentation traits Actor–partner interdependence model Argument satisfaction Self-perception bias
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Ackerman, R.A., T. Ledermann, and D.A. Kenny. 2018. APIM power [Online program]. Retrieved from https://robert-ackerman.shinyapps.io/APIMPowerR/. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
- Avtgis, T.A., and P.E. Madlock. 2008. Implications of the verbally aggressive patient: Creating a constructive environment in destructive situations. In Applied communication for health professionals, ed. E.P. Polack, V.P. Richmond, and J.C. McCroskey, 167–184. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
- Beatty, M.J., J.A. Dobos, K.M. Valencic, and J.E. Rudd. 1998, November. A preliminary investigation into the unexplored “dark side” of communication avoidance: Indirect interpersonal aggressiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Bishop, S.C., P.S. Hill, and Y. Lin. 2012. Use of aggressive humor: Aggressive humor style, verbal aggressiveness and social dominance orientation. Ohio Communication Journal 50: 73–82.Google Scholar
- Canary, D.J., and B.H. Spitzberg. 1987. Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research 14: 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00123.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Croucher, S.M., R. Braziunaite, D. Homsey, G. Pillai, J. Saxena, A. Saldanha, V. Joshi, I. Jafri, P. Choudhary, L. Bose, and K. Agarwal. 2009. Organizational dissent and argumentativeness: A comparative analysis between American and Indian organization. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 38: 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2009.505057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cupach, W.R. 1982, May. Communication satisfaction and interpersonal solidarity as outcomes of conflict message strategy use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED217510.pdf. Retrieved 30 Dec 2019.
- Dallinger, J.M., and D. Hample. 2002. The image of the ideal arguer. In Arguing communication and culture, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 285–291. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
- Gonzalez, R., and D. Griffin. 2000. On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In The social psychology of personal relationships. 3rd ed, ed. W. Ickes and S. Duck, 181–213. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, M.A., and P.J. Mineo. 2002. Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta-analytic review. In Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, ed. M. Allen, R.W. Preiss, B.M. Gayle, and N. Burell, 281–314. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hample, D. 2002. Inventional capacity. International society for the study of argumentation proceedings. Retrieved from http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-inventional-capacity/?print=pdf. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
- Hample, D. 2005. Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1987. Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research 14: 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00124.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Infante, D.A. 1987. Aggressiveness. In Personality and interpersonal communication, ed. J.C. McCroskey and J.A. Daly, 157–192. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Infante, D.A., C. Heinen Wall, C.J. Leap, and K. Danielson. 1984a. Verbal aggression as a function of the receiver’s argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports 1: 33–37.Google Scholar
- Infante, D.A., A.S. Rancer, and T.A. Avtgis. 2010. Contemporary communication theory. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
- Jones, E., and R. Nisbett. 1971. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York, NY: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
- Johnson, A.J., J.M. Averbeck, K.M. Kelley, and S. Liu. 2010. Serial arguments and argument type: Comparing serial arguments about public and personal issue argument topics. In The functions of argument and social context: Selected papers from the 16th biennial conference on argumentation, ed. D.S. Gouran, 211–218. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A. 2015. An interactive tool for the estimation and testing the Actor–partner Interdependence Model using multilevel modeling [Computer software]. https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/APIM_MM/. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
- Kenny, D.A., D.A. Kashy, and W.L. Cook. 2006. Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2018. Job outlook 2018. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/store/2017/job-outlook-2018/. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
- Rancer, A.S., and T.A. Avtgis. 2014. Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Spitzberg, B.H. 2009. Interpersonal communication competence and social skills. In International encyclopedia of communication, ed. W. Donsbach, 2486–2492. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Spitzberg, B.H., and W.R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Spitzberg, B.H., and W.R. Cupach. 2011. Interpersonal skills. In The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication. 4th ed, ed. M.L. Knapp and J.A. Daly, 481–524. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Trapp, R., J. Yingling, and J. Wanner. 1987. Measuring argumentative competence. In Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 253–261. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
- Willard, N.E. 2007. Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
- Zakahi, W.R., and R.L. Duran. 1984. Attraction, communicative competence and communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports 1: 54–57.Google Scholar