, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 465–487 | Cite as

Argumentative Competence in Friend and Stranger Dyadic Exchanges

  • Ioana A. CioneaEmail author
  • Cameron W. Piercy
  • Eryn N. Bostwick
  • Stacie Wilson Mumpower
Original Research


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.


Argumentative competence Argumentation traits Actor–partner interdependence model Argument satisfaction Self-perception bias 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Standard

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Ackerman, R.A., T. Ledermann, and D.A. Kenny. 2018. APIM power [Online program]. Retrieved from Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  2. 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
  3. Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44: 1175–1184. Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Benoit, W.L. 1987. Argumentation and credibility appeals in persuasion. Southern Journal of Communication 5: 181–197. Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Boster, F.L., T. Levine, and D. Kazoleas. 1993. The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior. Communication Quarterly 41: 405–414. Scholar
  8. Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canary, D.J., J.E. Brossmann, B.G. Brossman, and H. Weger Jr. 1995. Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs 62: 183–212. Scholar
  10. Canary, D.J., and B.H. Spitzberg. 1987. Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research 14: 93–120. Scholar
  11. Canary, D.J., and B.H. Spitzberg. 1990. Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes. Communications Monographs 57: 139–151. Scholar
  12. Christensen, A., and C.L. Heavey. 1990. Gender and social structure in demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 73–81. Scholar
  13. Cionea, I.A., A.S. Richards, and S.K. Straub. 2017. Factors predicting the intent to engage in arguments in close relationships: A revised model. Argumentation 31: 121–163. Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–159. Scholar
  15. Cook, W.L., and D.A. Kenny. 2005. The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development 29: 101–109. Scholar
  16. Copstead, G.J., C.N. Lanzetta, and T.A. Avtgis. 2001. Adult children conflict control expectancies: Effects on aggressive communication toward parents. Communication Research Reports 18: 75–83. Scholar
  17. 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. Scholar
  18. 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 Retrieved 30 Dec 2019.
  19. 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
  20. Duran, R.L., and B.H. Spitzberg. 1995. Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication competence. Communication Quarterly 43: 259–275. Scholar
  21. Ehrlinger, J., T. Gilovich, and L. Ross. 2005. Peering into the bias blind spot: People’s assessments of bias in themselves and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 680–692. Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Gross, M.A., and L.K. Guerrero. 2000. Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management 11: 200–226. Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hample, D. 2002. Inventional capacity. International society for the study of argumentation proceedings. Retrieved from Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  26. Hample, D. 2005. Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Hample, D., and J.M. Dallinger. 1987. Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research 14: 123–144. Scholar
  28. Hmielowski, J.D., M.J. Hutchens, and V.J. Cicchirillo. 2014. Living in an age of online incivility: Examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussions on political flaming. Information, Communication, & Society. Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Infante, D.A., T.A. Chandler, and J. Rudd. 1989. Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs 56: 163–177. Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment 46: 72–80. Scholar
  33. Infante, D.A., A.S. Rancer, and T.A. Avtgis. 2010. Contemporary communication theory. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  34. Infante, D.A., J.D. Trebing, P.E. Shepherd, and D.E. Seeds. 1984b. The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Communication Journal 50: 67–77. Scholar
  35. Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley III. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61–69. Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Johnson, A.J., J.A.H. Becker, S. Wigley, M.M. Haigh, and E.A. Craig. 2007. Reported argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness levels: The influence of type of argument. Communication Studies 58: 189–205. Scholar
  39. Johnson, K.L., and M.E. Roloff. 1998. Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research 25: 327–343. Scholar
  40. Kenny, D. A. 2015. An interactive tool for the estimation and testing the Actorpartner Interdependence Model using multilevel modeling [Computer software]. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  41. Kenny, D.A., D.A. Kashy, and W.L. Cook. 2006. Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. Kenny, D.A., and T.V. West. 2010. Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14: 196–213. Scholar
  43. Kotowski, M.R., T.R. Levine, C.R. Baker, and J.M. Bolt. 2009. A multitrait-multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs 76: 443–462. Scholar
  44. Kruger, J., and D. Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1121–1134. Scholar
  45. Levine, T.R., M.J. Beatty, S. Limon, M.A. Hamilton, R. Buck, and R.M. Chroy-Asad. 2004. The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs 71: 245–269. Scholar
  46. Levine, T.R., and F.J. Boster. 1996. The impact of self and others’ argumentativeness on talk about controversial issues. Communication Quarterly 44: 345–358. Scholar
  47. Levine, T.R., M.R. Kotowski, M.J. Beatty, and M.J. Van Kelegom. 2012. A meta-analysis of trait-behavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31: 95–111. Scholar
  48. Martin, M.M., and C.M. Anderson. 1995. Roommate similarities: Are roommates who are similar in their communication traits more satisfied? Communication Research Reports 12: 46–52. Scholar
  49. McCroskey, J.C., and L.L. McCroskey. 1988. Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Communication Research Reports 5: 108–113. Scholar
  50. McEwan, B. 2013. Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actor–partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16: 863–869. Scholar
  51. Mongeau, P.A. 1989. Individual differences as moderators of persuasive message processing and attitude-behavior relations. Communication Research Reports 6: 1–6. Scholar
  52. National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2018. Job outlook 2018. Retrieved from Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  53. Nickerson, R.S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2: 175–220. Scholar
  54. Nicotera, A.M., J. Steele, A. Catalani, and N. Simpson. 2012. Conceptualization and test of an aggressive competence model. Communication Research Reports 29: 12–25. Scholar
  55. Onyekwere, E.O., R.B. Rubin, and D.A. Infante. 1991. Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement. Communication Quarterly 39: 35–47. Scholar
  56. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. Scholar
  57. Pronin, E., T. Gilovich, and L. Ross. 2004. Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review 111: 781–799. Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Rapanta, C., M. Garcia-Mila, and S. Gilabert. 2013. What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research 83: 483–520. Scholar
  60. Roper, R., A.J. Johnson, and E.N. Bostwick. 2017. A target’s perspective: Verbal aggressiveness, coping strategies, and relational harm. Communication Research Reports 34: 21–28. Scholar
  61. Semic, B.A., and D.J. Canary. 1997. Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions. Communication Quarterly 45: 355–378. Scholar
  62. Spitzberg, B.H. 1983. Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education 32: 323–329. Scholar
  63. Spitzberg, B.H. 2009. Interpersonal communication competence and social skills. In International encyclopedia of communication, ed. W. Donsbach, 2486–2492. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Spitzberg, B.H., and W.R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Willard, N.E. 2007. Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  68. Zakahi, W.R., and R.L. Duran. 1984. Attraction, communicative competence and communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports 1: 54–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Cleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  4. 4.School of Business AdministrationMid-America Christian UniversityOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations