ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
1
Does an Increase in Argumentativeness Have an Effect on Social Intelligence?
Brad Boldenow, Erin Bosman, David Dobbins, Sidney Fairbrother, Abigail Franseen, Allison
Manson
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
B.E.D.A.M.A.S.
CJ 300 Research Methods Section 002
November 12th, 2014

2
Methods and Procedures
This section of the report describes the methods and procedures that have been used to
look into this research question:
We believe argumentativeness will indeed cause a decrease in social intelligence.
The methods and procedures are described below. We will be using the survey method, as this is
the most appropriate; This is the best method for respondents to easily take part in the survey.
They will be able to read the questions to themselves and self-evaluate at their own pace.
Participants
For this study, 80 college age students will be chosen by year in school (20 freshman, 20
sophomore, 20 junior, 20 senior) from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. The select
groups (freshman, sophomores, juniors and seniors) will also be divided equally by gender; 10
randomly selected females and 10 randomly selected males.
College students best suite the needs of this study due to their tendency to have more
social interactions on a daily basis: attending class, work and spending time with their friends.
Overall, a large amount of time is spent with their peers, linking them to an active social life.
The prevalence of a college student’s social life leads us to believe that they make have a
connection to social intelligence.
Sampling

3
The sampling method used for this study will be a non-probabilistic survey method. In a
survey sampling method, only a portion of the population is inquired to receive data. We will be
sampling 80 University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire undergraduate students. Twenty students will
be taken from each undergraduate grade level, freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior, from the
entire sampling frame of students at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire. By choosing a
non-probabilistic method we will have the advantage of availability but we will have the
disadvantage of bias. Non-probabilistic methods are also good when used early in research.
We will be using quota sampling as we have predefined groups within the total
population that we will use to fill the quota of 20 students from each predefined group. This
sampling method will allow us to be somewhat representative of the population without using a
probabilistic method. Due to the choice of using a non-probabilistic method we will have less of
a chance of being able to generalize to the whole population.
Operations
In defining social intelligence Karl Albrecht explains it as the specific rate in which a
person can judge either a single persons or a group of people’s emotional state in a social
environment (Albrecht, 2004). It also includes an awareness of situations and the social
dynamics that govern them and knowledge of interaction styles and strategies that can help a
person achieve his or her objectives in dealing with others.
In the measurement of social intelligence, we will be using the Simple Question method,
as shown in Appendix A. This Simple Question scale will help a person, and our group, in
determining whether or not someone works better in smaller intimate settings, or if they prefer

4
dealing with others in a larger, more expansive area in their social environment. In giving each
individual three answers, it leaves many different possibilities of survey answers and possible
outcomes for our group to study on and calculate.
Rancer and Infante (1982) define argumentativeness as a trait which inclines an
individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to
verbally attack the positions of others on the same issue (Rancer and Infante, 1982). Another
aspect of argumentation is it involves attacking the positions that others take on given issues.
Conceptually, argumentativeness can be defined as someone who engages themselves in
communication situations where they discuss personal viewpoints on issues.
The argumentativeness of the subjects will be measured using both Likert and Likert
Type Scales, as shown in Appendix B and C. These Likert Scales will measure different
characteristics of argumentativeness, as shown in Appendix B. A person with a high level of
argumentativeness will respond “strongly agree” to all three of the scales because they are
representing different characteristics of argumentativeness. Expressing personal beliefs, being
comfortable with controversial issues and engagement in communication situations are all
characteristics someone with high levels of argumentativeness will have.
The Likert Type Scales that will be used in the measurement are shown in Appendix C.
Similar to the Likert Scales, a person with a high level of argumentativeness will answer
“Extremely likely” to the scales. These scales are measuring the subjects likelihood to express
characteristics of argumentativeness in communicative situations.
After the subjects answer the following scales, we will be able to rate each of them on
their individual levels of argumentativeness.
Procedures

5
In order to compile the desired data, and reach quota fulfillment, both digital and tangible
means will be used. Digitally, a mass email will be composed aimed at all UWEC undergrads.
Each email will have an attachment containing a survey for subjects to reply with once
completed. Tangibly, specific professors will also be provided with printed (tangible) copies of
the same survey to distribute and collect from their students. The specific professors will be
randomly selected by cross referencing the population they teach with their ability to fulfill quota
criteria. Concerning timing, the mass email and printed copies will be distributed on November
17th
, 2014
To avoid violating subjects’ rights, and obtain informed consent, both the digital and
printed surveys will contain the following disclaimer: “By answering the questions below, a
group of your fellow students wishes to find a link between argumentativeness and social
intelligence. To accomplish this goal we are currently surveying as many of your peers (UWEC
freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) as possible. By the end, we wish to randomly select
results from 80 of you (20 freshmen, 20 sophomores, 20 juniors, and 20 seniors) (10 of the 20
being males, and the remaining 10 being females). You have been selected, because you fit this
criteria. All surveying will be concluded once this quota has been met. All those who fill out a
survey will remain anonymous. If you should have any reservations or objections during the
survey, feel free to leave it blank as you have no obligation to participate.” And after the subject
completes the survey, there will be an additional portion stating: “By checking this box ____ you
have consented to the use of your answers to the above questions.”
To ensure quota fulfillment, each survey will also include questions regarding the
subject’s grade and gender to be filled out below the disclaimer, and above the remaining survey

6
questions. Once met, the first 80 submissions to fulfill the quota will be tallied and analyzed.
Ultimately, the resulting analysis will then be compared to the original hypothesis: “An increase
in argumentativeness causes a decrease in social intelligence.”

7
References
Albrecht, Karl (2004). “Theory of Social Intelligence.” Theory of Social Intelligence. Karl
Albrecht International, 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness.
Journal Of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72.

8
Appendix A
Simple Question Method
1. Do you think you are more of an introvert, or an extrovert in your social environment?
a. Introvert b. Extrovert c.Bit of both
2. Do you, personally, prefer a big group of good friends or a group of maybe two or
three best friends?
a. Big group b. Two to three best friends c.Other
3. Do you prefer big get togethers (parties) or smaller more intimate get togethers in a
social setting?
a. Big get togethers b. Intimate parties c.Bit of both
4. Do you believe that you are good at judging the emotional state of people in a social
environment?
a. Yes b. No c. Not Sure

9
Appendix B
Likert Scale
1. It is important to express your personal beliefs.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
2. I enjoy discussing controversial issues.
3. I enjoy engaging myself in communication situations.

10
Appendix C
Likert Type Scale
1. How likely are you to engage yourself in a communication situation?
Not Likely at all Not Likely Neutral Likely Extremely Likely
2. How likely are you to express your personal beliefs to other people?
Not Likely at all Not Likely Neutral Likely Extremely Likely

1
Manson
B.E.D.A.M.A.S.

2
Those who have low social intelligence may have a harder time noticing social cues. This may
lead to more argumentativeness. This topic struck interest because of the everyday experience of
dealing with peers who may be very argumentative. Does a person’s tendency to argue mean
that they are not socially intelligent? Does that person just like to give their opinion? Or does
passion and knowledge of a subject drive people to argue with their peers? This paper examines
the variables argumentativeness and social intelligence, and how the argumentativeness affects
social intelligence. The purpose of this paper is to explain how an increase in the level of
argumentativeness will show a decrease in social intelligence.
Literature Review
Argumentativeness
Rancer and Infante (1982) define argumentativeness as a trait which inclines an
individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to
verbally attack the positions of others on the same issue (Rancer and Infante, 1982). Another
aspect of argumentation is it involves attacking the positions that others take on given issues.
Since the beginning of time, argumentativeness has been an essential skill for success and
survival. Early scholars such as Lysias, Hippias, Plato and Aristotle taught principles of
constructive argumentation (Rancer and Infante 1982). The central purpose of argumentation is
to, “enable people to argue effectively.” Constructive argumentation is crucial is many aspects of
daily life. Argumentation is vital in a democracy, the judicial and legislative institutions of the
United States and also public and private societies (Rancer and Infante, 1982). A concept that is

3
often used synonymously as argumentation but not represented in this study is verbal aggression.
Verbal aggression is defined as, "attacking the self-concept of another person instead of, or
in addition to, the person's position on a topic of communication" (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p.
61).
The trait of argumentation is a result of “competing approach-avoidance motivations that
are activated because arguing inherently involves motivation and low on avoidance.” This
model is represented by the equation ARGgt=ARGgp-ARGav. In this equation, ARGgt is the
general trait of argumentativeness. The general trait or level of argumentation is equal to the
difference of a person’s tendency to approach arguments (ARGap) and their tendency to avoid
arguments (ARGgt). People who have a high tendency to approach arguments feel excitement
and no inhibition to argue or any tendencies to avoid arguments. People who have a tendency to
avoid arguments receive no excitement from argumentation and strong inhibitions to argue. This
model of argumentation also includes factors of the situation. This involves a person’s
probability and the importance of success and failure to create argumentativeness in a particular
situation (Rancer and Infante, 1982).
Argumentation produces various effects. Some possible effects of a high level of
argumentation are that other people will have a much better understanding and knowledge of
what he/she believes on a given topic. Also, if someone is a constructive and successful arguer,
they will be able to persuade others to believe their own viewpoints. Someone who has a low
level of argumentation will not have his/her viewpoints and beliefs regarding certain issues heard
due to the fact that they will not want to put themselves in an uncomfortable position.
Social Intelligence

4
Social intelligence, as defined by Salopek a contributor to Trend, is “the ability to get
along well with others and to get them to cooperate with you” (Salopek, 2004). The social skills,
self-awareness, and interaction style of a person determines and leads to their level of social
intelligence (Salopek, 2004). As discussed by Salopek (2004) Karl Albrecht, management
consultant and author, uses a model to measure social intelligence. This model includes
presence, meaning how you affect others through your body language, how you physically
appear, and your mood; authenticity, meaning how honest or manipulative you are; clarity,
meaning how clearly you convey messages of your thoughts, opinions, intentions and ideas; and
lastly, empathy, meaning how much you take others’ feelings into consideration (Salopek, 2004).
The interaction style of a person (bossy, energized, diplomatic, or lonely) and how much social
energy (low level or high level) that person has along with how task or people driven that person
is also effects the social intelligence of a person.
A person’s level of social intelligence can affect how they communicate with others, the
amount of social interaction they take part in, how others perceive them, and other factors that
include getting along with others on a daily basis. Some effects are: how easily a person gains
others social endorsement, how a person presents what they would like to communicate, gaining
credibility from others, and how well a person minimizes tension and maximizes understanding
(Salopek, 2004).
Linking of Social Intelligence and Argumentativeness
Our group decided that in linking our two variables our hypothesis pertains to the
negative correlations between them. According to Lopes, Salovey, and Cote (2009), “Emotion
regulation can influence social interaction through several mechanisms.” Our research project
focuses on social intelligence/interaction with the mechanism of argumentativeness. That in

5
being argumentative, a person would have a lower social intelligence than that of those who are
shy and far more observant in a social environment. It was also considered that
argumentativeness could be a positive enhancement to someone’s social intelligence, but as a
collective we believed it to be the opposite. By being an argumentative person, one is failing in
picking up social and emotional queues of those around them, and in that they refuse to
understand the ideas and feelings of others. In Salopek’s article (2004) on social intelligence,
certain attributes pertain to how good a person is at communicating in any social environment.
These attributes discussed by Salopek (2004) describe a person’s presentation toward others in
effective communication, their competence or willingness to take responsibility for a group and
feedback which refers to someone’s ability to maximize understanding and minimize tension. If
someone is argumentative, one could agree that they lose these traits because of the headstrong
ideas that a person may have. In presentation, communication could get lost because others in a
social environment may not get to communicate when there is no room for their opinion. In
competence, someone who is argumentative may always believe their opinion is the only
legitimate opinion and forget to listen to other individual's opinions. This may cause that
individual to not take responsibility for an idea of theirs that may be false. In feedback, by
arguing a point consistently and leaving no room for response, tension is bound to arise and
people may become offended by this person’s lack of understanding.
An individual could always try and put themselves and their thoughts first because
they’re so passionate about their own agenda, that they miss the thoughts of those other
individuals in their social environment. Therefore, this would create tension when connecting
with others, because if someone fails on picking up important social cues while they’re too busy
putting their point in front of someone else’s, then they lose that connection to their peers.

6
Overall, we believe that when looking at the statistics the effect argumentativeness has on social
intelligence we would see a strong negative correlation.
Conclusion
After a thorough investigation of both variables and their relationship, we found whether an
increase in argumentativeness causes a decrease in social intelligence. The hypothesis that we
investigated is as follows: Argumentativeness causes a decrease in social intelligence. In order
to validate this claim, we first discussed each variable as a separate entity. This discussion
included a definition of that variable, its causes and effects, and a summary of any pertinent
research we collected regarding that variable. Following these discussions, an argument was
synthesized involving both variables, our research, and the common denominators linking them
to our hypothesis.

7
References
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness.
Journal Of Personality Assessment,46(1), 72.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and
measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion Regulation
Abilities and the Quality of Social Interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113-118.
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.11
Salopek, J. (2004). Social Intelligence. Trends.

1
Research Study: Does Argumentativeness Have a Negative Effect on Social Intelligence?
Manson
B.E.D.A.M.A.S.
December, 12th 2014

2
Results
Our group attempted to answer whether or not there is a relationship between
argumentativeness and social intelligence. We predicted a negative relationship would exist
between the two; meaning argumentativeness would cause a decrease in social intelligence. We
focused on a test of association and used a standard of .05 to test for significance. The research
question and hypothesis were answered using the survey method. We used quota sampling,
including the simple question method as well as Likert and Likert-Type scales. Surveys were
distributed via mass-email to students at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
In our findings of our research, it was hypothesized that the two variables would correlate
on a negative scale together; once we tested their likeness amongst UWEC communication
students we found this to be the opposite from our hypothesis. In our results, it was apparent that
many students preferred and liked to argue their own personal beliefs and ideas among their
peers. For our central tendency that we found, we expressed the mode of our research as Mo on
our result scale in the table below represented as 1,2, and 3. Everything else, like the decimal
numbers, represented in our results is the mean of the research. Not only do students want to
create a good social argumentative approach among their classmates, to better understand them
on a socially intelligent scale, but that their need to argue and validate their point was also on
also high scale as well; When asked whether or not UWEC students found it important to express
their beliefs when communicating with others, 53.85% responded that they agree, and 49.48%
responded that they were likely to do so.

3
The research is significant in that it gave our group a chance to rethink the hypothesis and
understand how these two variables are alike. In seeing these trends, we determined that the
students of UWEC would prefer to voice their beliefs and be heard, and that in doing so it does
not at all create a hostile environment. Rather, an environment that helps to get a better
understanding of others in a social scale is created, which then plays on social intelligence. You
could also determine in our findings, correlations between female and male parts of the
experiment. A higher percentage of respondents were of the female gender. This is significant
in our findings, it portrays a certain rift between genders in a social setting.
Our hypothesis stated that an increase in the level of argumentativeness would show a
decrease in social intelligence. Additionally, our group decided that in linking the two variables-
-argumentativeness and social intelligence--our hypothesis would convey a negative correlation.
Our data refuted this hypothesis; 80% of individuals that claimed to be extroverted answered that
they are good at judging the emotional state of people in a social environment and 60.71% of
those individuals answered that they are extremely likely to engage themselves in a situation
involving communication. On top of these statistics, 67.74% answered they are likely to express
personal beliefs to others. Of the individuals who answered yes to the survey question regarding
if they believe that they are good at judging the emotional state of people in a social
environment, 58.33% agreed that it is important to express your personal beliefs when
communicating with others; 50% said that they are likely to express those personal beliefs.
These results show a positive relationship between our two variables. Based on our data, we
reject our hypothesis.
Discussion

4
When looking at our different variables, our group interpreted that extraversion showed a
strong correlation between argumentativeness and social intelligence. Through this, we were
able to interpret a positive relationship in the two variables from survey questions with higher
responses of “agree,” “strongly agree,” “likely,” “extremely likely,” and “yes.” When the
response percentage was not higher, there was not enough of a difference to be significant. Our
results show that argumentativeness and social intelligence parallel each other and tend to
represent a positive relationship. In our literature review we discussed an article by Salopek
(2004) on social intelligence. It stated that certain attributes pertain to how good a person is at
communicating in any social environment. We had originally used this research to support our
hypothesis, which we have now rejected. We theorized that when an individual is argumentative
they lose certain traits of social intelligence. However, our research does not support that
statement. Based on our survey results, argumentativeness is an attribute that appears to have a
positive effect on how good a person is at communicating in social environments.
In accordance with our hypothesis, the expectation from the beginning of this study was
that an increase in argumentativeness would cause a decrease in social intelligence. In other
words, there is a negative relationship between the two. Conversely, our findings indicated that
argumentativeness and social intelligence actually had a positive relationship.
Concerning internal validity, there are four alternate explanations that could have
contributed to these unexpected results. They are as follows: Some other variable affected our
subjects’ responses, an environmental factor affected our subjects’ responses, a procedural error
disrupted our ability to collect data, or a defective measurement tool disrupted our ability to
collect data. Additionally, we did not conduct a pilot to refine our protocol and procedures. In

5
combination, these flaws had an adverse effect on our study’s internal validity. Without
causation, it is impossible to conclude that argumentativeness has any effect on social
intelligence, positive or negative. As for external validity, we chose to conduct a non-probability
sample with a quota sample attached to it. Given that the probability of selecting subjects from
our population was unequal or unknown, it is also impossible to conclude that our results were
representative of that population as a whole.
In summation, both our internal and external validity were insufficient for establishing
causation between our variables, and generalizability to our population. However, our results did
indicate a correlation between the two. Further research based on a positive--rather than
negative--relationship between argumentativeness and social intelligence may prove to be more
telling of their overall relationship. If one were to do so, step one would be to conduct a pilot.
Step two would be to select a probability sample, rather than non-probability sample. Both of
these steps would aid in improving the internal validity, external validity, and overall usefulness
of future research.

6
References
Salopek, J. (2004). Social Intelligence. Trends

ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Similar to ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE (20)

More from Erin Bosman

More from Erin Bosman (20)

ARGUMENTATIVENESS’ EFFECT ON SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE