1. Running head: ARGUMENTATIVENESS 1
Argumentativeness in Relation to Communication Apprehension and Gender
Katherine Anderson, Elise Skaggs, Erica Stonehill, Blaire Wilson
Miami University

2. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 2
Abstract
While there is research supporting a connection between verbal aggression and both
communication apprehension and argumentativeness, there is a gap connecting communication
apprehension and argumentativeness directly. Over the course of a week, 80 students at Miami
University were surveyed and filled out both the Argumentativeness Scale for Trait
Argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982) and the Communication Apprehension Instrument
(McCroskey, 1984). Findings conclude a partially supported alternative hypothesis, with a
positive correlation between Communication Apprehension and Argumentativeness and a
significant difference in gender in terms of argumentativeness (with males being more
argumentative than females). This reinforces previous research that men are more argumentative
than women but contradicts the previously assumed negative correlation between
Communication Apprehension and Argumentativeness, opening a window for further research in
this field to explain the phenomena.
Introduction
It is common among laypersons to assign a negative connotation to the term
“argumentativeness.” Often it is equated with verbal aggression and seen as the product of an
anxious, defensive personality. Many studies have found that verbal aggression is positively
correlated to communication apprehension and negatively correlated to argumentativeness, but
there is a gap in the research literature concerning how argumentativeness is related to
communication apprehension. Studying this relationship will further flesh out the differences
between verbal aggression, an exclusively negative trait, and argumentativeness, which is often
seen as a beneficial skill by communication researchers. Socialization Theory may be able to
explain trends seen not only in the relationship between communication apprehension and
argumentativeness, but also between sex and argumentativeness.
Literature Review
Socialization Theory
Socialization Theory is a multifaceted concept which explains how societal and social
groups serve to mold the beliefs and behaviors of the members of those groups. In particular,
gender socialization focuses on how children come to understand and emulate culturally defined
gender roles.
Gender development is considered to be a fundamental issue because some extremely
important aspects of people’s lives are heavily dominated by societal gender-typing (Kay &
Bandura, 1999). Gender differentiation has additional importance in a societal context because
there are attributes in both genders that are selectively promoted as well as roles that are
selectively promoted according to gender. Attributes given to males, such as assertiveness and
dominance, are typically regarded as being more desirable, effectual, and of higher status
(Berscheid, 1993). There might be some gender differences due to biological factors, but most of
the stereotypic attributes within genders can be linked to cultural design (Bandura, 1986).
The primary agents of such gender socialization are the family, religion, day care, and the
school and peer groups (Henslin, 1999). These agents serve to define which beliefs and
behaviors are appropriate and expected for men and women and can consequently influence the
expression of argumentativeness among the genders. Men have been shown to behave with more
argumentativeness than women (Darius, 1994).
Key aspects of socialization theory include environmental factors. An individual’s

3. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 3
perception of control in his or her environment can affect argumentativeness and communication
apprehension. High levels of perceived internal control are positively related to
argumentativeness and negatively related to communication apprehension (Yamazaki, 2006).
Those with high levels of external control had higher communication apprehension and had
lower argumentativeness (Yamazaki, 2006). This implies a possible connection between trait
argumentativeness and communication apprehension, as well as a scenario in which
argumentativeness can increase simultaneously as communication apprehension levels decrease.
Factors related to socialization theory certainly affect one’s perceived level of internal and
external control, and thus can ultimately affect both one’s levels of argumentativeness and
communication apprehension.
Another significant aspect of socialization is group socialization. This is the socialization
pressure put on individuals not because of gender, but because of the social groups in which they
live and work. Examples of groups which can exert strong group socialization pressures are work
organizations, religious groups, and school groups. Although group socialization pressures can
both be a product of and create pressures for gender roles, they are ultimately the product of the
goals and values of the group (Henslin, 1999).
Argumentativeness
Argumentativeness is a “trait which predisposes the individual in communication
situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions which
other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72). This is not to be confused
with verbal aggression, which manifests not as a focus on the issues, but a focus on making
personal attacks against one’s perceived adversary.
Although Infante and Rancer claim that the argumentativeness scale describes behavioral
tendencies, in reality it assesses cognitive tendencies and personal identity. It was found that
scores on the argumentativeness scale did not correlate with observations of argumentative
behavior (Kotowski, Levine, Baker, & Bolt, 2009). Instead, the scale corresponds more strongly
with self-report measures. In Infante and Rancer’s conceptual definition of argumentativeness,
communication behavior is a key component. That is, the more argumentative a person is, the
more likely he or she is to argue. Predictive and convergent validity for such a scale require
evidence that an individual’s argumentativeness score corresponds to actual behaviors that define
the construct. Because this evidence is absent, validity cannot be presumed (Kotowski et al.,
2009). The assertions that the scale measures behaviors are invalid because a behavior cannot be
concluded from a hypothetical message (Kotowski et al., 2009).
It should be noted that argumentativeness and verbal aggression have been found to be
logically incoherent and lack empirical correspondence with research findings (Levine,
Kotowiski, Beatty, & Van Kelegom, 2012). In fact, some studies support the assertion that verbal
aggression is a product of lacking argumentative skill, as those who score high on
argumentativeness are more difficult to provoke into verbal aggression (Infante, Trebing,
Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984).
Unfortunately, the concepts of argumentativeness and verbal aggression are often
equated, which can affect how one responds to the questions on the argumentativeness scale
(Nicotera, 1996). Because the scale is a self-assessment of personal identity, scores are readily
affected by participant’s perceptions of himself or herself and his or her desired self. Although it
has been found that men score higher on argumentativeness than women (Infante, 1981), it has
also been determined that women see argumentativeness as socially undesirable for their gender,
which skews their argumentativeness rating lower (Nicotera, 1996). Men, however, do not

4. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 4
experience such pressures. Men also view women’s increased argumentativeness less favorably
than women view other women’s heightened argumentativeness (Infante, 1985). This difference
may be a product of gender socialization, as girls are socialized to be passive and supportive, and
boys are socialized into dominance (Henslin, 2007, p. 161).
Other inconsistencies in the argumentativeness scale exist as well, including its
dimensionality. Because scores on the argumentativeness scale that measure the tendency to
avoid are subtracted from scores that measure the tendency to approach, one would presume that
the scale itself is unidimensional (in order to validly subtract). The original theoretical view
stated by Infante et al. interprets the two dimensions but also scores the scale as one dimension
(because of the subtraction from of one scale from the other), making it logically incoherent
(Kotowski et al., 2009). In addition, the argumentativeness scale contains situational and trait
behaviors. A trait “is a relatively stable tendency or predisposition to respond in a particular
manner over time and across situations” (Kotowski et al., 2009). Argumentativeness is
conceptually defined as a behavioral trait, and a construct cannot at the same time be both trait
and situation dependent (Kotowski et al., 2009).
Argumentativeness has been found to be negatively associated with age and positively
associated with higher levels of education (Schullery & Schullery, 2003). This education effect is
also found to be stronger in men than women. Pursuing higher education is a likely effector of
personality development, and higher education is expected to exert a moderating effect on the
argumentativeness trait. In people with high base levels of argumentativeness, an increased
education does not significantly affect their argumentativeness scores. However, those with low
base levels of argumentativeness do experience an increase in the trait as education increases
(Schullery & Schullery, 2003). These findings lead to the conclusion that argumentativeness can
be a learned trait.
There are other connections between argumentativeness and education as well. It was
found that college students who scored high in argumentativeness were more likely to have
received training in argumentation (Infante, 1982). Argumentative behavior in groups such as
debate and speech teams is highly valued and group socialization for those involved in
argumentation training is a powerful force encouraging argumentative tendencies.
Communication Apprehension
Communication apprehension is “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with
either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977b, p.
78). High communication apprehension (CA) can potentially inhibit the development of an
individual’s communication confidence and skill and vice versa, whereas low CA can facilitate
the development of communication competence and skill (McCroskey, 1984). CA is viewed as
an attitude that presents itself within an individual’s behavior (McCroskey, 1977b), and behavior
is in part determined by the socialization of those around us, according to the group socialization
theory (Harris, 1995).
There is a lack of research as to how trait-like communication apprehension is acquired,
but some believe it to be the result of reinforcement patterns in an individual’s environment,
especially during childhood, that will lead to dominant communication apprehension factors
(McCroskey & Beatty, 2006). If a child is punished for communication, they are likely to
develop a more self-deprecating perspective towards communication (Beatty, Plax, & Payne,
1984). Thus, if a child is reinforced for communicating, it is likely they will have low
communication anxiety (Daly & Friedrich, 1981). The other view of how trait-communication
apprehension is acquired is an inconsistency in reward and punishment for communicating

5. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 5
because the child cannot predict what will follow their behavior and they feel helpless in their
environment (McCroskey & Beatty, 2006).
Gender Roles
Gender differences have been shown between men and women concerning
argumentativeness. Males have a tendency to score higher than women in verbal aggression and
argumentativeness (Nicotera & Rancer, 1994). In self-reports, men still scored higher than
women in argumentativeness. In the report authored by Nicotera and Rancer, men and women
stereotyped gender roles the same way, concluding that men would be more argumentative than
women. This is partly due to societal condition, which is that men may be expected to be more
competitive and assertive than females making it a more appropriate social behavior for males to
be argumentative (Infante, 1982). It is hypothesized that the social perception of how men and
women should behave in their gendered roles is the reason for the difference over biological
instinct (Jordan-Jackson, Lin, Rancer, & Infante, 2008). Thus, women tend to try and fill their
social role that is oriented towards compassion rather than argumentativeness to detract from
negative social perception (Nicotera & Rancer, 1994). This will lead to a higher statistic of trait
argumentativeness in males than females as each gender tries to fill their stereotyped social role.
Argumentativeness is seen as a pro-social behavior with positive traits in the workplace.
Trait argumentativeness can be drawn from other factors such as motivation to achieve,
competition and leadership orientation (Infante, 1982). Credibility of higher argumentative
oriented individuals is higher than those who have lower, thus giving a more favorable social
perception to those who are argumentative (Infante, 1985). In Infante’s research, the perception
of credibility in women positively increased with argumentativeness. If argumentative women
are given greater credibility, there must be another force that suppresses this trait. When females
do have increased argumentativeness, it is often interpreted by males and females alike as verbal
aggression, a negative communication trait (Infante, Rancer, & Jordan, 1996). Even though
credibility increased, social perception could decrease as a violation of a woman’s expected role.
Hypothesis of Difference HO1- Men are more argumentative than women.
Hypothesis of Covariation HO2- As argumentativeness increases, communication apprehension
decreases.
Methods
Participants
Participants consisted of 29 male and 52 female individuals from a public university in
Ohio. All participants were at least 18 years old and attending Miami University. Reflective of
the survey site, our sample was dominated by Caucasian students between the ages of 18 and 24.
Procedure
Participants filled out both the Argumentativeness Scale for Trait Argumentativeness
(Infante & Rancer, 1982) and the Communication Apprehension Instrument (McCroskey, 1984).
To minimize selection bias, surveys were be given out at various locations at Miami
University, a public institution located in Oxford, OH. Surveys were given out during three
different time slots (9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
at the Farmer School of Business, Shriver, Bell Tower Place and King Library.
Measures
Trait Argumentativeness
The argumentativeness scale, developed by Infante and Rancer, measures the propensity
to seek out and avoid arguments (1982). There are 20 Likert-type items on the scale; 10 measure

6. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 6
the tendency to avoid arguments and 10 measure the tendency to approach arguments. The scale
anchors are almost never true (1) to almost always true (5), (M = 4.44; SD = 9.83; Cronbach’s
alpha for tendency to avoid = .86; Cronbach’s alpha for tendency to approach = .91 ). The
argumentativeness is also said to be unidimensional after removing problematic items
(Kotowski, Levine, Baker, & Bolt, 2009).
An independent t-test was conducted with gender as the independent variable to
determine if there was a significant difference between men’s and women’s argumentativeness.
Communication Apprehension
The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension was developed by McCroskey and
revised in 1978. It measures the anxiety one feels when faced with real or anticipated
communication events with one or more persons. It is a unidimensional Likert-type question
measure with 24 items anchored from never (1) to almost always (5) (M = 65.60; SD = 15.30;
Cronbach’s alpha = .97). The unidimensional scale has 6 questions each devoted to public-speaking,
speaking in small groups, speaking in meetings, and speaking in dyads (McCroskey,
1984).
CA emerged as a 20 Likert-type item scale by McCroskey, was revised to encompass 25
items, and was revised by McCroskey once more to include 24 items and enhance validity
(McCroskey, 1978). The measure is comprised of trait-like, generalized-context, person-group,
and situational. However, as focused on in this study, the whole of the measure is simply trait-like
communication apprehension which is “viewed as relatively enduring, personality-type
orientation toward oral communication across a wide variety of contexts” (McCroskey, 1984, p.
16).
Results
Hypothesis 1 predicted that men were more argumentative than women. Through our
independent sample t-test, it was found that men (M = 3.58; SD = 0.58) were significantly more
argumentative than women (M = 3.15; SD = 0.66): t(80) = 2.94, p < .01. We are 95% confident
that our claim would apply to the population.
Hypothesis 2 predicted a negative correlation between trait-like argumentativeness and
trait-like communication apprehension. A correlation was calculated and a moderate positive
correlation was found for trait-like argumentativeness and trait-like CA (r (79) = .561, p < .001).
We are 99.9% confidence that our claim of a moderate positive correlation between
argumentativeness and CA would apply to the population.
Discussion
Conclusion
The results indicate that males are more argumentative than females, so the null
hypothesis concerning gender is rejected. The hypothesis that there is a negative relationship
between argumentativeness and communication apprehension was partially supported; there is a
moderately strong positive correlation between trait argumentativeness and communication
apprehension. We can reject the null for the second hypothesis.
Implications
Despite relatively recent societal shifts that encourage more assertiveness from women in
the United States, there is still the pressure of social desirability that suppresses
argumentativeness in girls and women. Our findings recapitulate historical gender trends
propagated by socialization which will likely continue to influence this trait in future

7. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 7
generations.
The moderately strong positive correlation between argumentativeness and
communication apprehension indicates that as one’s trait argumentativeness increases, so too
does her communication apprehension. We expected this relationship to be the reverse based on
the negative relationship between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and the positive
relationship between verbal aggressiveness and communication apprehension. Our findings
suggest that communication apprehension levels cannot be used to differentiate between
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness.
There are a number of possible reasons for the positive relationship concluded between
argumentativeness and communication apprehension. Miami University as a source for samples
is fairly homogenous in terms of race and socioeconomic status. It may be that were our sample
more diverse, different trends would present themselves. Furthermore, while college education
tends to increase levels of argument in those who had low argumentativeness before higher
education, it may be that the high stress associated with college education results in increasing
communication apprehension as well. That is, it may be that the learning associated with
developing argumentativeness is also associated with communication apprehension.
Communication apprehension is a very common fear in the United States and is one that both
professionals and students experience to a great extent. As one develops argumentative skills and
gains a stronger grasp of her responsibilities in school and the workforce, apprehension about
these responsibilities will likely increase.
Future Research
To fully understand the relationship between argumentativeness and communication
apprehension, it would be beneficial to extend the study to other demographics such as other
universities and high schools as well as to those who did not go to college and those who have
graduated. We would like to conduct a similar study to determine which other variables may
differ between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, with possibilities being
communication satisfaction, communicative adaptability, and communicator competence as well
as others. We are also interested in investigating the basis for the comparatively low
argumentativeness in women. We would like to conduct a longitudinal study in which women
are consistently presented with media that sheds argumentative women in a positive light. We
would assess the subjects’ argumentativeness throughout the course of the study to determine if
consistent social support for argumentativeness will counteract the pressures of social
desirability and increase levels of argumentativeness in the test subjects. If so, we would like to
see how long these effects last after the supportive media is removed or limited.
Limitations
The proposed studies would benefit from reducing the errors associated with this study.
With limitations due to time and resources, all of our sampling consisted of volunteer sampling.
To make the research as unbiased as possible, locations such as Shriver Center and King Library
were targeted because they include a diverse population of age, education level and major.
However, it still was volunteer sampling so biases may occur in the type of person who took the
time to complete the survey.
Additionally, the Miami University population is not diverse in economic status,
education, race or background. The Miami University admissions office provided the
demographics for the accepted first-year class in fall of 2013. This information reflected 46.4
percent of the first-year class being from Ohio and 53.6 percent from other states. The incoming
class is composed of 53.5 percent women and 46.5 percent men. There are 13.4 percent domestic

8. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 8
students in this first-year class as well (First-year class profile). If these demographics hold true
for the other accepted classes, then this can show biases in our population sample. This could
affect overall results based on a limited view. Future studies would demand a more random
sampling style that is more representative of the population.
Despite these limitations, this study effectively supported the assertion that men are more
argumentative than women. It also revealed an interesting and surprising relationship between
argumentativeness and communication apprehension. Further study into these results will help us
understand how these differences and relationships develop and how they may be affected to the
benefit of the individual and society.

9. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 9
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beatty, M. J., Plax, T. G., & Tayne, S. K. (1984). Self-appraisal as a function of recollected
parental appraisal. Psychological Reports, 54, 269-270.
Berscheid, E. (1993). Forward. In A. E. Becall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of
gender (p. vii-xvii). New York: Guildord Press.
Daly, J. A., & Friedrich, G. (1981). The development of communication apprehension: A
retrospective analysis and contributing correlates. Communication Quarterly, 29, 243-
255.
Darus, H. J. (1994). Argumentativeness in the workplace: a trait by situation study.
Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 99-106.
First-year class profile: Accepted fall 2013. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://miamioh.edu/admission/admission/high-school/class-profile/index.html
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of
development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458-489.
Henslin, J. M. (2007). On becoming male: Reflections of a sociologist on childhood and early
socialization. In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Down to earth sociology: Introductory readings
(161-172). New York, NY: Free Press.
Henslin, J. M. (2012). Essentials of sociology: A down-to-earth approach (10th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior
in situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Communication Journal, 32, 265-
272.
Infante, D. A. (1982) The argumentative student in the speech communication classroom: An
investigation and implications. Communication Education, 31, 144-147.
Infante, D. A. (1985). Inducing women to be argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal
Applied Communication Research. 13(1), 33-44.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982) A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72. doi: 10.1177/0261927X11425037
Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Jordan, F. (1996). Affirming and nonaffirming style, dyad sex, and the
perception of argumentation and verbal aggression in an interpersonal dispute. Human
Communication Research, 22(3), 315-334.

10. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 10
Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of
argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50,
67-77.
Kay, B., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.106.4.676
Kotowski, M. R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C. R., & Bolt, J. M. (2009). A multitrait-multimethod
validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales.
Communication Monographs, 76(4), 443-462. doi:10.1080/03637750903300247
Levine, T. R., Kotowski, M. R., Beatty, M. J., & Van Kelegom, M. J. (2012). A meta-analysis of
trait–behavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggression. Journal Of
Language & Social Psychology, 31(1), 95-111. doi:10.1177/0261927X11425037
Jordan-Jackson, F. F., Lin, Y., Rancer, A. S., & Infante, D. A. (2008). Perceptions of males and
females’ use of aggressiveness affirming and non-affirming messages in interpersonal
dispute: You’ve come a long way baby? Western Journal of Communication. 72(3), 239-
258.
McCroskey, J. C. (1977b). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and
research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication
apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192-203.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. Communication, 12,
1-24.
McCroskey, J. C., Simpson, T. J., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Biological sex and communication
apprehension. Communication Quarterly. 30(2), 139-133.
McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (2006). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of
recent theory and research. Human communication research, 4(1), 78-96.
Nicotera, A. M. (1996). An assessment of the argumentativeness scale for social desirability
bias. Communication Reports, 9, 23-35. doi: 10.1080/08934219609367632
Nicotera, A., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). The influence of sex on self-perceptions and social
stereotyping of aggressive communication predispositions. Western Journal Of
Communication, 58(4), 283-307. doi:10.1080/10570319409374501
Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2003). Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher
Education. Western Journal Of Communication, 67(2), 207-223.

11. ARGUMENTATIVENESS 11
Yamazaki, M. (2006). The effect of self-construal and perceived control on approaching and
avoiding communication. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany (1-33).