Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, and Relational Satisfaction in the Parliamentary Debate Dyad

This study explores the interconnected/less between argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and relational satisfaction in the intercollegiate parliamentary debate dyad. The method used to conduct this research includes an adapted version of Infante & Rancer’s Argumentativeness Scale, Infante & Wigley’s Verbal Aggressiveness Scale, and Wheeless’s Interpersonal Solidarity Scale. Some of the more note worthy results are as follows: Self-report survey data from 89 intercollegiate parliamentary debaters indicate that debaters with similar levels of argumentativeness have high levels of relational satisfaction. Competitors in our study who chose their debate partner reported lower levels of verbal aggressiveness and higher levels of perceived partner argumentativeness than those who did not choose their partner. This research can be used by coaches and instructors alike when assigning debate partnerships on their forensics teams or in their classrooms. Forensics competition is a rhetorical institution in which students are trained to argue effectively. School participation in intercollegiate parliamentary debate has been on the rapid rise for some time now (Bingle, 1978; Crossman, 1996), and schools are continuously looking to expand their parliamentary debate programs (Dittus, 1998; Kuster, Olson & Loging, 2001). One of the primary goals of communication education is to equip students with the ability to communicate and to argue effectively (Dannels, 2001). Research shows that one of the most positive traits of an effective communicator is argumentativeness, whereas one of the most negative traits is verbal aggressiveness (Anderson & Martin, 1999; Beatty, Zelley, Dobos, & Rudd, 1994; Infante, Riddle Horvath, & Tumlin 1992; & Martin & Anderson, 1997). For instance, communication research has indicated a link between high levels of verbal aggressiveness and low levels of relational satisfaction (Anderson & Martin, 1999). Specifically, Teven, Martin, and Neupauer (1998) concluded that verbal aggressiveness makes a significant, detrimental impact on sibling relationships and how siblings communicate. In this study, we are interested in discovering the associations between argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and relational satisfaction in parliamentary debaters. Distinctions between Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness It is important to understand how argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness affect debaters. We can start by making the distinction between these two concepts that people tend to mistakenly conflate. Martin 2 Parliamentary Debate & Anderson (1997) explained that verbal aggressiveness is destructive, whereas argumentativeness is constructive. Moreover, “verbally aggressive individuals attack the self concepts of others, attempting to cause psychological pain” (Infante and Wigley, 1986 as cited in Daly, 2002 p. 150). This idea is supported by Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds (1984) when they explained that “Infante and Rancer.conceptualized argumentativeness as a personality trait which predisposes an individual to recognize controversial issues, to advocate positions on them, and to refute other positions. In contrast, in their model, verbal aggressiveness is a personality trait which leads one to attack the self-concept of others instead of, or in addition to, refuting their positions on issues” (P.68). Daly (2002) explained that a vast amount of scholarship has been conducted on argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Since verbal aggressiveness has been determined to be such an undesirable trait, it is imperative to explore some of the reasons highly verbally aggressive people behave in this manner. Verbal Aggressiveness The reasons that verbally aggressive people give for being verbally aggressive seem to put the blame on others for their behavior. While these can be valid reasons, they are not always the root of verbal aggressiveness. “Reasons people give for being verbally aggressive include reciprocity and socializationbeing taught to be verbally aggressive” (Infante, et al., 1992; Martin, Anderson, & Horvath, 1996, as cited in Martin & Anderson, 1997 p. 303). The most commonly given reasons by people who are high in trait verbal aggressiveness were wanting to appear tough, being in rational discussions that degenerate into verbal fights, wanting to be mean to the message receiver and wanting to express disdain for the message receiver (Infante, et al, 1992). People who are verbally aggressive tend to blame society or say that they were countering the attack of someone else. Alternatively, Infante (1989) explained that the four feasible reasons for verbal aggressiveness— psychopathology, disdain, social learning, and argumentative skill deficiency—may or may not be inherently linked. Looking at these possible reasons can help us better understand the verbal aggressiveness that is encountered in debaters’ relationships with their partners. Infante (1987) helped to categorize verbal aggressiveness by explaining that it comes about as a part of hostility, which is an intrinsic aspect of personality. Infante’s categorization is supported by the findings of McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond (2001), who assert that both neurotic introverts and psychotics tend to report high levels of verbal aggressiveness. It has been explained that “there are numerous types of verbally aggressive messages. : character attacks, competence attacks, insults, maledictions, teasing, ridicule, profanity, and nonverbal emblems” (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 61). Additionally, Infante et al. (1992) explained that: Parliamentary Debate 3 High verbal aggressives can be distinguished: (1) by their more frequent use of competent attacks, teasing, swearing, and nonverbal emblems; (2) by their beliefs in the less hurtful nature of competence attacks, physical appearance attacks, and threats; (3) by their reasons for being verbally aggressive which include wanting to appear tough, wanting to be mean to the message target, having disdain for the receiver, and being unable to keep a rational discussion from degenerating into a verbal fight (p. 125). Generally, scholars agree that verbal aggressiveness is a negative trait. There is a vast body of literature about this trait (e.g., Infante et al, 1992, Anderson & Martin, 1999, and Beatty, Zelley, Dobos, & Rudd, 1994). For instance, Edwards, Bello, Brandau-Brown, and Hollems (2001) found that when presented with ambiguous messages, people high in verbal aggressiveness are more likely to perceive them as negative messages, and are more likely to have difficulty communicating. The authors also noted that it is possible that people high in verbal aggressiveness may not perceive difficulty in communication. They may achieve their communicative goals while it is the partner in the interaction who feels the difficulty. Levels of verbal aggressiveness strongly influence interpersonal interaction. Verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness differ in a number of ways. For example, Ifert and Bearden (1998) concluded that verbally aggressive individuals reported a greater number of non-evidentiary appeals than evidentiary appeals, meaning that they were more likely to make a statement or a claim and not back it up with any support. They also concluded that argumentative individuals were more likely to use evidentiary appeals, meaning that they were more likely to back up a claim they made with some type of support. In further support of this conceptual distinction, Infante et al. (1984) found that people who are highly argumentative are less likely to use verbal aggressiveness when confronting an obstinate opponent than are people who are moderate and low in argumentative skill. The research also showed that when an opponent was adaptable, males were more likely than females to use verbal aggressiveness; however, when the opponent was obstinate, males and females were about equally as likely to use verbally aggressive messages. In addition, Infante (1989) built upon this idea by conducting a study which yielded four different findings. First, it suggested that people who are highly argumentative may be able to influence whether people are the recipient of argumentativeness or verbal aggressiveness. Second, the female subjects in this study preferred to use argumentativeness, whereas men more often used verbal aggressiveness. Third, this study resulted in the idea that a highly argumentative female and a highly argumentative male are both as likely to be the target of verbal aggressiveness. Finally, overall, the subjects preferred argumentative strategies over verbally aggressive strategies. Moreover, Infante et al. (1992) indicated that people high in trait verbal aggressiveness are more likely to use competence attacks, teasing, nonverbal emblems, and 4 Parliamentary Debate swearing. They also indicated that people high in verbal aggressiveness perceive some verbally aggressive messages as less hurtful than do those who are low in verbal aggressiveness. Infante, Myers, and Burkel (1994) found that more argumentative behavior and less verbally aggressive behavior are perceived in situations where the outcome is constructive. They also concluded that the observers perceived more verbal aggressiveness in family situations than in organizational settings. Additionally, Infante, Rancer, and Jordan (1996) found that when a legitimate argument is accompanied by nonaffirming messages, it is perceived as less argumentative. They also noted that although male and female dyads were equal in their levels of argumentativeness, male dyads were identified as being more argumentative. Anderson and Martin (1999) found that people who are more argumentative perceive receivers of their messages as more satisfied with their communication. They also suggest that people with higher levels of argumentativeness may feel a need to argue freely. If they are allowed to do this, they will develop more pos