Chapter 7 Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, and Persuasion

Compliance-gaining involving argumentative behavior When attempting to persuade others, we: Argue to support advocated position Argue to refute others’ positions The manner by which comm occurs affects

Verbally aggressive comm If force is applied symbolically to dominate, damage, defeat, or destroy the “locus of attack” Bad versus good aggression

4 aspects of Aggression Assertiveness Direct, defend rights/interests Argumentativeness Tend to approach/avoid argument Hostility Irritability, negativity, resentment, suspicion Verbal aggressiveness Transference, disdain, social learning, skill deficiency

Causes Psychopathology Disdain Social learning/Parental reinforcement Self-esteem Inherited trait/Genetics Excessive activation Inadequate skills

High Aggressives Desensitized to hurt they cause Do not view VA messages same as others Reasons: Disdain for target Desire to be mean Eagerness to appear tough Involvement in disc that turn into verbal fights

Situational Factors rather than trait position Can be joint product Motivation to argue is determined by trait argumentativeness and perception of likeliness to succeed and how important that is to the person

TRA versus interactionist Neither better at predicting argumentative intentions Actually TRA worse at predicting motiv to argue

Beliefs about arguing Hostility Activity/process interaction Control/dominance Self-image Learning Skill

H/M/L argumentatives Different pcpns of 2 functions of arguing Cultivation Antagonism

Transactional Approach Ind’s personality affects own & others behavior Mutual influence emphasized Both levels of argumentativeness may affect # of arguments and extent of one yielding to the other’s position

Processing Persuasion Hample & Dalliner – 4 categories of cognitive editing (why we reject arguments) Effectiveness Principled objections Person-centered issues Discourse competence

Need for cognition (Mongeau, 1989) Enjoyment derived from engaging in effortful info processing

Kinney and Segrin (1998) Ability to process info Sensitivity to feedback Beliefs about selves

Aggressive Comm & Resistance H argumentatives more likely to develop counterarguments Willing and may enjoy it

Displaying Aggression in Pers 2 communicator styles Affirming Nonaffirming

Persuasion in Organizations Supervisors should be: Highly argumentative Low VA with affirming comm style Encourage expression over controversial views Leads to higher credibility and as more constructive persuasion styles