Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management

Andrew S. Rancer, Roberta L. Kosberg, Robert A. Baukus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Scopus citations

Abstract

Previous research suggests that altering predispositions toward communication may be an effective prerequisite in training efforts that emphasize communication skill development. Utilizing a theoretical framework that maintains that a predisposition is controlled by a set of beliefs, this study sought to (a) identify beliefs about arguing that could explain variance in argumentativeness, and (b) determine beliefs that discriminate individuals who vary in the trait. Five composite beliefs about arguing (enjoyment, self-concept, pragmatic outcomes, dysfunctional outcomes, and ego-involvement) were found to explain significant variance in underlying motivation to argue and to discriminate between individuals who vary in the predisposition. Implications of the identification and use of these beliefs for communication pedagogy and curriculum design in argumentation and conflict management courses are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)375-387
Number of pages13
JournalCommunication Education
Volume41
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 1992

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Communication
  • Education
  • Language and Linguistics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this