This article was downloaded by: [Mount Royal University]On: 11 May 2013, At: 21:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

Argumentativeness and PoliticalParticipation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis inthe United States and TurkeyStephen Michael Croucher a , Rand Otten b , Meghan Ball b , TamaraGrimes b , Brett Ainsworth b , Kieran Begley b & Laci Corzo ba Department of Communication, University of Jyväskyläb School of Communication and the Arts, Marist CollegePublished online: 13 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Stephen Michael Croucher , Rand Otten , Meghan Ball , Tamara Grimes , BrettAinsworth , Kieran Begley & Laci Corzo (2013): Argumentativeness and Political Participation: A Cross-Cultural Analysis in the United States and Turkey, Communication Studies, 64:1, 18-32

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.727942

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Argumentativeness and PoliticalParticipation: A Cross-CulturalAnalysis in the United Statesand TurkeyStephen Michael Croucher, Rand Otten, Meghan Ball,Tamara Grimes, Brett Ainsworth, Kieran Begley, &Laci Corzo

This study is an examination of the relationship between argumentativeness and political

participation and the moderating effect of nationality on this relationship. Through a

survey analysis of 801 individuals in the United States (592) and Turkey (209), the

following was found: Americans are more argumentative than Turks, Turks participate

more in politics than Americans, argumentativeness and political participation are not

significantly correlated, and nationality does not significantly affect the relationship

between argumentativeness and political participation. Cultural differences between the

United States and Turkey are discussed as reasons for differences between the two nations

in argumentativeness and political participation.

Keywords: Argumentativeness; Hofstede; National Identity; Political Participation

There are various factors that contribute to an individual’s tendency to approach

and=or avoid arguments (Croucher, Oommen, Hicks, Holody, Anarbaeva, et al.,

2010; Infante & Rancer, 1982; Kim, Aune, Hunter, Kim, & Kim, 2001; Martin &

Anderson, 1996). Such examinations have included analyses of argumentativeness

Stephen Michael Croucher is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Jyvaskyla.

Rand Otten, Meghan Ball, Tamara Grimes, Brett Ainsworth, Kieran Begley, and Laci Corzo were all MA students

in the School of Communication and the Arts at Marist College during this project. Correspondence to: Stephen

Michael Croucher, Department of Communication, University of Jyvaskyla, Z-212, Jyvaskyla, Finland. E-mail:

Stephen.m.croucher@jyu.fi

Communication Studies

Vol. 64, No. 1, January–March 2013, pp. 18–32

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2013 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2012.727942

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

in conjunction with a multitude of variables, including verbal aggressiveness

(Roberto & Finucane, 1997; Weger, 2006), conflict (Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990),

self-construal (Kim et al., 2001), message response style (Neer, 1994), and public

issue arguments (Johnson, Becker, Wigley, Haigh, & Craig, 2007). Argumentativeness

is ‘‘a stable trait which predisposes an individual in communication situation(s) 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 study is an

attempt to add to argumentativeness scholarship by studying argumentativeness and

its relationship with one aspect of political communication: political participation.

Moreover, the study is an examination of the moderating effect of national culture

on this relationship.

A significant number of researchers have examined argumentativeness in cross-

cultural contexts. While the bulk of this argumentativeness research has been on

cross-cultural differences between American and East-Asian cultures (Avtgis &

Rancer, 2002; Hsu, 2007; Suzuki & Rancer, 1994), some research has explored

cross-cultural differences in other geographic regions. In an analysis of Britain,

France, and the United States, it was found that self-construal and nationality signifi-

cantly affected levels of argumentativeness (Croucher, Oommen, et al., 2010). In the

current study, argumentativeness is cross-culturally analyzed in two cultures: the

United States and Turkey. Political participation (Bennett & Bennett, 1986) is also

used to further account for differences in argumentativeness. Researchers have shown

a relationship between argumentativeness and political participation (Downs, Kaid,

& Ragan, 1990; Eveland, Morey, & Hutchens, 2011; Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan,

2005). A cross- cultural analysis may offer insight into how culture potentially

influences this relationship.

These two cultures have been chosen for analysis for the following reasons. First,

studying argumentativeness in a culture outside of the United States is an opportunity

to expand argumentativeness research. Second, the United States and Turkey differ in

levels of political participation, with Turkey generally being a more politically active

nation, with higher levels of voting, etc. (International IDEA, 2010). Third, the two

nations significantly differ on Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of culture, offering vari-

ous cultural points for comparison. However, unlike many Southeast Asian nations,

which have been heavily researched in intercultural and cross-cultural communi-

cation, Turkey (along with most other Mediterranean, European, and African nations)

has been ignored in cultural comparisons. Fourth, the nations—the United States as a

more individualistic nation and Turkey as a more collectivistic nation—differ in their

perceptions of what is considered ‘‘polite’’ conversation behavior, which could affect

an individual’s approach to argument (Culpeper, Marti, Mei, Nevala, & Schauer, 2010;

Daller & Yidiz, 2006). Fifth, the two nations differ in demographic traditions (the Uni-

ted States is a much older democracy than Turkey), and the nations differ in religious

demographics (Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, while the United States is religiously

diverse). Sixth, the limited research comparing Americans and Turks on argumenta-

tiveness reveals differences between the two nations. Generally, Turks prefer

mediation in conflicts and to avoid arguments, and Americans prefer direct

ARG and Politics 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

communication and to approach arguments (Kozan & Ergin, 1998). Seventh, this

analysis offers a chance to explore argumentativeness in conjunction with macro-

(nationality) and micro- (political participation) level variables.

Review of Literature

Cultural Differences Between the United States and Turkey

The existence of culture is a significant consideration for the communication disci-

pline because culture serves as a framework for an individual’s actions, thoughts,

and communication patterns. Hall (1959) explained, ‘‘culture controls behavior in

deep and persisting ways, many of which are outside of the awareness and beyond

conscious control of the individual’’ (p. 48). By exploring communication within

the context of culture, scholars can achieve an understanding of the cultural forces

at work. To understand these forces and to devise an inductive model for

understanding culture, Hofstede (2001) initially developed four levels of cultural

variability. These levels of cultural variability are a starting point for cultural com-

parison (Hofstede, 2001). The United States and Turkey differ on four levels: power

distance, individualism=collectivism, masculinity=femininity, and uncertainty avoid-

ance. A discussion of these dimensions separate of argumentativeness and political

participation is essential to better understand the overarching cultural differences

between the United States and Turkey.

Power distance reflects subordinates’ perceptions of their capacity for decision

making and dissent in the workplace. The designation of a high-Power Distance

Index (PDI) score suggests power structures are more hierarchical and less egali-

tarian. Turkey is a high-PDI country (Hofstede, 2001), while the United States is a

low-PDI country, signifying less hierarchy and perceptions of demarcated class

systems.

Individualism=collectivism refers to the spectrum on which individuals are

involved with society. The United States is the highest-ranking nation on Hofstede’s

(2001) measure of individualism, and scholars have consistently supported this find-

ing (Kapoor, Konsky, & Blue, 1997; Kapoor, Konsky, Blue, & Baldwin, 2000; Kapoor,

Wolfe, & Blue, 1995). Croucher, Oommen, et al. (2010) and Geertz (1973) argued the

abundant prevalence of Christianity in Western nations (like the United States) is

linked to individualism. Turkey, which is an overwhelmingly Muslim nation, has

been designated as more collectivistic.

Masculinity=femininity is the extent to which gender roles are specified in a

culture. In a masculine culture, gender roles are specified, while in a more feminine

culture, roles are flexible. Hofstede (1997) classified Turkey as collectivistic and

feminine; the United States was classified as masculine.

Uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which cultures attempt to control

their environment. It is associated with the enactment of rule structures, measures

of rigidity, and controls in response to the stress of uncertainty humans face.

Bureaucratic systems, political structures, and ‘‘technology, law and religion’’ are

the mediums utilized for moderating uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001, p. 147). Hofstede

20 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

classified the United States as a nation with weak uncertainty avoidance and Turkey

as a nation with strong uncertainty avoidance.

Argumentativeness

Argumentativeness is ‘‘a stable trait that predisposes an individual in communication

situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the

positions other people take on these issues’’ (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72). Total

argumentativeness is measured based on the difference between the tendency to

approach arguments (ARGAP) and the tendency to avoid arguments (ARGAV)

(Infante & Rancer, 1982).

Argumentativeness is linked to several variables: gender=sex (Darus, 1994; Infante,

1985; Infante & Gorden, 1985; Schullery, 1998), age (Schullery & Schullery, 2003),

leadership and competent communication (Infante, Anderson, Herington, & Kim,

1993; Martin & Anderson, 1996), romantic dyads (Payne & Sabourin, 1990; Rancer,

Baukus, & Amato, 1986; Weger, 2006), self-construals (Croucher, Oommen, et al.,

2010; Kim et al., 2001; Kim, Tasaki, Kim, & Lee, 2007), and political communication

and public issues (Downs et al., 1990; Johnson et al., 2007). While the bulk of argu-

mentativeness research has been conducted in the United States, considerable

research has been conducted outside of the United States. Scholars conducting

argumentativeness research outside of the United States (between U.S. and East-

Asian cultures) often consider the influence of cultural context (high=low) and

individualism=collectivism on argumentativeness. Most have found U.S. participants

are more likely to approach arguments, while participants from East-Asian cultures

are more likely to avoid arguments (Avtgis & Rancer, 2002; Becker, 1986; Hsu,

2007; Klopf, Thompson, & Sallinen-Kuparinen, 1991; Suzuki & Rancer, 1994).

In an analysis of Muslims and Christians, Muslims were found to be less argumen-

tative than Christians (Croucher, Oommen, et al., 2010). The authors attributed this

result to differences in levels of individualism and context between the average Muslim

and Christian. Rancer, Baukus, and Infante (1985), and Hsu (2007) stated that to

develop our understanding of argumentativeness it is imperative to understand not just

differences between groups but to relate those differences to other constructs. Kozan

and Ergin (1998) found in their cross-cultural study of conflict and argument between

the United States and Turkey that Turkish subjects prefer mediation in conflict and

generally avoid arguments=conflict, whereas American subjects generally prefer direct

communication and are more likely to approach conflict=arguments. Kozan and Ergin

(1998) andMetcalf, Bird, Shankarmahesh, Aycan, Larimo, and Valdlamar (2006) urged

further research comparing communicative traits between the United States and

Turkey to better understand this unstudied cultural relationship. Thus, based upon

the findings about Muslims and Christians, and the previously defined cultural differ-

ences between the United States and Turkey, we pose the following hypothesis:

H1: American participants will be more likely to approach arguments thanTurkish participants.

ARG and Politics 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

Political Participation

Bennett and Bennett (1986) explained that political participation is a term without

one specific definition, although many scholars have attempted to create definitions.

The majority of political participation definitions include ‘‘actions undertaken by

ordinary citizens that are intended, directly or indirectly, to influence the selection

of governmental personnel and=or the policy decisions they make’’ (p. 160). There

are multiple factors that constitute political participation (Hutcheson & Korosteleva,

2006). Voting in elections is one of the most simple and easily traceable forms of

political participation. In 2008, the voter turnout rate in the United States was

56.9% (McDonald, 2012), while in Turkey the turnout rate for elections in 2007

was 84.16% (International IDEA, 2010). Historically, Turkey has a higher voter turn-

out than the United States for presidential and legislative elections.

There are other activities that qualify for political participation, such as attending

demonstrations, gaining membership in a political party, writing to a public official,

signing petitions, donating money to a political party, displaying campaign literature,

working for a candidate, or participating in a protest (Bennett & Bennett, 1986;

Shachar, 2009). Demographic factors, such as nationality, gender, and education, also

impact an individual’s choice to participate in various political activities (Barreto &

Munoz, 2003; Bernstein & Norwood, 2008). Minority groups are more likely to

participate in politics (Barreto &Munoz, 2003; Bernstein & Norwood, 2008). Religion

also significantly influences participation with members of religious communities

being more active in politics. Jamal (2005) found religiously involved Muslims are

more likely to be involved in politics than other religious groups as well as less

religious Muslims. Croucher and Cronn-Mills (2011) found Turkish immigrants often

expressed the importance of political protest and involvement in the political process.

The level of participation for Turkish citizens was higher than that of British and

French citizens. While there are no direct comparisons of political participation

between Turkish and American citizens, there is research comparing Britain and

Turkey. We can assume British and American citizens would share some similarities

such as Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions (individualism, power distance,

masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance), religious makeup, and a longer history of

democracy than Turkey. Thus, as political participation is higher in Britain, and as

voter turnout is lower in the United States than in Turkey, we pose the following

hypothesis:

H2: Political participation will be higher in Turkey than in the United States.

Relationship Between Argumentativeness and Political Participation

Arguments often involve public issues. Public issue arguments focus on topics such

as welfare, local law, international relations, tax policy, or other political topics

(Johnson et al., 2007). There have been a few studies conducted on the relationship

between argumentativeness and political communication and participation. Each of

22 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

the studies has found somewhat similar results. Downs et al. (1990) stated, ‘‘argu-

mentativeness is an ubiquitous characteristic of political communication’’ (p. 99).

Individuals who are highly argumentative approach conflict without hesitation and

often look forward to the opportunity to intelligently express=argue one’s position.

Hayes et al. (2005) found individuals who are less willing to voice their opinion

on political issues, and thus less participatory, tend to be less argumentative. Gottweis

(2007) also suggested high argumentatives are more likely to participate in the polit-

ical process, particularly in the political deliberation process (choosing candidates

and evaluating political ethos). Eveland et al. (2011) asserted, while discussing polit-

ical issues and when deciding whether to get involved in politics, the issue of face and

argument are key issues. The authors added individuals who are highly argumentative

tend to find political participation a chance to advocate their positions on issues.

Finally, the authors urged future research into the relationship between argument=conflict and political participation that better explores ‘‘cultural and individual dif-

ferences that predict strategies for avoiding or otherwise dealing with interpersonal

conflict, with a particular emphasis on the extent to which these characteristics are

correlated with important political behavior and attitude variables’’ (Eveland et al,

2011, p. 1094). Johnson et al. (2007) also urged further research into how political

communication=participation relates to individuals’ approaches to conflict and

argument. Thus, argumentativeness and political participation appear to be inter-

connected but independent of one another, as one is not necessary for the other.

Moreover, as few of the aforementioned studies have empirically measured argumen-

tativeness, the current study is an attempt to empirically understand the relationship

between political participation and argumentativeness. Specifically, this study asks

the following research question:

RQ1: What is the correlation between political participation andargumentativeness?

Turkey and the United States differ on Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions of culture,

and it is hypothesized that their level of political participation will also differ. As

Kim et al. (2001) argued, norms for verbal behavior, such as argumentativeness,

‘‘vary to an extraordinary degree from one culture to the next’’ (p. 383). Thus, the

following is posed regarding the varying influence of nationality on the relationship

between argumentativeness and political participation:

RQ2: What effect does nationality have on the correlation between argumenta-tiveness and political participation?

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants were recruited via a convenience sample in the United States (592) and

Turkey (209) in 2009 and 2010. American participants ranged in age from 18 to 57

ARG and Politics 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

(M¼ 30.55, SD¼ 9.59) and Turkish participants ranged in age from 19 to 42

(M¼ 31.14, SD¼ 5.66). Men made up 53.5% (317) of the U.S. sample and women

made up the remaining 46.5% (275). In Turkey, men made up 63.2% (132) of the

sample, and women made up 36.8% (77) of the sample. The U.S. sample was com-

prised of multiple religions: 40.2% (238) Mainline Protestant, 41.2% (244) Catholic,

7.6% (45) Hindu, 6.4% (38) Muslim, 3.5% (21) Fundamentalist Christian, and 1%(6) Jewish. The Turkish sample was comprised of entirely Sunni Muslims (209). In

Turkey and the United States, participants were recruited at various universities

(Ohio, New York, and Istanbul), through various social networks, in public places

(train=bus stations), churches=mosques, and through the help of numerous

nonprofit organizations. In the U.S. sample, 78 (13.18%) participants were college

students, and in Turkey, 42 (20.10%) were college students. The remaining parti-

cipants ranged in profession from a variety of blue-collar and white-collar jobs to

unemployed individuals.

While this convenience sampling method is not random sampling, it is ‘‘sampling

to’’ as opposed to ‘‘sampling from’’ a population (DeMaris, 2004). Sampling to a

population signifies a hypothetical population; the nature of such a population can

to a certain degree be understood based on sociodemographic characteristics.

However, DeMaris argued it does represent a larger group to which results may be

generalized.

Instruments

All surveys were distributed in English in the United States and in Turkish in Turkey

after Human Subjects Approval. The survey was a paper survey. After the survey was

written in English, a native Turkish speaker translated it into Turkish. A bilingual

Turkish=English speaker then back- translated it. All translations were then com-

pared for accuracy.

Argumentativeness scale

Infante and Rancer’s (1982) 20-item Argumentativeness Scale was used to measure

argumentativeness. This scale includes 10 items, which measure an individual’s

tendency to avoid arguments (ARGAV) and 10 items that measure an individual’s

tendency to approach arguments (ARGAP). The difference between the items is total

argumentativeness. Negative scores represent low argumentativeness, whereas

high scores represent high argumentativeness. A sample item is: ‘‘I enjoy avoiding

arguments.’’ Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never true)

to 5 (almost always true). Cronbach a values for ARGAP have ranged from .83

to .91, while those for the ARGAV portion have ranged from .79 to .91 (Croucher,

Oommen, et al., 2010). In Turkey, the ARGAP a was .81 while the a for ARGAV

was .84. In the United States, the a for ARGAP was .89 and .88 for the ARGAV

portion.

24 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

Political participation

Political participation was tested using five Likert-type items based on Croucher’s

(2009) measure of acculturation, which was based on Bennett and Bennett’s

(1986) conceptualization of political participation that identifies participation as a

one-factor item. In this scale, Croucher measured political participation as one aspect

of cultural adaptation=acculturation. The items are based on a 7-point scale ranging

from 1 (never) to 7 (very often). Questions included how often individuals vote,

attend political rallies and read political news. A sample item is: ‘‘I read political

news.’’ In the original study in France, the a was .93. In this study, the a was .91

in the United States and .88 in Turkey. See Table 1 for the means, standard devia-

tions, and correlations with the study variables by nation.

Results

To test H1 and H2, independent samples t tests were used. H1 asserted Americans

would be more likely to approach arguments than Turkish participants. This hypoth-

esis was supported, t(277.83)¼ 13.06, p< .0001. H2 stated political participation

would be higher in Turkey than in the United States. This hypothesis was also

supported, t(799)¼�23.36, p< .0001.1

To answer RQ1 and RQ2, a multiple hierarchical regression model was constructed

using total argumentativeness as the criterion variable and the following predictor

variables: religious identification (self-identified), nationality, and political partici-

pation. See Table 2 for the full regression model. Religious identification was entered

as a control variable because research has demonstrated that it influences both argu-

mentativeness and political participation (Croucher, Anarbaeva, Turner, Oommen, &

Borton, 2010; Jamal, 2005). Religious identification was coded with Mainline Protes-

tants (Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans) as the reference group.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Associated with the Study

Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

United States

1. ARGAP 36.14 6.48 –

2. ARGAV 26.20 8.44 .08� –

3. Total ARG 9.84 10.27 .57��� �.29�� –

4. Political Participation 3.67 .96 .01 .01 .02 –

Turkey

1. ARGAP 27.18 7.10 –

2. ARGAV 32.34 11.66 �.31�� –

3. Total ARG �5.16 15.40 .69��� �.90��� –

4. Political Participation 5.48 .98 .06� �.01 .03 –

�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .0001.

ARG and Politics 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

The term Mainline Protestants comes from Stout and Buddenbaum’s (2002) classi-

fication of religious groups. Based on the open-ended religious-identification ques-

tion, individuals were placed into one of the following categories for statistical

comparison purposes: Mainline Protestants (individuals self-identified as Methodist,

Baptist, Lutheran, and=or Episcopal), Catholics, Fundamentalist Christians

(self-identified as Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian), Jewish, Muslims (all

identified as Sunni), Hindus. Nationality was coded with the United States as the ref-

erence group. Cross-product terms were created to test for interaction effects and

then hierarchical regression was used to test for potential interaction effects (Pedha-

zur, 1997). In Model 1, religious identification was entered as a control variable as

research has shown differences in argumentativeness between nations. In Model 2,

nationality was entered as research has shown differences in argumentativeness

between nations. In Models 3 and 4, political participation and cross-product terms

of nationality and political participation were entered into the model. There has been

some research showing a correlation between argumentativeness and political

participation=political communication; however, this relationship is not as developed

as the relationship between argumentativeness and nationality. Therefore, political

participation was entered in the third model.

In Model 1, religious identification was a significant predictor of argumentativeness

(R2adj ¼ :20). In Model 2, nationality was added to the model and was a significant pre-

dictor of argumentativeness (R2adj ¼ :24, DF¼ 44.04, p< .0001, b¼ .47, p< .0001). In

Model 3, political participation was added to the model and was not a significant

improvement over Model 2 (R2adj ¼ :24, DF¼ .36, p¼ ns, b¼ .02, p¼ ns). In the fourth

model, the cross-product of nationality and political participation was added, and this

was not a significant improvement (R2adj ¼ :25, DF¼ .08, p¼ ns, b¼�.05, p¼ ns).

Table 2 Regression Model Predicting Total Argumentativeness

Regressor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Intercept 9.74 9.74 8.77 9.04

Catholics �.01 �.01 �.01 �.01

Fundamentalists Christians .07� .07� .07� .07�

Jewish �.01 �.01 �.01 �.01

Muslims �.44��� �.02 �.02 �.02

Hindus .01 .01 .01 .01

United States .47��� .48��� .53���

Political Participation .02 .02

U.S.�Political Participation �.05

F 9.25��� 41.86��� 35.90��� 31.39���

DF 44.04��� .36 .08

R2 .20 .24 .24 .25

R2adj .20 .24 .24 .24

�p< .05. ��p< .01. ���p< .0001.

26 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

Therefore, as the test comparing Model 3 to Model 4 was nonsignificant, Model 2 was

retained for final analysis. AsModel 2 is the final model retained for analysis, it is imposs-

ible to determine the influence of nationality on the relationship between argumentative-

ness and political participation (RQ2). As revealed in Model 3, there is not a significant

correlation (RQ1) between argumentativeness and political participation (r¼ .02).

Discussion

Argumentativeness and Culture

Hypothesis testing revealed Americans are significantly more argumentative than

Turks (H1). This result is in tandem with previous research that has found Americans

are more prone to approach arguments and conflict (Kozan & Ergin, 1998). This

result also echoes previous work that has shown members of predominantly collecti-

vistic cultures, such as Turkey, are more apt to avoid argument (Croucher, Oommen,

et al., 2010). Along with the influence of collectivism, Turkey’s avoidance of argu-

ment can also be explained by the culture’s more feminine outlook on gender roles,

as opposed to the United States’ more masculine outlook. While a masculine culture

is more likely to value ego-oriented goals (Hofstede, 1997) often associated with

argumentativeness, a feminine culture is more likely to value the interdependence

of social-oriented goals often not associated with argumentativeness (Croucher,

Oommen, et al., 2010).

Based onModel 2, an interesting result emerged concerning religion.While religious

identification was a control variable for argumentativeness, Fundamentalist Christians

were more likely to score higher on argumentativeness than Mainline Protestants

(b¼ .07, p< .05). These results are counter to previous work, which has shown indivi-

duals from highly religious groups are more likely to avoid arguments (Stewart &

Roach, 1993; Wrench, Corrigan, McCroskey, & Punyanunt-Carter, 2006). Ultimately,

this should be explored further, as the Christian fundamentalists in this sample from

the United States were more argumentative than the Mainline Protestants.

Political Participation and Culture

Turks participate in politics more than Americans (H2). The fact that Turks partici-

pate in politics more than Americans can be explained by the following cultural fac-

tors. First, Turkey’s heightened collectivism is likely part of the reason for the high

levels of Turkish political participation. Turks, more than Americans, will see the

political process as a chance to be involved in collective, political decision making

to affect the nation. This mentality is similar among other collectivistic, and among

other Muslim populations (Croucher & Cronn-Mills, 2011; Jamal, 2005). Second, the

difference in power distribution in the United States and Turkey is a likely reason for

differences in levels of political distribution. Turkey is a high-power-distance nation;

meaning power is not as equally distributed as in the United States (granted it is not

equally distributed in either nation). It could be that for the Turkish population,

ARG and Politics 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

more than for Americans, the chance to be involved in politics is an opportunity to

minimize power inequalities. Turkey historically has higher voter turnout than the

United States in all levels of elections; perhaps elections are seen by the average Turk

as a time to enact political change.

Argumentativeness and Political Participation

The results did not show a positive correlation between political participation and

argumentativeness (RQ1) nor did the results reveal nationality to have a significant

effect on the relationship between argumentativeness and political participation

(RQ2). It is possible argumentativeness and political participation were not signifi-

cantly correlated, and that nationality did not have a significant effect on this

relationship for the following reasons. First, we did not consider religion as a mod-

erating variable and its potential effect. Religion has been found to affect argumenta-

tiveness and political participation (Croucher, Oommen, et al., 2010; Jamal, 2005);

the focus of this study though was on national identity (nationality) and its potential

effect. Second, data in the United States were collected in the months of a political

campaign (2010), while data in Turkey were not collected during a political cam-

paign. This might have an influence on how individuals answered questions about

political participation. Third, our understanding of the relationship between political

participation and argument=conflict is still developing and this relationship can be

ambiguous (Downs et al., 1990; Eveland et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2007). As Bennett

and Bennett (1986) discussed, what constitutes political participation itself was and

still is up for debate.

Implications for Future Research

This study furthers the call put forth by Croucher, Oommen, et al. (2010) by analyz-

ing argumentativeness in conjunction with macro- (nationality) and micro- (political

participation) level variables. Croucher, Oommen, et al. stated, ‘‘The analysis of

broad cultural variables such as religious and national identification may offer keen

insight into communicative practices and traits’’ (2010, p. 150). In this study, exam-

ining argumentativeness in conjunction with nationality and political participation

has added to our understanding of argument by showing how argument differs in

an understudied culture.

Second, this study furthers our understanding of communication constructs in

nonstudent samples. A bulk of research conducted in intercultural, cross-cultural,

and argumentativeness research is conducted on U.S. samples and international

student samples. These studies have provided useful and worthy insight into com-

munication. This study enhances our understanding of argumentativeness and

political participation in nonstudent samples.

Third, the results of this study add more specific understanding of cultural

nuances between the United States and Turkey. Although Hofstede’s (2001) research

was groundbreaking in many ways, his work was very macro, or a starting point for

28 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

cultural comparisons. Hsu (2007) stated understanding issues such as argumentative-

ness, aggression, and communication apprehension across cultures is a step toward

improved intercultural communication. Moreover, with a better grasp of argumenta-

tiveness in Turkey, it is possible to begin exploring a multitude of practical issues

such as how arguing influences interpersonal relationships (Neer, 1994), approaches

to conflict (Prunty et al., 1990), and verbal aggressiveness (Roberto & Finucane,

1997).

Future research should consider the following lines of research. First, work must

continue to explore argumentativeness and political participation in various contexts.

There are various cultures=contexts in which the field of communication has yet to

explore that warrant attention. Second, work should further explore exactly what

constitutes political participation. Third, the definition of argumentativeness needs

to be examined. As the results of this study reveal, there are clear differences between

a predominantly collectivistic Muslim nation (Turkey) and a predominantly

individualistic Christian nation (the United States). As Croucher and Cronn-Mills

(2011) asserted, what it means to argue differs among religious groups; this assertion

needs further exploration.

Limitation

The primary limitation of the study is its lack of diversity in Turkey. While the U.S.

sample comes from various geographic areas and represents both rural and urban

individuals, the Turkish sample is made up almost entirely of individuals from

Istanbul. This is because contacts in Turkey were from Istanbul and the research team

needed to work with the contacts they had at the time. Therefore, the results in

Turkey should be generalized mainly to individuals in and around Istanbul. Such a

research process is typical in intercultural=cross-cultural research, working with

contacts to acquire research subjects, as random sampling is generally not feasible

in cross-cultural research (Gudykunst, 2002). Gudykunst urged scholars to collect

as much demographic data as possible about participants in cross-cultural

studies to help establish sample equivalence. In the current study, a variety of

demographic data was collected and the samples (the United States and Turkey) were

relatively similar.

Conclusion

This study explored the relationship between argumentativeness and political partici-

pation in Turkey and the United States. The analysis used national identification as a

moderating variable. The results revealed Americans are more argumentative than

Turks, Turks participate more in politics than Americans, argumentativeness and

political participation are not significantly correlated, and nationality does not affect

the relationship between argumentativeness and political participation. Ultimately,

this study added to our understanding of argumentativeness by examining its

relationship to political participation and nationality and by expanding our

ARG and Politics 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

understanding of argumentativeness into a new cultural context. Future work should

continue to analyze factors that may influence argumentativeness.

Note

[1] A Chow-Test was conducted to determine whether one regression or two regressions was

needed due to the combination of samples. The Chow test (F¼ 1.14, p¼ .35) was nonsigni-

ficant, thus combining the samples did not have a negative cost on the overall regression

(Hambrick & Lei, 1985).

References

Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2002). Aggressive communication across cultures: A comparison of

aggressive communication among United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Journal of

Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 191–200. doi: 10.1080=17475750802077354Barreto, M. A., & Munoz, J. A. (2003). Reexamining the ‘‘politics of in-between’’: Political partici-

pation among Mexican immigrants in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 25, 427–447. doi: 10.1177=0739986303258599Becker, C. B. (1986). Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 75–92. doi: 10.1016=0147-1767(86)90035-0Bennett, S. E., & Bennett, L. L. M. (1986). Political participation. In S. Long (Ed.), Annual Review of

Political Science (Vol. 1, pp. 157–204). Norwood, NJ: Albex.

Bernstein, A. G., & Norwood, R. S. (2008). Ethnic differences in public participation: The role of

conflict communication styles and sense of community. Journal of Intercultural Communi-

cation Research, 37, 119–138. doi: 10.1080=17475750802533679Croucher, S. M. (2009). How limiting linguistic freedoms influences the cultural adaptation pro-

cess: An analysis of the French-Muslim population. Communication Quarterly, 57, 1–17.

doi: 10.1080=01463370903109929Croucher, S. M., Anarbaeva, S., Turner, J. S., Oommen, D., & Borton, I. (2010). A cross-cultural

analysis of argumentativeness among self-identified Christians in France and Britain. Speaker

& Gavel, 47, 16–27.

Croucher, S. M., & Cronn-Mills, D. (2011). Religious misperceptions: The case of Muslims and

Christians in France and Britain. New York, NY: Hampton Press.

Croucher, S. M., Oommen, D., Hicks, M. V., Holody, K. J., Anarbaeva, S., Yoon, K., . . . Alijahli, A.I. (2010). The effects of self-construal and religiousness on argumentativeness: A

cross-cultural analysis. Communication Studies, 61, 135–155.

Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the

perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England,

China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597–624.

Daller, H., & Yidiz, C. (2006). Power distance at work: The cases of Turkey, successor states of

the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior,

Culture, 2, 35–53.

Darus, H. J. (1994). Argumentativeness in the workplace: A trait by situation study. Communication

Research Reports, 11, 99–106. doi: 10.1080=10510971003603994DeMaris, A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Downs, V. C., Kaid, L. L., & Ragan, S. (1990). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal

aggression on communicator image: The exchange between George Bush and Dan Rather.

Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 99–112. doi: 10.1080=10510970701341154

30 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for

the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of

Communication, 61, 1082–1103.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer,

G. L. Miller & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and

methods (pp. 237–250). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Issues in cross-cultural communication research. In W. B. Gudykunst &

B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 165–177).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Hambrick, D. C., & Lei, D. (1985). Toward and empirical prioritization of contingency variables for

business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 763–788.

Hayes, A. F.,Glynn,C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005).Willingness to self-censor:A construct andmeasurement

tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 298–323.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Rev. ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organiza-

tions across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hsu, C. F. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans

and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly, 55, 359–374. doi: 10.1080=01463370701497831Hutcheson, D. S., & Korosteleva, E. A. (2006). Patterns of participation in post-Soviet politics.

Comparative European Politics, 4, 23–46. doi: 10.1057=palgrave.cep.6110068Infante, D. A. (1985). Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal

of Applied Communication Research, 13, 33–44.

Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates’ satisfaction and

perceptions of superiors’ compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressive-

ness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307–326. doi: 10.1177=0893318993006003004

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. (1985). Benefits versus bias: An investigation of argumentativeness, gen-

der, and organizational communication outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 2, 196–201.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.

International IDEA (2010). Voter turnout data for Turkey. International Institute for Democracy

and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?id=223

Jamal, A. (2005). The political participation and engagement of Muslim Americans: Mosque involve-

ment and group consciousness. American Politics Research, 33, 521–544. doi: 10.1177=1532673X04271385

Johnson, A., Becker, J., Wigley, S., Haigh, M., & Craig, E. (2007). Reported argumentativeness and

verbal aggressiveness levels: The influence of type of argument. Communication Studies, 58,

189–205. doi: 10.1080=10510970701341154Kapoor, S., Konsky, C., & Blue, J. (1997). American and Indian students’ preference for horizontal

and vertical individualism-collectivism. World Communication, 26, 14–29.

Kapoor, S., Konsky, C., Blue, J., & Baldwin, J. (2000). Horizontal and vertical individualism-

collectivism in Caucasian American, African American, Indian, and Chinese respondents.

World Communication, 29, 53–68.

Kapoor, S., Wolfe, A., & Blue, J. (1995). Universal values structure and individualism-collectivism:

A U.S. test. Communication Research Reports, 12, 112–123.

Kim, M. S. (1999). Cross-cultural perspectives on motivations of verbal communication: Review,

critique, and a theoretical framework. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 22

(pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ARG and Politics 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3

Kim, M. S., Aune, K. S., Hunter, J. E., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (2001). The effect of culture and

self-construals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communication

Research, 27, 382–408. doi: 10.1111=j.1468-2958.2001.tb00786.xKim, M. S., Tasaki, K., Kim, I. D., & Lee, H. R. (2007). The influence of social status on

communication predispositions. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17, 303–329.

Klopf, D. W., Thompson, C. A., & Sallinen-Kuparinen, S. (1991). Argumentativeness among selec-

ted Finnish and American college students. Psychological Reports, 68, 161–162.

Kozan, K., & Ergin, C. (1998). Preference for third party help in conflict management in the United

States and Turkey: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 525–539.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 547–554.

McDonald, M. (2012). 2008 general election turnout rates. United States Elections Project. Retrieved

from http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

Metcalf, L. E., Bird, A., Shankarmahesh, M., Aycan, Z., Larimo, J., & Valdelamar, D. D. (2006).

Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey, and

the United States. Journal of World Business, 41, 382–394.

Neer, M. R. (1994). Argumentative flexibility as a factor influencing message response style to argu-

mentative and aggressive arguers. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31, 17–33.

Payne, M., & Sabourin, T. (1990). Argumentative skill deficiency and its relationship to quality of

marriage. Communication Research Reports, 7, 121–124.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. South

Melbourne, Australia: Wadsworth.

Prunty, A., Klopf, D., & Ishii, S. (1990). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to

approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7, 75–79. doi: 10.1080=08824099009359858

Rancer, A., Baukus, R., & Amato, P. (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and marital

satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3, 28–32.

Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and

belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37–47.

Roberto, A. J., & Finucane, M. (1997). The assessment of argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-

ness in adolescent populations. Communication Quarterly, 33, 209–218.

Schullery, N. (1998). The optimum level of argumentativeness for employed women. Journal of

Business Communication, 35, 346–367. doi: 10.1177=002194369803500303Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2003). Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher

education. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 207–223.

Shachar, R. (2009). The political participation puzzle and marketing. Journal of Marketing Research,

46, 798–815.

Stewart, R. A., & Roach, K. D. (1993). Argumentativeness, religious orientation, and reactions

to argument situations involving religious versus nonreligious issues. Communication

Quarterly, 41, 26–39.

Stout, D. A., & Buddenbaum, J. M. (2002). Genealogy of an emerging field: Foundations for the

study of media and religion. Journal of Media and Religion, 1, 5–12.

Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for concep-

tual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, 256–279.

Weger, H., Jr. (2006). Associations among romantic attachment, argumentativeness, and verbal

aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 29–40.

Wrench, J. S., Corrigan, M. W., McCroskey, J. C., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Religious

fundamentalism and intercultural communication: The relationships among ethnocentrism,

intercultural communication apprehension, religious fundamentalism, homonegativity, and

tolerance for religious disagreements. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35,

23–44.

32 S. M. Croucher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt R

oyal

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:42

11

May

201

3