This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 23:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication ReportsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrs20

The influence ofargumentativeness andverbal aggression onresponses to refusedrequestsDanette E. Ifert a & Leeza Bearden ba Assistant professor in the Department ofCommunication and Dramatic Arts , West VirginiaWesleyan College ,b Doctoral candidate in the Department ofCommunication , University of Oklahoma ,Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Danette E. Ifert & Leeza Bearden (1998) The influence ofargumentativeness and verbal aggression on responses to refused requests,Communication Reports, 11:2, 145-154, DOI: 10.1080/08934219809367696

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367696

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,

demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 11, No. 2, Summer 1998

The Influence of Argumentativeness andVerbal Aggression on Responses to

Refused RequestsDANETTE E. IFERT and LEEZA BEARDEN

This study examines the influence that argumentativeness and verbal aggression exert on thetypes of appeals individuals purport to use in responding to refusals of interpersonal requests.Results suggest positive relationships between argumentativeness and reports of evidentiaryappeals and between verbal aggression and reports of nonevidentiary appeals. The interactionof verbal aggression and argumentativeness was not a significant predictor of reports ofevidentiary appeals but did predict reports of nonevidentiary appeals. The discussion addressesdifferences in the types of appeals reported by argumentative and verbally aggressiveindividuals and concludes with implications for further research.

•Argumentativeness and verbal aggres-sion have received much attention over the past few years. Argumentative-ness, which has been defined as a tendency to take positions on issues and todisagree verbally with positions of others (Infante & Rancer, 1982), is usuallyviewed positively (Infante & Gorden, 1985). Verbal aggression, which refersto a proclivity to attack another person's self-concept directly (Infante &Wigley, 1986), is usually seen as negative (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994)and is related to embarrassment, relational damage, and physical aggression(Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984). Both argumentativeness andverbal aggression are viewed as relatively stable communication traits(Infante & Rancer, 1996).

Although prior research tells about the effects of argumentativeness andverbal aggression on self-reported behaviors such as persistence and concernfor the emotional effects of messages (Boster & Levine, 1988; Boster, Levine,& Kazoleas, 1993), we have limited knowledge about how these constructsinfluence specific types of responses to refused requests that people claim tomake. Levine and Boster (1996) examined actual conversational behaviorand found that the interactive effect of both communicators' argumentative-ness predicted the number of arguments used in discussing a controversialissue, but even their study ignored specific types of messages. Sinceargumentativeness and verbal aggression concern, among other types of

Danette E. Ifert (Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1994) is an assistant professor in theDepartment of Communication and Dramatic Arts at West Virginia Wesleyan College. LeezaBearden (M.A., Texas Tech University, 1995) is a doctoral candidate in the Department ofCommunication at the University of Oklahoma. An earlier version of this paper was presented atthe 1996 Southern States Communication Association convention, Memphis, TN. The authorsthank Kathleen M. Long and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

146 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

interactions, behavior in argument situations, it would follow that theseindividual traits exert influence on the types of messages people enact afterrefusal of a request.

Requesters often respond to refusals with further persuasion attempts(Byers & Lewis, 1988; Ifert & Roloff, 1996; Roloff & Janiszewski, 1989), butmost existing research focuses on the specific strategies used to respond torefusals (e.g. deTurck, 1985; Ifert & Long, 1990). Reliance on specificstrategies derived from taxonomic lists has, however, been criticized for anumber of reasons, most notably the incomplete nature of most taxonomies(Barry & Watson, 1996; Kellermann & Cole, 1994).

The present analysis will thus focus on two relatively global responses torefusals, evidentiary and nonevidentiary appeals, rather than on compliance-gaining strategies described in existing taxonomies (e.g., Wiseman &Schenck-Hamlin, 1981). Using the categories mentioned above enables us tofocus on the content and structure of the response rather than on a specificstrategy that may be enacted in a number of different ways. For example,evidentiary appeals could encompass messages from many existing catego-ries (e.g., Marwell & Schmitt's (1967) categories of "promise," "positiveexpertise," and "threat" could all include evidence) while messages within asingle category may include both evidentiary and nonevidentiary appeals.Using evidentiary and nonevidentiary appeals provides a potentially parsimo-nious means to examine message content that cuts across specific strategiesand may thus provide more generalizable conclusions about messagebehavior.

The two-category classification (evidentiary and nonevidentiary appeals)was derived from prior research on request interactions and persuasion ingeneral. Evidentiary appeals, sometimes referred to as rational appeals, aregenerally defined as arguments containing supporting explanation (e.g.,Cody, Canary, & Smith, 1994). Such a definition is consistent with theToulmin model, which conceives of argument as a claim and informationintended to support that claim (Reardon, 1991). An example of an evidentiaryappeal used to explain why a student is late to class might be, "I wasunavoidably late because there was an accident on Route 33-" Research findsthat managers use messages such as explanations and gathering supportingdata (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980) and that evidence is part of severalstrategies used to achieve influence goals (Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1987).Those who use evidentiary appeals tend to be perceived favorably. Managersusing rational appeals received higher performance ratings (Kipnis &Schmidt, 1988) and were judged more effective by others in the organization(Yukl & Tracey, 1992) than those who did not utilize such strategies.

Research shows, then, that evidentiary appeals are frequently used andare viewed positively. As previously noted, argumentativeness is seen as apositive communication behavior (Infante & Gorden, 1985). Infante (1989)associated argumentativeness with "rational discourse" (p. 166). Addition-ally, those who are highly argumentative are believed to seek more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 1998 147

information and develop more complex rationales for their positions (Infante& Rancer, 1993). Because argumentativeness is viewed positively in argu-ment situations and because research shows that highly argumentativeindividuals have more information available with which to construct appeals,it seems that highly argumentative individuals would express a preference forconstructing appeals that include supporting evidence or explanation.

Verbal aggression, as noted previously, is linked to negative communica-tion behaviors (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994). Attacking another's self-concept does not require evidence and, even when given, evidence forpersonal attacks is unlikely to meet conventional standards of relevance andobjectivity. Individuals high in verbal aggressiveness should therefore reportfewer evidentiary appeals. Infante and Gorden (1985) suggested that verbalaggression and argumentativeness interact to influence an individual'scommunication behaviors. Given that individuals vary in their proclivitiestoward argumentativeness and verbal aggression (i.e., one could score highin both, low in both, or high in one and low in the other) and that pastresearch has not examined the interactive effect of these traits on use ofevidentiary appeals, the following hypotheses and research question areproposed.

HI: There will be a positive relationship between trait argumentativeness and an individual'sreported use of evidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request.

H2: There will be a negative relationship between verbal aggressiveness and an individual'sreported use of evidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request.

RQ1: Do argumentativeness and verbal aggression interact to predict an individual's reporteduse of evidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request?

The second type of appeal examined is a nonevidentiary appeal. Anonevidentiary appeal would be a claim without additional supportingevidence. An example of a nonevidentiary appeal to explain why one is latefor class might be, "I had problems getting here on time." As contrasted withthe evidentiary appeal above, this appeal fails to provide any kind of specificsupport but relies instead on an assertion. Such appeals tend to be perceivedas more emotionally based, at least in the dominant European Americanculture, and are therefore viewed as more negative than appeals that rely onevidence. Verbal aggression would seem to rely heavily on nonevidentiaryappeals. Rudd, Burant, and Beatty (1994) found that battered women scoringhigh in verbal aggression engaged in guilt, threat, and warning, which do notrequire extensive supporting evidence for their effectiveness. A verballyaggressive individual may also fail to take the time or expend cognitiveresources required to obtain evidence to support his or her appeals,especially after a potentially face-threatening act such as refusal. Becauseargumentative individuals, on the other hand, are assumed to seek outinformation and develop complex rationales for their positions (Infante &Rancer, 1993), they would likely have little need to rely on nonevidentiaryappeals. Given this potential difference and the fact that research has notpreviously investigated the role of verbal aggression and argumentativeness

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

148 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

on reports of nonevidentiary appeals, the following hypotheses and researchquestion are proposed.

H3: There will be a positive relationship between verbal aggression and individuals' reportsof nonevidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request.

H4: There will be a negative relationship between argumentativeness and individuals' reportsof nonevidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request.

RQ2: Do verbal aggression and argumentativeness interact to predict an individual's reporteduse of nonevidentiary appeals to respond to refusal of a request?

METHOD

Sample

Participants were recruited from an introductory communication coursethat fulfills a university-wide oral communication requirement at a mediumsized southwestern university. Ninety-two students (52 males and 39 fe-males) volunteered to participate. One student did not indicate his or her sex.Respondent age averaged 22.1 years (range = 18-52, Mdn = 21.0).

Procedures

Participants were given questionnaire packets and were asked to imaginethemselves in one of two request scenarios: persuading a professor to changea low grade or convincing a campus security officer to refrain from ticketingthe student for parking in an unauthorized area. These scenarios werechosen because they exemplify compliance goals typically attempted bycollege students (Cody et al., 1994). Each person was then given ahypothetical statement that the professor or security officer might use toreject the request and was asked to write out exactly what would be said inresponse. Respondents repeated the procedure for the second requestscenario. Scenarios were randomly ordered across questionnaires andparticipants received a different refusal statement for each scenario. Afterresponding to the scenarios, participants completed abridged versions ofInfante and Rancer's (1982) argumentativeness scale and Infante andWigley's (1986) verbal aggression measure. The final portion of the question-naire contained demographic questions.

Variables

Refusal statements. Thirteen refusal statements were developed by theauthors to represent a wide range of refusals; the refusal statements appear asTable 1. A pilot study was conducted to verify that the refusal statementsrepresented a variety of refusals. Forty-four people from the same populationas the respondents in the main study volunteered to rate the thirteen obstaclestatements on Likert-type scales. These seven-point scales assessed eachrefusal in terms of trie degree of willingness, ability, desire, capability,personalness, and focus on the requester the statement represented. Thesesix scales were selected based upon work of Ifert and Roloff (1998)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 1998 149

TABLE 1Refusal Statements Used as Stimulus Materials

1. "The 'No Parking' sign is clearly visible."2. "Students always have an excuse."3. "You broke the law."4. "I don't want to ignore the violation."5. "I can't do that for you."6. "The law says I have to ticket you."7. "That wouldn't be fair to other people who park illegally."8. "That wouldn't be fair to other people in the class."9. "If you were having problems with the assignment, you should have come to me earlier."

10. "You didn't fulfill the assignment guidelines."11. "I don't want to change the grade."12. "The grading criteria say I have to do this."13- "It's my job to enforce the rules."

NOTE: Statements 2 and 5 were used in both experimental scenarios. Statements 1 through 7 and13 were used in the ticketing scenario and statements 8 through 12 were used in the gradechange scenario.

suggesting that people see distinctions among obstacles to compliance basedon these dimensions. Results of the pilot study indicated that the refusalstatements did exemplify diverse obstacles.1 The statements were thereforeused as stimulus material in the main study.

Argumentativeness. To minimize respondent fatigue, ten statements fromInfante and Rancer's (1982) trait argumentativeness scale were used tooperationalize argumentativeness. The authors believed that asking respon-dents to complete twenty-item scales for both argumentativeness and verbalaggression after responding to two request scenarios would diminish thequality of the responses. Therefore, ten statements were selected to representboth the approach and avoidance subscales of the argumentativenessmeasure; the items selected appear as part of Table 2. Cronbach's alpha forthe approach subscale was .72 and was .75 for the avoidance subscale.Argumentativeness was computed using the (ARGap - ARGav) formuladescribed in previous research (Infante & Rancer, 1982).

Verbal Aggression. Due to concerns noted above, ten statements wereselected from Infante and Wigley's (1986) verbal aggression measure tooperationalize the construct. Scale items used appear in Table 2. Cronbach'salpha for the verbal aggression measure was .75.

Responses to refusals. First, respondents' written replies to the refusalstatements were unitized into arguments by two coders working indepen-dently. Arguments •were defined as any claim made or conclusion drawn.Supporting evidence was incorporated into the unit with the claim that itbolstered. Unsupported claims formed units by themselves. Guetzkow's uwas .02 for the unitizing task; perfect agreement between unitizers was 90%.The total number of units coded for each respondent averaged 2.33 perscenario.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

150 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

TABLE 2Items Used in Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression Measures

Argumentativeness items1. I enjoy avoiding arguments.2. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.3. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument.4. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence.5. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument.6. When I finish arguing with someone, I feel nervous and upset.7. Once I finish an argument, I promise myself that I will not get into another.8. I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue.9. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.

10. While in an argument, I worry that the person 1 am arguing with will form a negativeimpression of me.

Verbal aggression items1. I am extremely careful to avoid attacking individuals' intelligence when I attack their

ideas.2. When people simply will not budge on a matter of importance, I lose my temper and say

rather strong things to them.3. When others do things I regard as stupid, I try to be extremely gentle with them.4. I try to make people feel good about themselves even when their ideas are stupid.5. If individuals I am trying to influence really deserve it, I attack their character.6. When people refuse to do a task I know is important, without good reason, I tell them

they are unreasonable.7. When people behave in ways that are in very poor taste, I insult them in order to shock

them into proper behavior.8. When people criticize my shortcomings, I take it in good humor and do not try to get

back at them.9. When individuals are very stubborn, I use insults to soften the stubbornness.

10. I try very hard to avoid having other people feel bad about themselves when I try to influ-ence them.

Second, two independent coders categorized each unit as one of threetypes. Evidentiary appeals were those arguments containing claims and someform of supporting information relevant to the topic. This definition isconsistent with Cody et al. (1994). Examples of evidentiary appeals include.-"I looked for a parking space and couldn't find one and in order not to be lateto class I had to park here" and "The reason I didn't see you earlier wasbecause of time constraints and I couldn't make your office hours."Nonevidentiary appeals were comprised solely of a claim with no supportingevidence. Examples would include, "I certainly believe I did an excellent jobon this paper" and "There's a problem with parking here at the university."Units not fitting into these categories, including claims supported byevidence unrelated to the topic, were coded as miscellaneous. Quality ofevidence was not assessed in coding, merely the presence or absence ofrelevant evidence. During training, coders discussed disagreements to clarifytheir interpretations of categories. Intercoder reliability was established usingCohen's Kappa and was .95 for evidentiary appeals and .82 for noneviden-tiary appeals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 1998 151

RESULTS

Simple regression models were used to test hypotheses while stepwiseregression models were used to evaluate research questions.2 For HI and H2,argumentativeness and verbal aggression, respectively, were entered asindependent variables and evidentiary appeals were the dependent variable.For RQ1, argumentativeness and verbal aggression were entered individuallyin the first step of the regression model and the interaction of these two traitswas entered on the second step; evidentiary appeals were the dependentvariables. For H3 and H4, verbal aggression and argumentativeness, respec-tively, were the independent variables and nonevidentiary appeals were thedependent variable. For RQ2, argumentativeness and verbal aggression wereentered individually in the first step of the regression model and theinteraction of these two traits was entered in the second step; nonevidentiaryappeals were the dependent variable. Two-tailed significance tests were usedfor the research questions and one-tailed tests were used for hypotheses.

HI predicted a positive relationship between argumentativeness andreports of evidentiary appeals. The results support HI {slope = 0.10; tl82 =2.04; p < .05; R = .15), indicating that people higher in trait argumentative-ness reported constructing more evidentiary appeals in response to refusalsthan those scoring low on the trait.

H2 predicted a negative relationship between verbal aggression andreports of evidentiary appeals was present. Results indicate no relationshipbetween verbal aggression and reports of evidentiary appeals (slope = —.04;

6RQ1 assessed the interaction effect of argumentativeness and verbal

aggression on the use of evidentiary appeals. Results of RQ1 suggest thatthere is no interaction effect of these two variables (slope = —.05; t182 = —.50;p>.05;R=.l6).

H3, which predicted a positive relationship between verbal aggressionand reports of nonevidentiary appeals, is supported (slope = .16; t182 = 1.83;p < .05; R = .14). Verbally aggressive individuals reported a greater numberof nonevidentiary appeals than did less verbally aggressive people.

H4 posited a negative relationship between argumentativeness and use ofnonevidentiary appeals. Results suggest no relationship between these twovariables (slope < .01; t182 = ~.15;p > .05; R = .01).

RQ2 assessed the interaction effect of argumentativeness and verbalaggression on the use of nonevidentiary appeals. Results of RQ2 suggest thatthere is an interaction effect (slope = .13; t182 = l.76;p < .05; R = .19).

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that argumentativeness and verbal aggression influ-ence individuals' choices for appeals used to respond to refused requests.There are positive relationships between argumentativeness and reports of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

152 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

evidentiary appeals (HI) and between verbal aggression and reports ofnonevidentiary appeals (H3), indicating that more argumentative individualsare likely to use supporting explanation as a persistence strategy while moreverbally aggressive people are likely to employ unsupported claims whenpersisting. This interpretation is supported by the findings of no relationshipbetween verbal aggression and reports of evidentiary appeals (H3) andbetween argumentativeness and reports of nonevidentiary appeals (H4).Infante (1995) advocated communication skills training, including training inconflict management strategies, for highly verbally aggressive individuals,and the data here provide additional support for the idea that verballyaggressive individuals may lack the necessary skills to enact evidentiaryappeals or other more competent messages. Results of RQ1 suggest thatargumentativeness and verbal aggression do not interact to predict reporteduse of evidentiary appeals, further supporting the idea that verbally aggres-sive individuals may lack the skills to enact evidentiary appeals competently.However, RQ2 results indicate that verbal aggressiveness and argumentative-ness do interact to predict use of nonevidentiary appeals. One potentialexplanation is that prior research focusing on the interaction betweenargumentativeness and verbal aggression (e.g., Infante & Gorden, 1985) hasnot examined specific message content. Thus, while the total number ofarguments used might be predicted by the interaction of traits, the contentmay be better predicted by individual traits. The significant interaction termin the test of RQ2 is somewhat supportive of this explanation, as noneviden-tiary appeals have, by definition, a less developed content base as comparedto evidentiary appeals.

One limitation of this study is that hypothetical situations may not mimicactual interactions. Although scenarios were selected especially for theirsalience to the respondent population, it may be that they were not asmotivated to respond, particularly in terms of aggression, as they would be ifengaging in the interactions. Generalizability of these results may be limitedby two factors. First, the relationships examined (professor-student andofficer-violator) are generally low in intimacy and characterized by powerdifferences. These represent common types of interactions people encoun-ter, but are not representative of all relationships. Second, while argumenta-tiveness is highly valued among European Americans, it may exert differenteffects on persuasive success in cultures where argument is not as important.Although data were not collected on the ethnic makeup of the sample, thepopulation from which the sample was drawn is approximately 83%Caucasian, 10% Hispanic, 3% African-American, and 2% Asian. Additionally,the quality of evidence presented in evidentiary appeals was not judged. Itmay be that the interactant offering a refusal deems nonsubstantial evidenceunimportant. However, it could also be that the requester responds to thesyllogistic form as though it constituted substantive evidence. Future researchcould determine if the quality of evidence presented influences people'sresponses to refusals and to subsequent discourse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUMMER 1998 153

Continuing research should assess further the role of verbal aggression inresponding to refusals. Infante and Rancer (1996) suggested that verbalaggressiveness, in particular, should be investigated to avoid the oftennegative outcomes associated with this trait. Such research could examineboth the frequency of verbal aggressiveness as a response to refusals andwhether relationship type influences the use of verbally aggressive messages.A better understanding of what likely occurs when verbally aggressivemessages are provided might enable researchers to develop strategies forlessening their negative effects.

Methodologically, Levine and Boster (1996) proposed and implemented atransactional approach to assessing the influence of argumentativeness oncommunication behavior. Future research may prove useful both in identify-ing how argumentativeness influences construction of evidentiary appealsand in determining what types of partners, situational characteristics, andmessage characteristics increase the prevalence of verbally aggressivemessages.

This study contributes to our understanding of compliance interactions byrevealing that the individual traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggres-sion influence reports of evidentiary and nonevidentiary appeals in responseto refusal of a request. Continuing research should focus on the effects thatvarious appeals have on successful refutation of refusals.

ENDNOTES

1. Complete results of the pilot study are available from the first author upon request.2. Means for both argumentativeness (Mean = 31.0, SD = 4.62) and verbal aggressiveness

(Mean = 24.1, SD = 5.6) are consistent with mean levels reported in existing research (Martin &Anderson, 1996; Martin, Anderson, Burant, & Weber, 1998). Respondents reported an average of0.97 evidentiary appeals (SD = .87) and 0.56 nonevidentiary appeals (SD = .67). There were nosignificant correlations between any pair of variables. The correlations between argumentative-ness and verbal aggression (.07), evidentiary appeals (.15), and non-evidentiary appeals (-.01)were not statistically significant. Correlations between verbal aggression and both evidentiary(-.03) and non-evidentiary (.14) appeals were likewise not significant.

REFERENCES

Barry, B., & Watson, M. R. (1996). Communication aspects of dyadic social influence inorganizations: A review and integration of conceptual and empirical developments. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 269-318). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. R. (1988). Individual differences and compliance gaining messageselection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, dogmatism, andnegativism. Communication Research Reports, 5, 114-119.

Boster, F. J., Levine, T. R., & Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness and verbalaggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior.Communication Quarterly, 41, 405-414.

Byers, E. S., & Lewis, K. (1988). Dating couples' disagreements over the desired level of sexualintimacy. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 15-29.

Canary, D. J., Cody, M. J., & Marston, P. J. (1987). Goal types, compliance-gaining, and locus ofcontrol. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 249-269.

Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysisof actors' goal types, strategies, and successes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.),Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 33-90). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

154 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

deTurck, M. A. (1985). A transactional analysis of compliance-gaining behavior: Effects ofnoncompliance, relational contexts and actors' gender. Human Communication Re-search, 12, 54-78.

Ifert, D. E., & Long, K. M. (1990). Differences in compliance-gaining strategies during successiveattempts. Paper presented to the Eastern Communication Association Annual Meeting,Philadelphia, PA.

Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1996). Responding to rejected requests: Persistence and responsetype as functions of obstacles to compliance. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,15, 40-58.

Ifert, D. E., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Understanding obstacles preventing compliance: Conceptual-ization and classification. Communication Research, 25, 131-153.

Infante, D. A. (1989). Response to high argumentatives: Message and sex differences. TheSouthern Communication Journal, 54, 159-170.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness aspredictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117-125.

Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression inconstructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal ofCommunication, 58, 73-84.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1993). Relations between argumentative motivation, and advocacyand refutation on controversial issues. Communication Quarterly, 41, 415-426.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review ofrecent theory and research. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19 (pp.319-352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship ofargumentativeness to verbal aggression. The Southern Speech Communication Journal,50, 67-77.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, III, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model andmeasure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic disorderand strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4, 3-60.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performanceevaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 440-452.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explora-tions in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (1996). The impact of self and others' argumentativeness on talkabout controversial issues. Communication Quarterly, 44, 345-359.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1996). Communication traits: A cross-generalization investiga-tion. Communication Research Reports, 13, 58-67.

Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., Burant, P. A., & Weber, K. (1998). Verbal aggression in siblingrelationships. Communication Quarterly, 45, 304-317.

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behaviors: An empiricalanalysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.

Reardon, K. K. (1991). Persuasion inpractice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Roloff, M. E., & Janiszewski, C. A. (1989). Overcoming obstacles to interpersonal compliance: A

principle of message construction. Human Communication Research, 16, 33-61.Rudd, J. E., Burant, P. A., & Beatty, M. J. (1994). Battered women's compliance-gaining strategies

as a function of argumentativeness and verbal aggression. Communication ResearchReports, 11, 13-22.

Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). Multidimensional scaling validation of aninductively derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs,48, 251-270.

Yukl, G., &Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers,and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:07

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14