Argumentativeness, Assertiveness, and Verbal Aggressiveness Theory

Symbolic Aggressive Communication

The first distinction made in categorizing aggression is physical versus symbolic. Aggression can take both physical and symbolic forms. Physical aggression involves the aggressor's forceful use of his or her body (roughly handling or striking objects or others). Symbolic aggression involves the aggressor's forceful use of his or her communication (words, gestures, facial expressions, vocal tone, etc.). It is this latter set of behaviors with which aggressive communication is concerned.

Symbolic aggression can be divided into two types: constructive and destructive. Aggressive communication is composed of not one, but several traits, including assertiveness, argumentativeness, hostility, and verbal aggressiveness. Each of these traits interacts with environmental factors to produce message behavior.

Constructive Aggressive Communication

Assertiveness is considered a constructive trait because it involves verbal and nonverbal symbols to exert control, obtain justified rewards, and stand up for one's rights. Individuals who are assertive can use symbols aggressively but tend to do so in socially acceptable ways. One facet of assertiveness is argumentativeness, defined as a stable trait that predisposes individuals involved in a conflict to defend positions on controversial issues and to verbally attack the positions of others. Argumentativeness is considered a subset of assertiveness as all arguing is assertive communication, but not all assertiveness involves arguing.

[Page 46]Individuals differ in their levels of trait argumentativeness and can be classified into three groups: high, low, and moderate. A person high in argumentativeness enjoys arguing and will eagerly and readily use arguments to attack others' positions and defend their own positions on issues. Highly argumentative individuals view arguing as an intellectual challenge and as an exciting competitive situation that allows them to display to others how communicatively skillful they are.

People low in argumentativeness often feel uncomfortable about arguing before, during, and after the event that calls for argument. They frequently lack the motivation, desire, and skill to argue across most situations and generally avoid talking about controversial issues because it makes them uncomfortable. Those low in argumentativeness can even hold negative beliefs about arguing. Individuals can also be moderate in argumentativeness. There are three types: conflicted, apathetic, and neutral.

Conflicted feelings often cause moderates to be highly emotional when it comes to arguing; they can feel compelled to argue due to their level of competitiveness yet be highly anxious about arguing due to their fear of failure. Apathetic-moderate argumentatives tend to be low in emotion when it comes to arguing yet feel little to no anxiety about engaging in an argument. Neutral-moderate argumentatives normally argue only when they see some good coming out of it and feel that they have a good chance of winning.

...