Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research 2009039697, 0203855426, 0415996392, 0415996414, 9780415996396, 9780415996419, 9780203855423

Citation preview

Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict

Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research provides a thorough examination of argumentative and aggressive communication. Editors Theodore A. Avtgis and Andrew S. Rancer bring together a score of prolific and informed authors to discuss aspects of the conceptualization and measurement of aggressive communication. The book features an exclusive focus on two “aggressive communication” traits: Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness, one of the most dominant areas of communication research over the last twenty-five years both nationally and internationally. The chapters include cutting-edge issues in the field and present new ideas for future research. This book is a valuable resource for instructors, researchers, scholars, theorists, and graduate students in communication studies and social psychology. Covering a variety of topics, from the broad-based (e.g., new directions in aggressive communication in the organizational context) to the more specific (e.g., verbal aggression in sports), this text presents a comprehensive compilation of essays on aggressive communication and conflict. Theodore A. Avtgis (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1999) is Associate Professor of Communication at West Virginia University. Among several awards, he was recognized as one of the Top Twelve Most Productive Researchers in the field of Communication Studies (between 1996 and 2001) and recognized as a member of the World Council on Hellenes Abroad, USA Region of American Academics. Dr. Avtgis is co-author of four books, including Argumentative and Aggressive Communication (2006). He serves on the editorial boards of Argument and Advocacy, Communication Research Reports, Human Communication, and Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, among others. He is also co-founder of Medical Communication Specialists. Andrew S. Rancer (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1979) is Professor of Communication at the University of Akron. He has served as editor of Communication Research Reports (1999–2001) and the Massachusetts Communication Journal (1981). Among several honors, he is the recipient of the Eastern Communication Association’s Past Presidents/ Officers Award (1989) and Distinguished Research Fellow Award (1997) and was a member of ECA’s Committee of Scholars (1989–1990). He has published articles in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, and Communication Research Reports, among others. He is the co-author of four books, including Argumentative and Aggressive Communication (2006).

Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict

New Directions in Theory and Research

Edited by Theodore A. Avtgis and Andrew S. Rancer

First published 2010 by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2010 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Arguments, aggression, and conflict : new directions in theory and research/edited by Theodore A. Avtgis, Andrew S. Rancer. p. cm. 1. Aggressiveness. 2. Communication. 3. Interpersonal communication. 4. Interpersonal conflict. I. Avtgis, Theodore A. II. Rancer, Andrew S. HM1116.A74 2010 303.601—dc22 2009039697 ISBN 0-203-85542-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0–415–99639–2 (hbk) ISBN10: 0–415–99641–4 (pbk) ISBN10: 0–203–85542–6 (ebk) ISBN13: 978–0–415–99639–6 (hbk) ISBN13: 978–0–415–99641–9 (pbk) ISBN13: 978–0–203–85542–3 (ebk)

This book is dedicated to Dominic A. Infante Mentor, Colleague, and Friend

Contents

Preface List of Contributors

x xiii

SECTION I

Conceptualization and Operationalization of Argumentative and Aggressive Communication 1 Verbal Aggressiveness as an Expression of Selected Biological Influences

1

3

MICHAEL J. BEATTY AND MICHELLE E. PENCE

2 Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

26

ALAN D. HEISEL

3 Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

44

KEVIN B. WRIGHT AND ELIZABETH A. CRAIG

4 Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness: Psychometric Concerns and Advances

67

TIMOTHY R. LEVINE AND MICHAEL R. KOTOWSKI

5 Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China: Its Cultural Roots, Strategies, and New Developments

82

YANG LIN, JIANGUO ZHAO, AND FENGMING ZHAO

6 Culture and Aggressive Communication ANNE MAYDAN NICOTERA AND NICOLE M. ROBINSON

100

viii

Contents

7 Global Communicator: Understanding the Role of Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in International Negotiations

124

JILL E. RUDD AND DIANA R. LAWSON

SECTION II

Contextual Research on Argumentative, Aggressive, and Conflict Communication 8 Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom: Bullying and Conflict

137

139

SCOTT A. MYERS AND CHRISTINE E. RITTENOUR

9 Reconsidering the Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

159

PAUL SCHRODT AND AMBER N. FINN

10 Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression: Content, Effects, and Correlates

177

REBECCA M. CHORY

11 Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

198

ANTHONY J. ROBERTO AND JEN EDEN

12 Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

217

JOHN S. SEITER AND ROBERT H. GASS

13 Aggressive Communication within Medical Care: Mapping the Domain

241

THEODORE A. AVTGIS AND E. PHILLIPS POLACK

14 Trash Talk and Beyond: Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

253

JEFFREY W. KASSING AND JIMMY SANDERSON

15 Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression: Its Forms and Its Relation to Trait Verbal Aggressiveness ANDREW S. RANCER, YANG LIN, JAMES M. DURBIN, AND EMILY C. FAULKNER

267

Contents

16 The Dark Side of Organizational Life: Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

ix

285

THEODORE A. AVTGIS AND REBECCA M. CHORY

17 Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

305

CAROLYN M. ANDERSON AND MILI BANERJEE

18 Aggressive Expression within the Family: Effects on Processes and Outcomes

318

SALLY VOGL-BAUER

19 The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

340

RACHEL L. DICIOCCIO

SECTION III

Factors Influencing Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict Communication 20 Tolerance for Disagreement

357 359

VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND AND JAMES C. MCCROSKEY

21 Taking Conflict Personally and its Connections with Aggressiveness

372

DALE HAMPLE AND IOANA A. CIONEA

22 Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors of Aggression

388

CHARLES J. WIGLEY III

23 The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

400

MATTHEW M. MARTIN, KATIE NEARY DUNLEAVY, AND CARRIE D. KENNEDY-LIGHTSEY

Index

417

Preface

Thirty plus years of investigating argumentative and aggressive communication predispositions, including informal argument, verbal aggression, and conflict has yielded great insight into human interaction and conflict behavior. Scholars from across the globe have conducted research which has contributed greatly to an enhanced understanding of how aggressive communication traits come into play during social and intercultural conflict. Numerous conclusions have been reached regarding what it means to be predisposed to engage in constructive versus destructive communication behaviors. More specifically, several differences between the predisposition toward argumentative behavior versus verbally aggressive behavior have been identified. These conclusions are the result of hundreds of studies conducted in the area which has come to be known as the study of “aggressive communication.” This corpus of research includes the development of other companion communication predispositions which have been found to be salient during social conflict and argumentative communication. As a result of these studies, we know more about how argumentative and aggressive communication functions in several contexts including the family, marriage, friendship, the classroom, the organization, and in intercultural settings. Research tools designed to help us measure argumentative and aggressive communication and related communication traits have been developed and refined throughout the years. In addition, remediation programs are being designed to reduce dysfunctional outcomes associated with destructive communication styles and behaviors. For example, there are active programs being tested on adolescents, at-risk youth, college students, and employees. Despite these efforts and the concomitant robust and abundant research activity which has accompanied this line of inquiry, many old questions remain unanswered, new questions have emerged, new contexts have been identified which demand exploration and examination, and methodological and measurement limitations of the previous research efforts have been identified which require re-examination and refinement of existing operationalization. These issues provided the stimulus for this project. The question of “Where do we go from here?” was first addressed a few years ago when we produced an earlier project (Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and

Preface

xi

application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). In the last chapter of that text, we asked several leading scholars to respond to that query by providing their perceptions of the future of research on argumentative and aggressive communication. To our delight, these scholars provided fascinating and visionary responses to that question. Indeed, it was that section of the previous project that stimulated the most discussion and interest by other scholars. However, due to several constraints (especially space limitations), these scholars were only able to “brush the surface” in their responses to that question. In this volume, we have invited them back to expand on their comments, recommendations, and suggestions. In fact, we assembled what would be considered the “A” list for this line of inquiry and all invited have come through by producing exciting, stimulating, challenging, and, in some cases, controversial perspectives. These scholars have also generated much research on communication during conflict and controversy, and have been responsible for enhancing our understanding about argumentative and aggressive communication. The end result of bringing together these wonderful scholars is this volume which we believe will now be seen as one of the definitive works addressing arguments, aggression, and conflict in the communication discipline. The ideas and research suggestions contained in these chapters should stimulate a great deal of new research for years to come. Section I of the text addresses the conceptualization and operationalization of argumentative and aggressive communication. The chapters contained in this section address issues such as identifying the biological underpinnings and brain functioning associated with aggressive communication, aggressive communication across the life span, measurement issues associated with argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, perceptions of aggressive communication in a specific culture (i.e., China), a critique and a new direction for intercultural research, and a treatment of how aggressive communication functions in international negotiations. Section II examines research from a contextual perspective. The chapters review extant research and offer new directions for research on argumentative and aggressive communication in the K-12 classroom, higher education, mediated entertainment, across electronic and digital mediated channels, politics, health, organizational, group, sports, and family contexts. This section also contains a chapter which expands our understanding of the nonverbal dimensions of aggressive communication, and presents an interactionist model of teasing communication. Section III contains chapters which offer conceptualizations of two communication predispositions relevant to arguments, aggressiveness, and conflict: Tolerance for Disagreement and Taking Conflict Personally. Another chapter introduces a conceptualization of how a situational factor, labeled “Verbal Trigger Events,” influences verbal aggression. This section concludes with a new way of conceptualizing verbal aggression as a communication behavior with instrumental and functional utility. There are many people who are responsible for this project, and we would

xii

Preface

like to acknowledge them here. First and foremost, we want to thank all of the authors who contributed their wisdom, experience, expertise, and vision to this volume. We invited a celebrated group of scholars known for their expertise in the area of conflict, arguing, and aggressive communication to contribute to this volume. To our delight, all of them agreed and all of them came through! Their competence in producing exacting scholarship made our role as editors much easier. We are extremely grateful for and honored by their contributions. We would like to thank the publication team at Routledge/Taylor & Francis for their expertise and assistance in putting this volume together. Ms. Linda Bathgate, Senior Editor—Communication, was an early advocate for this project. She allowed us to produce exactly the type of work we had envisioned. Linda was always there to provide us with the guidance and the motivation needed to produce a volume which we believe makes a significant contribution to the communication discipline. We would also like to thank Ms. Katherine Ghezzi, Senior Editorial Assistant, for her assistance and expertise during the production process, Adam French, Project Manager, RefineCatch, for keeping the project on time and Ian Howe for his excellent copy editing. Last, but certainly not least, we would like to thank our families, Mary and Aiden, Kathi and Aimee, for the love and support they provided us during our work on this project. Theodore A. Avtgis Andrew S. Rancer

Contributors

Carolyn M. Anderson (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor in the School of Communication, University of Akron. She teaches and researches small groups, leadership, health, and organizational communication at the graduate and undergraduate levels. She has taught in China and studied in Cuba and Poland. Publications include a textbook (The Fundamentals of Small Group Communication, 2008, SAGE), and several book chapters. Her research has appeared in national and international journals and several of her convention papers have earned top awards. Prior to the doctorate, she worked as a member of organizational teams and assumed leadership roles. Dr. Anderson also serves the community as a public speaker, trainer, and consultant. Theodore A. Avtgis (Ph.D., Kent State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University. Among several awards, he was recognized as one of the Top Twelve Most Productive Researchers in the field of Communication Studies (1996–2001) and recognized as a member of the World Council on Hellenes Abroad, USA Region of American Academics. He was also named as a Centennial Scholar of Communication by the Eastern Communication Association. Dr. Avtgis has published articles in Communication Education, Management Communication Quarterly, Communication Research Reports, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication, among others. He is co-author of four books, including Organizational Communication: Strategies for Success (2010, Kendall-Hunt). He is also co-founder of Medical Communication Specialists. Mili Banerjee is currently completing her Master’s degree in Communication at the University of Akron. Her area of interest includes organizational communication, leadership behavior, and small group communication. Her thesis focuses on leadership styles and power in a cross-cultural context. In 1998, she obtained her Bachelor’s degree in English Literature from Calcutta University, India and completed a graduate program in management in 2000 from the Institute of Management Technology, India. Mili worked as a business journalist with CNBC India and The Economic Times for

xiv

Contributors

several years before moving into public relations for non-profit organizations in India. Michael J. Beatty (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Professor and Director of the Ph.D. program at the School of Communication, Frances L. Wolfson Building, University of Miami. He has been named among the top three most productive scholars in his field and recognized for his pioneering communication research in the area of bio-communication theory. He has published numerous books and scholarly articles that have been published in Communication Monographs, Quarterly Journal of Speech, and Communication Quarterly, among others. He has significant organizational consulting experience with corporations such as New York Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Insurance Company, and AT&T. Rebecca M. Chory (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Dr. Chory’s research primarily focuses on media entertainment, verbal aggression, and antisocial communication and behaviors (e.g., injustice, aggression, deception) in organizational and instructional contexts. Her research has been published in various journals, including Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Communication Education, Communication Monographs, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Western Journal of Communication, Communication Quarterly, and Communication Studies. In 2009, Dr. Chory was a Fulbright Scholar in Budapest, Hungary. Ioana A. Cionea is a doctoral student at the University of Maryland, College Park where she specializes in intercultural communication. She earned a law degree in her home country of Romania in 2004 and an M.A. in Communication Studies from Northern Illinois University in 2006. Her research focuses on cross-cultural argumentation, an interest shaped by her training and experience in international debate and education. Elizabeth A. Craig (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at North Carolina State University. Her research interests include interpersonal communication, face-to-face and computer-mediated relational maintenance, stepfamily communication, and social aggression within friendship cliques. Her work appears in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Personal Relationships, Communication Quarterly, and Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Rachel L. DiCioccio (Ph.D., Kent State University) is an Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Rhode Island. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in conflict management, family communication, nonverbal communication, personality theory, and communication pedagogy. Her research utilizes a social psychological perspective to examine

Contributors

xv

interactive aggression processes. Currently, she is focused on studying how and why people use teasing communication and examining family communication and the argument process during crisis decision-making. She has published in The Journal of Communication, Communication Reports, and Human Communication, among other publications. Katie Neary Dunleavy (Ph.D., West Virginia University) is an Assistant Professor in the Communication Department at La Salle University. She teaches courses in communication theory, interpersonal communication, small group communication and intercultural communication. She currently serves on the editorial board of Communication Education. James M. Durbin (M.A., University of Akron, 2008) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. His areas of research include interpersonal communication, health communication, mathematical communication and aggressive communication. He has presented a number of papers, been a participant on many academic panels, and has received top paper awards at both regional and national communication conferences. Jen Eden (M.A., Northern Illinois University) is a Doctoral Candidate in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. Her research interests include a bio-evolutionary approach to the study of the dark side of close relationships. Specifically, she is interested in the health outcomes related to unrequited love and unwanted relationships. On the bright side of communication, her research interests include persuasion and social influence as well as using the bio-evolutionary perspective to examine love and liking. Emily C. Faulkner (B.A., University of Akron, 2008) is currently employed at Rosetta, an interactive marketing and development agency, as a Human Resources Specialist. During her undergraduate studies, she majored in Communication with an emphasis in Business and Organizational Communication. Emily is especially interested in nonverbal and aggressive communication, as well as how technology impacts interpersonal communication. Amber N. Finn (Ph.D., University of North Texas) is Assistant Professor and Basic Course Director in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. Her research in instructional communication and public speaking anxiety has appeared in such outlets as Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, and the Southern Communication Journal. Robert H. Gass (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is Professor of Human Communication Studies at California State University, Fullerton. His areas of expertise are argumentation, persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. He has published two texts (with co-author John Seiter) and over

xvi

Contributors

70 scholarly articles, book chapters, published conference proceedings, and professional papers. His recent research has focused on credibility in public diplomacy, visual persuasion, and interpersonal influence. His text with John S. Seiter, Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining (Allyn and Bacon), is now in its fourth edition. Dale Hample (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is an Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1975. Dr. Hample’s research studies how people take conflict personally in interpersonal interactions, the processes of interpersonal arguing, particularly the role of argument frames and emotions in interpersonal exchange, and inventional capacity. His recent book, Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face was published in 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum. He has published widely in such journals as Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Philosophy of Rhetoric, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research among others. He is currently editor of Argumentation and Advocacy. Alan D. Heisel (Ed.D., West Virginia University) is an Associate Professor and Chairperson of the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. His research focuses on stable and enduring characteristics of communicators manifest in the construction and reception of messages. He has authored or co-authored dozens of articles, book chapters, and conference papers involving emotion-related communication traits such as verbal aggression, communication apprehension, and immediacy. His recent research has utilized EEG to identify cortical differences that contribute to the patterns of communication and orientations observed. Jeffrey W. Kassing (Ph.D., Kent State University) is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Arizona State University. His primary research interests concern how employees express dissent in organizational settings and how people communicate in sport settings. In addition, he has published research that examines aggressive communication in parent–child, superior–subordinate, and coach–athlete relationships. His research has been published in Management Communication Quarterly, Communication Quarterly, Communication Studies, The Journal of Business Communication, The Western Journal of Communication, American Behavioral Scientist, Communication Yearbook, Communication Research Reports, and Communication Reports. Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey (Ph.D., West Virginia University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Indiana University—Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN. She teaches courses in communication theory, interpersonal communication, and family communication. Her research interests focus primarily on marital couples’ public communication as well as aggression and hurtful messages in interpersonal, family, and instructional contexts. Dr. Kennedy-Lightsey has published her

Contributors

xvii

research in Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, Journal of Business Communication, and Communication Research Reports. Michael R. Kotowski (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His primary area of research interest is social influence processes, with particular attention given to interpersonal persuasion and compliancegaining. He also maintains a strong research interest in the study of research methodology, with a particular emphasis on measurement. Diana R. Lawson (Ph.D., Kent State University) is currently the Dean of the G. R. Herberger College of Business and Professor of Marketing at St. Cloud State University, Minnesota. Dr. Lawson spent 13 years on the faculty in the School of Business at the University of Maine, and three years as an endowed chair in international business at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan. She has developed international business curricula and has taught in a number of countries. Her recent book, Communicating in Global Business Negotiations was published by SAGE in 2007. Timothy R. Levine (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is Professor in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. Prior to his coming to Michigan State, Dr. Levine held appointments at University of Hawaii and Indiana University. Levine’s research interests include deception, interpersonal communication, personal relationships, persuasion and social influence, intercultural communication, communication traits, and measurement validation. Levine has published more than 80 journal articles including approximately 30 articles in Communication Monographs and Human Communication Research. Levine is currently an Associate Editor for Communication Methods and Measures, where he focuses on research design and measurement. Yang Lin (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is Professor of Communication in the School of Communication at The University of Akron. He conducts investigations in intercultural and political communication. Dr. Lin is also interested in the development of teaching pedagogy such as integrating scholarly research with basic course teaching. His articles have appeared in Western Journal of Communication, Communication Research Reports, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Psychological Research, Asian Journal of Communication, Ohio Journal of Speech, and Ohio Communication Journal. Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, where he also serves as the Department Chair. He teaches courses in instructional communication, communication theory, and interpersonal communication. His research interests center primarily on communication traits and interpersonal relationships in the instructional context. He co-edited the book

xviii

Contributors

Communication and Personality: Trait perspectives (1998, Hampton Press). He currently serves on numerous journal editorial boards, including Communication Education, Communication Monographs, Communication Quarterly, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication. James C. McCroskey (Ed.D., Pennsylvania State University) is Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and currently is a Scholar in Residence at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He recently was honored by the Eastern Communication Association as a Centennial Scholar as the most published scholar in the history of the field of communication. Dr. McCroskey has published more than 50 books and 200 journal articles. He has edited numerous journals, including Communication Research Reports, Communication Education, Human Communication Research, and Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. He was recognized as a Fellow of the International Communication Association and both a Research Fellow and a Teaching Fellow of the Eastern Communication Association. His research has focused on instructional communication, intercultural communication, organizational communication, nonverbal communication, and communication apprehension. Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, where he also serves as the Ph.D. Graduate Studies Coordinator. He teaches courses in instructional communication, small group communication, and interpersonal communication. His research interests center primarily on the student–instructor relationship in the college classroom, with his research appearing in outlets such as Communication Education, Communication Research Reports, and Communication Quarterly. He is also co-author of The Fundamentals of Small Group Communication (SAGE, 2008). Anne Maydan Nicotera (Ph.D., Ohio University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at George Mason University. Her research focuses on culture, conflict, diversity, race, gender, and aggression, with particular interest in healthcare and nursing communication. She has published in several national journals. She has also published five books and numerous chapters. Her current research includes the examination of structurational divergence among nurses, an analysis of the unique organizational structure and form of hospitals and healthcare systems, and a structurational theory of diversity. She is currently developing a structurationally-based organizational and cultural competence training program for healthcare practitioners. Michelle E. Pence (M.A., University of Missouri, St. Louis, 2007) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies, Louisiana State University. She has published research in Communication Monographs and is co-author of numerous book chapters and convention presentations.

Contributors

xix

E. Phillips Polack (M.D., West Virginia University) is Clinical Professor in the Department of Surgery, West Virginia University. He has developed seminars in applied interpersonal communication for physicians and health practitioners and is the recipient of a Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation grant to study “hand-off” communication. He has presented a number of papers on medical communication nationally and at the Canadian Surgical Forum. Dr. Polack is also senior author of Applied Communication for Health Professionals (2008, Kendall-Hunt). He is also co-founder of Medical Communication Specialists. Andrew S. Rancer (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor of Communication in the School of Communication, the University of Akron. He has served as editor of Communication Research Reports (1999–2001) and the Massachusetts Communication Journal (1981). Among several honors, he is the recipient of the Eastern Communication Association’s Past Presidents/ Officers Award (1989) and Distinguished Research Fellow Award (1997) and was a member of ECA’s Committee of Scholars (1989–1990). In 2009 he received a Centennial Scholar of Communication Award from the Eastern Communication Association. He has published articles in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, and Communication Research Reports, among others. He is the co-author of four books including Contemporary Communication Theory (2010, Kendall-Hunt). Virginia P. Richmond (Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Prior to moving to UAB she served as a professor at West Virginia University for 30 years. Her main research has been in interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication, organizational communication, instructional communication, and applied communication. She has been President of the Eastern Communication Association and has served as Editor of Communication Research Reports, Communication Quarterly, and the Journal of Human Communication. She is both a Research Fellow and a Teaching Fellow of the Eastern Communication Association. She recently was honored as a Centennial Scholar, as one of the most published scholars in the history of the field of communication. Christine E. Rittenour (Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Her research focuses on the ways that identity is affected and reflected in communication, particularly within the context of family relationships. In addition, she teaches courses in Communication Theory and Communication and Aging. Her research is published in journals such as Western Journal of Communication, Communication Studies, and the Journal of Marriage and Family. Anthony J. Roberto (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Associate

xx

Contributors

Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. His primary research and teaching interests are in the areas of social influence and health communication. He has received numerous awards for both research and teaching, and his research has been published in journals such as Health Communication, Human Communication Research, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of Health Communication, and Journal of Communication. He is lead author of Influence In Action, and five lessons he created have been published in Communication Teacher. Nicole M. Robinson (M.S., Rochester Institute of Technology) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at George Mason University. Her research areas include health, race, culture, and spirituality, with an emphasis in cancer and mental health communication. Her master’s thesis examined the role of cancer rumors in allowing patients to make sense of a cancer threat or diagnosis. Her research on culturally insensitive health promotion campaigns was presented at the annual Eastern Communication Association (ECA) Conference in Pittsburgh, PA. She is currently researching the survival strategies of African-Americans with mental illness as a double co-cultural or oppressed group by race and mental health status. Jill E. Rudd (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor of Communication in the School of Communication at Cleveland State University. She has published in several journals including Mediation Quarterly, Human Communication Research, Communication Quarterly, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Communication Research Reports, and Women’s Research in Communication. Dr. Rudd’s interest in interpersonal and organizational communication and dispute resolution has been the key focus of her research. She has also consulted for more than 100 organizations and businesses in negotiation, strategic planning, dispute resolution and intercultural communication. Her recent book, Communicating in Global Business Negotiations was published by SAGE in 2007. Jimmy Sanderson (M.A., Arizona State University) is a doctoral student in the Hugh Downs School of Communication at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. His research interests include interpersonal communication occurring via new media technologies, and communication and sport. His work has appeared in The Western Journal of Communication, The International Journal of Sport Communication, and The Journal of Media Psychology. Paul Schrodt (Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is an Associate Professor and Graduate Director in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. His research in instructional and family communication has appeared in Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Communication Education, among other outlets. He is a former Chair of the Family Communication Division of the National Communication Association, as well as a former recipient of the Franklin Knower

Contributors

xxi

Article Award from the Interpersonal Communication Division of NCA, the Sandra Petronio Dissertation Excellence Award from the Family Communication Division of NCA, and the Outstanding New Teacher Award from the Central States Communication Association. John S. Seiter (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is Professor in the Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Speech Communication at Utah State University, where he teaches courses in social influence, interpersonal communication, communication theory, and intercultural communication. His published research includes articles investigating persuasion in applied contexts, perceptions of deceptive communication, and nonverbal aggression in political debates. He has received ten “Top Paper” awards for research presented at professional conferences, was named his college’s “Researcher of the Year” and his university’s “Professor of the Year.” Together with Robert Gass, he edited the book Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining and authored the book Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining (Allyn and Bacon), now in its fourth edition. Sally Vogl-Bauer (Ph.D., University of Kentucky) is Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin—Whitewater. Her primary interpersonal communication research areas are relational development, parent–child communication, and family maintenance behaviors, emphasizing parent–adolescent and parent–adult child relationships. She has published in many academic journals, including Communication Quarterly, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Communication Studies, Southern Journal of Communication, and Communication Research Reports. She is a past division chair of the Family Communication Division of the National Communication Association and serves on national and regional communication editorial boards. Charles J. Wigley III (Ph.D., Kent State University; J.D., University of Akron; A.B., Youngstown State University) is Professor of Communication Studies at Canisius College in Buffalo, NY. His primary research interests include verbal aggressiveness and the role of communication variables in the jury selection process. He has published research in Communication Monographs, Communication Reports, and Communication Research Reports and is the author of numerous book chapters. Kevin B. Wright (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. His research focuses on life span communication, developmental psychology, interpersonal communication, family communication, social support and health outcomes, and computer-mediated relationships. He is the co-author of a book entitled Life Span Communication, and his work has appeared in over 40 book chapters and journal articles, including the Journal of Communication, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Communication Quarterly, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Health Communication, and the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.

xxii

Contributors

Fengming Zhao is currently pursuing her master’s degree in the College of Communication and Journalism at Henan University, Kaifeng, China. Her current research interests concern media and advertisement. Jianguo Zhao is Professor in the College of Communication and Journalism, Henan University, Kaifeng, China. He has published five books, such as Double Reflection on Philosophy and Communication, Introduction to the Correlation of Journalism, Literature and History, Faith and Transmission among others. In addition, seven of his papers such as the Negative Effect of Editing and Publishing Plan on Academic Research and The Unique Communicating Functions of the Academic Digest Periodical were reprinted in copies of newspapers and periodicals by the Social Sciences Information Center of Renmin University, Beijing, China.

Section I

Conceptualization and Operationalization of Argumentative and Aggressive Communication

Chapter 1

Verbal Aggressiveness as an Expression of Selected Biological Influences Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

Over twenty years ago, Infante and Wigley (1986) defined verbal aggression as “attacking one’s self-concept instead of, or in addition to, one’s positions on a topic of communication” (p. 8). As this volume attests, verbal aggressiveness has attracted a huge amount of research over the past decades. One of the enduring theoretical questions concerns the possible causes of verbal aggressiveness. Two accounts dominated the literature for over ten years, one derived from the principles of social learning theory and the other attributing aggressive symbolic tactics to an argumentative skills deficit (for a review, see Wigley, 1998). However, the mounting literature in the fields of behavioral genetics, psychobiology, and cognitive neuroscience as well as the relatively low predictive power of models based on social learning theory and argumentative skills deficiency began redirecting theoretical attention to individual differences in verbal aggressiveness as an expression of mostly inborn, hardwired individual differences in neurobiological systems (e.g., Beatty & McCroskey, 1997). This chapter will present an empirical basis for a theory of verbal aggressiveness rooted in biological differences and contrast it with both social learning theory and the argumentative skills deficiency perspective.

Conceptual Orientation At the outset, it should be made clear that our conceptual orientation is that the discipline of communication is the scientific study of the ways in which people construct, use, and respond to messages. In the simplest sense, verbal aggressiveness constitutes just another type of message to be explained scientifically. However, four dimensions of the treatment of aggressiveness in this chapter require attention to put the ensuing presentation and discussion of the literature in the proper theoretical perspective to fully appreciate the biological underpinnings of aggressive displays. A Scientific Perspective A commitment to scientific explanation often runs counter to the widespread remedial impulse in our discipline. A commitment to scientific explanation

4

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

requires that competing theories are evaluated and endorsed first and foremost on the basis of predictive power and in many cases this results in models depicting the phenomenon under study as relatively stable and impervious to modification attempts. Conclusions drawn from treatment studies or skills programs are often cited as evidence against biologically-based positions but inspection of the studies cited usually reveals serious design flaws and/or effects that are small enough to fit within the parameters of variance in a construct not explained by the theoretic models being challenged. For example, those interested in the treatment of systematic desensitization believed that programs such as systematic desensitization or visualization reduced communication apprehension, thereby disproving that anxiety about public speaking was a hardwired trait. However, Duff et al. (2007) designed and conducted an experiment that indicated that the presumed reduction of anxiety attributed systematic desensitization and visualization, which was statistically small to begin with, was most likely a placebo effect. Examining the studies upon which alternative explanations of verbal aggressiveness are based is an essential task if the destination is theory that possesses acceptable validity. Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and Acts of Verbal Aggression It is possible to study isolated symbolic aggressive acts, likelihoods of engaging in such acts, or the endorsement of such acts, all under various conditions but it is also possible to consider predispositions or tendencies toward aggressive communication, referred to as trait verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Although Beatty (2005) adopts a trait perspective and proposed that overt behavior or action was the result of a chain of factors starting with genetic inheritance, best depicted as a mediated effects model, the treatment of verbal aggressiveness as biological expression will be broader than the model described by Beatty. Primacy of Biological Factors as Exogenous Variables Harry Houdini once said “pulling a rabbit out of a hat isn’t the trick: The trick is getting the rabbit in there in the first place.” As a third issue regarding conceptual orientation, this chapter embraces the idea that explanations relying on social experience are necessary only to the extent that evidence indicates that humans are not already “hardwired” for aggressiveness at birth. In Houdini’s terms, aggressiveness might already be in the humans at birth. All theories that rely on the influence of social environment to explain how humans become aggressive start with the presumption that the potential for aggressive action is not a natural condition, that humans are blank slates. However, Jane Goodall’s (1986) intensive and well-known study of primates, humankind’s closest biological relatives, observed a variety of acts of aggression, including rape, conflict amongst males over copulation rights, and raids by one band of chimps on another band over territory. An alternative to the blank slate

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

5

approach is to consider aggression as an inborn, evolutionarily significant strategy, which humans carry forward. It is certainly clear that humans are born with the neurobiological structures and biochemical processes that produce the fight part of the fight or flight response (Gray, 1991, 1994). This is not to say that social environments have no effect on aggressive behavior but it is important to be precise when attributing cause in the construction of theoretical models. For example, some scholars have argued that any intrafamily similarity between parents and children in terms of assertiveness or aggressiveness (e.g., Plax, Kearney, & Beatty, 1985), which is generally small, might actually be due to genetic commonality rather than some social learning process (e.g., Widom, 1991). Certainly, a minimum criterion for attributing variance in verbal aggressiveness to social learning processes is that the variance due to inborn factors (e.g., prenatal hormone exposure, heredity) must be first removed from the equation. The coefficient of alienation should determine the degree to which variables in the social environment are needed to explain variance in aggressive behavior. Otherwise, research findings may provide false support for inaccurate theoretic formulations. Interpersonal Efficiency and Strategic Aggression Finally, understanding aggressiveness as an inborn, evolutionarily significant trait, which varies across the species, also entails the possibility that aggressiveness is simply more efficient than more complex means of achieving goals and evolution favors efficiency. As Taylor and Fiske (1978) put it, humans are “cognitive misers.” As a species, we favor strategies that do not require a great deal of mental effort. This notion is reflected in a broad range of theory such as Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) proposition that a high level of involvement is required to direct issues to a central rather than a peripheral processing route, Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) contention that when possible, humans rely on “heuristics” rather than complex analysis to make decisions, and Abelson’s (1976) proposition derived from dynamic memory theory that people rely on “scripts” and other knowledge structures rather than spontaneous message construction to craft responses in routine social situations. In a fairly recent study, Beatty and Heisel (2007) demonstrated that the increased electrical activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, indicating increased cognitive load in a cortical region in which adaptation to novel stimuli is implemented, was dramatic when persuaders were required to adapt social influence strategies in light of goal failure. Moreover, some participants quickly endorsed aggressive to violent reactions to target rebuffs as electrical activity increases, a finding consistent with previous studies of persuaders’ reactions to resistance (de Turck, 1987; Hample & Dallinger, 1998; Lim, 1990). Similarly, perspective-taking or empathy, which are widely known to buffer against aggression and violence on the part of an actor (Lykken, 1995), impose considerable cognitive load as indicated by electrical activity in the cortex when a target resists influence attempts (Heisel & Beatty, 2006). In short, regardless of

6

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

interpersonal skill level, considering another’s perspective and crafting alternative influence strategies when the persuader’s best argument (i.e., one the persuader has already judged to be compelling and sufficient to induce compliance) has already failed is a heavily taxing task, not to mention other emotional dimensions to social influence scenarios associated with relational contexts. Although the destructive impact of verbal aggressiveness on relationships is often underscored in the literature (Wigley, 1998), the effectiveness of associated tactics for goal achievement, at least in the short term, the efficiency afforded over more cognitively taxing approaches, and the possible long-term benefits afforded by simply being a “problematic person” whom others might choose to conciliate with rather than provoke a scene are seldom examined by researchers. Embracing the possibility that aggressiveness represents expressions of inborn neurobiological systems that survived evolution might shed light on the prevalence of verbal aggressiveness and human aggression in general.

Biological Factors Exogenous to Verbal Aggression Genetic Inheritance In terms of the discipline of communication, the “nature or nurture” debate, as it is often called, embraces the question as to whether communicator traits and social behavior are genetically inherited or acquired through experience. The same question arises in the theoretical treatment of verbal aggression. Of course, as Zuckerman (1995) points out, “we do not inherit personality traits or even behavior mechanisms as such. What is inherited are chemical templates that produce and regulate proteins involved in the structure of nervous systems and the neurotransmitters, enzymes, and hormones that regulate them . . . we are born with different reactivity of brain structures and levels of regulators” (pp. 331–332). Zuckerman’s (1995) observation is represented in Beatty’s (2005) mediated effects model, which specifies that genetic inheritance leads to neurobiological characteristics, which in turn leads to traits. As such, individual acts of aggression, whether physical or symbolic in nature, occur because the social stimulus excites the neurobiological systems to the degree required to implement such as response. Beatty and McCroskey (1997) argued that traits such as verbal aggression represent a person’s threshold for activation of those systems. Accordingly, a person high in trait verbal aggressiveness requires a less potent stimulus to trigger aggression than does a person low in the trait. Behavioral geneticists have long relied on twins studies to provide indirect tests of models such as that delineated by Beatty (2005). The attraction of the twins design is that “monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs are genetically identical, but dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs share only 50 percent of their genes” (Hughes & Cutting, 1999, p. 429). Comparing the “within-pair correlations therefore provides an estimate of the proportion of trait variance attributable to genetic

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

7

influences, the heritability of the trait” (Hughes & Cutting, 1999, p. 429). Once heredity coefficients are calculated, it is possible to estimate the contributions of both shared and unshared environments to the variance in the trait. (For a discussion of techniques and complicating factors, see Beatty et al., 2002.) At the outset, behavioral geneticists portioned the data into four cells: monozygotic twins raised together, monozygotic twins raised apart, dizygotic twins raised together, and dizygotic twins raised apart. In this way, it was possible to separate the effects of common environment from common genetic effects. However, as Zuckerman (1994) observed, “There is little difference between the corrections for identical twins who were raised apart and those who were raised together” (p. 245), which Lykken (1995) points to as the reason researchers dropped the distinction regarding whether twins are raised together or apart from formulas for calculating heritability. Although the twins design has been described as “the perfect experiment” (Martin, Boomsma, & Machin, 1997, p. 387), the heritability coefficients estimate the direct path of genetics to traits and, therefore, constitute only indirect or suggestive evidence about the direct paths proposed in Beatty’s (2005) mediated effects model. As estimates of coefficients for direct paths, heritability coefficients represent products of intervening direct paths. Thus, with a path coefficient equal to .70 between genetic inheritance and a particular neurobiological feature (e.g., MAO production) and a path coefficient of .70 between that neurobiological feature and trait verbal aggressiveness, the predicted correlation or heredity coefficient for trait verbal aggressiveness would be .49. Therefore, heredity coefficients greater than .50 implicate substantial coefficients for linkages not tested directly in a given study. Eight years ago, Beatty and colleagues (2002) meta-analyzed the twins studies on aggressiveness as part of a broader meta-analytic investigation of the twins studies related to social interaction. Their literature search included an electronic search using PsychInfo, Biological Abstracts, Bioethics Online, EBSCOhost, Eric, HealthStar, and the General Science Index databases, a review of research journals that published twins studies, and a scan of the reference sections of all articles retrieved through the databases and journal searches. The twin studies of aggression that met the inclusion criteria are cited in Table 1.1 and full citations for them can be located in the references to this chapter. Beatty and associates coded the data for reported effect, sample size, age of sample, and measurement-type (e.g., self-report, observer rating). For an appreciation of the findings with respect to the origins of aggressiveness in humans, it is necessary to review the analytic criteria employed in the study. Because critics of biological explanations had alleged that communibiologists presented the evidence from twins studies in a selective rather than a comprehensive manner for the purpose of exaggerating the heritability of traits and behaviors such as aggressiveness, Beatty et al. (2002) set extremely conservative criteria, those that would result in the smallest heritability estimate, as the bases for calculating heritability coefficients in their study. Two of the criteria are especially important with respect to aggressiveness.

8

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

Table 1.1 Studies Meta-analyzed by Beatty et al. (2002), Measurement Type, Sample Size, and Disattenuated r for Identical (mz) and Fraternal (dz) Twins Study

Measurement Type

Owen & Sines (1970) Goldsmith & Gottesman (1977) Rushton et al. (1986) Ghodsian-Carpey & Baker (1987) Tellegen et al. (1988) Cates et al. (1993) Jang, Livesley, & Vernon (1996) Coccaro et al. (1997) Jang et al. (1998) Eley, Lichtenstein, & Stevenson (1999)

Self-Report Self-Report Self-Report Observer Report Self-Report Self-Report Self-Report Self-Report Self-Report Observer-Rating

N 42 296 573 38 331 109 500 300 998 1551

rmz

rdz

.56 .59 .68 .78 .55 .61 .48 .42 .54 .75

.13 .30 .30 .31 .18 .09 .11 .10 .23 .43

First, Beatty et al. (2002) abandoned the traditional formula for calculating heritability developed by Falconer (1989) in favor of a more conservative approach. Falconer’s formula is based on two assumptions: (1) monozygotic twins share 100 percent of their genes, and (2) gene effects are nonadditive. Additive effects define the variation in a trait transmissible from parents to offspring whereas nonadditive effects refer to variance in a trait that is not directly inherited from parents. The combined effects of additive and nonadditive gene effects are called broad heritability. If a researcher were interested only in broad heritability of verbal aggressiveness, nonadditive genes would not pose an issue, except critics of twin designs argue that nonadditivity can indicate gene-environment interaction. When gene effects are nonadditive, formulae such as Falconer’s inflate heritability estimates in accordance with the degree of nonadditivity. Two factors tend to suggest that the gene effects in the twin studies of aggressiveness are either additive or only slightly nonadditive. First, studies (e.g., Tellegen et al., 1988) in which data were partitioned according to whether twins were raised together or apart as well as whether they were monozyotic or fraternal, indicated no such interactions. Second, the degree to which the dizygotic twins correlations are less than half of the magnitude of the correlations for the monozygotic twins is an indicator of nonadditivity (Lykken, 1995). In the Beatty et al. (2002) data set, the average r, weighted for sample size, for the dizygotic twin pairs was .28, only slightly less than the correlation for monozygotic twins (i.e., r = .58), and well within sampling error. Despite these observations, Beatty et al. applied a more conservative technique (i.e., simply using the correlation for the monozygotic twins as the heritability estimate) recommended by Lykken (1995). Although this calculation only slightly reduced the magnitude of the reported heritability estimate, in the context of other conservative decisions made by Beatty et al., it is clear and theoretically important that the gene effects were additive, which eliminates the possibility of gene-environment interactions. A second conservative choice made by Beatty et al. (2002) was to weight the

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

9

correlations for sample size. Although a commonly recommended technique (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Rosenthal, 1991), weighting by N can inflate or deflate average effect sizes in meta-analysis depending on the distribution of N across effects. The purpose of weighting effects, in this case correlations, for sample size is to address the issue of sampling error. Presuming random sampling procedures have been followed it is generally expected that the larger the study sample, the smaller the sampling error. However, sampling error is not a linear function of sample size. Rather, it is well known that sampling error is equal to 1/冪N − 3. Therefore, if the goal is to count study effects in proportion to sampling error, 冪N − 3 not N should be used. In some cases, the difference makes a difference, and the aggression literature is one of those cases as will be demonstrated shortly. The ten twin studies of aggression selected for the meta-analysis were conducted across a twenty-nine-year period, varied in sample age, included both self-reports and observer ratings as measures of aggression, had items pertaining to verbal hostility and aggression embedded in measurement protocols, and produced a total N of 4,738. Based on an analysis employing conservative analytic criteria, Beatty et al. (2002) reported a heritability estimate of .58 with a 95 percent confidence interval from .54 to .63. In other words, according to this analysis, 58 percent of the variance in aggressiveness is attributable to inheritance. Notice that when determining the variance explained, heritability coefficients are not square because heritability coefficients fit under the category of spurious correlations (see Beatty, 2002). Spurious correlations occur because the variables correlated represent manifestations of a common latent variable, in this case common genetics. Applying Plomin’s (1986) formulae for estimating shared environmental effects (c2) from twins data, c2 = Rmz − h2, and nonshared environmental influences, e2 = 1 − Rmz, Beatty et al. (2002) calculated the effects of shared environment to be .00 and the effects of nonshared environment as .42. Although nonshared environment is often assumed to infer differential experiences of twins, Beatty et al. point out that the term can be misleading because it refers to a “residual term” (Rushton et al., 1986, p. 1195) that consists of all sorts of errors and is obviously dependent on the estimate of heritability. Therefore, the application of conservative analytic criteria reduces the estimate of heritability and, thereby, inflates the estimate of nonshared effects. Certainly, unique social experiences that affect one twin but not the other would be represented in the nonshared environment component but a nonzero estimate of nonshared environment isn’t sufficient to establish that such effects took place. Moreover, recalculating the heritability estimate will necessarily decrease the nonshared environment estimate. When the data set reported by Beatty et al. (2002) is reanalyzed, applying Falconer’s formula to effects weighted by 冪N − 3, the heritability estimate for the aggression studies is .71, indicating that 71 percent of the variance in aggression is inherited. As such, removing the effects of heredity would reduce the standard deviation on the VAS (Infante & Wigley, 1986) from 9.79, reported in the

10

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

original article, to 5.27. Under this scenario, the maximum variance due to unique experiences is .29. The strength of this effect cannot be attributed to artifacts stemming from self-report measures, which are often critiqued. If the effects for observational measures are examined separately, the average heritability coefficient for aggression is .69 and very close to the estimate for the entire sample. Keep in mind that the heritability estimate for aggression extracted from the twins research is the direct effect of genetic inheritance on aggressiveness. Recall that the effects of genetic inheritance on aggression are moderated by individual differences in the operating parameters of the neurobiological systems that implement aggressive behavior (Beatty, 2005). As such, the heritability estimate for aggressiveness is equal to the product of the heritability coefficient for the relevant neurobiological parameter and the correlation between that parameter and aggressiveness. If it is assumed that the heredity to neurobiology path and the neurobiology to aggression path are equal in magnitude, then each coefficient would equal .84. On the other hand, if one path is larger, then the other path must be smaller, but even if the heredity to neurobiological parameter path were 1.00, the path coefficient for the effect of neurobiological characteristics and aggression would be .71 based on the results of a reanalyzed meta-analysis of the twins research. Prenatal Effects Genetic inheritance is only one of the exogenous factors to be considered in the development of a theoretic model of verbal aggression. In Beatty and McCroskey’s (1997) initial work on verbal aggressiveness, they focused on trait verbal aggressiveness as representing a threshold for activating particular neurobiological systems, such as the fight-flight system described by Gray (1991, 1994). After having described the systems involved, and conducting studies making use of personality measures suggested by research as proxies for individual differences in operating parameters for neurobiological systems (Valencic et al., 1998), speculation ensued about the origins of those operating parameters. At the time, most of their attention was directed toward the role of heredity because predictive power is the highest priority in evaluating scientific theory (Reynolds, 1971) and the effect sizes observed in twins studies seemed to hold the most promise for predictive power. Within that framework, parsimony dictates that theorists begin with exogenous variables that account for the most variance in endogenous variables (Blalock, 1969). Despite the almost exclusive focus on possible genetic sources of neurobiological operating parameters, Beatty and his colleagues (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997, 1998; Beatty, McCroskey, & Pence, 2009) have consistently acknowledged the potential effects of prenatal hormone exposure. Although hormone exposure can be described as a prenatal environment, it should be noted that by “environment” Beatty and McCroskey were referring to social environment, not physical environment. Their work recognized that physical intrusions such

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

11

as those associated with mothers’ stress levels, use of drugs, or physical trauma could greatly alter cognitive, emotional, and motor development, which, in turn, would affect communication functioning. In this way, Beatty and McCroskey’s work clashes directly with social learning theory and to the degree argumentative skill deficits are correlated with verbal aggression, the association would be seen as mostly spurious (i.e., both skills deficits and aggressiveness are not causally related but correlated because of a common underlying latent factor. As such, skills deficit and aggressiveness could be conceptualized as items loaded on a factor). In recent years, communication scholars have turned their attention toward prenatal effects, especially those related to hormonal exposure, and the development of communicator traits including verbal aggression (Beatty, McCroskey, & Pence, 2009). Much of the work focused on prenatal hormone exposure is directed at sex-typed behavior (e.g., Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek, & Berenbaum, 2005; Ellis & Aims, 1987) but has relevance to the study of aggression because the effect sizes for differences in aggressiveness for males compared to females is “large” (Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek, & Berenbaum, 2005), a finding consistent with sex differences reported for trait verbal aggression (e.g., Infante & Wigley, 1986). In general, the research indicates that prenatal hormonal environments have large effects on sex-typed behavior. However, some studies focus directly on the effects of prenatal hormone exposure to the development of personality in general (Reinisch, 1977) and aggressiveness in particular (Reinisch, 1981). These studies also indicate that exposure to particular hormones has a dramatic effect on aggression proneness. Reinisch (1981), for example, investigated the effects of exposure during gestation to synthetic progestins on aggressive behavior. Written responses to hypothetical interpersonal conflict situations were compared for exposed participants and unexposed siblings (age ranged from 6 to 18 years and was roughly equivalent for the exposed and unexposed groups). Reinisch found that, compared to unexposed siblings, endorsement of aggression was significantly higher for the hormone exposed group. Although neither effect sizes nor test statistics were reported in the article, it was possible to estimate the minimum effects of progestin exposure from the data reported. The results included sample size, the type of statistical test, and the fact that the p < .01 level of significance was achieved, although it is unclear whether one or two-tailed tests were conducted. Making the conservative assumption that the critical value of t barely met the .01 level for one-tailed tests, the effects expressed in terms of correlations would be r = .57, r 2 = .32 for males and r = .34, r 2 = .12 for females, for a combined average (weighted for 冪N – 3) effect of r = .47, r 2 = .22. In addition to selecting conservative criteria to estimate the effects of hormonal exposure in Reinisch’s study, it was not possible to correct the resulting correlation for attenuation. However, if we use .90 as an estimate of the reliability of the measure of aggression used in the study, the disattenuated r would improve to .52, r 2 = .28. Assuming a reliability of .90 is fairly generous and if

12

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

the reliability were lower in Reinisch (1981), the correction would have more effect on the estimated correlation between exposure and aggression. Consider also that the progestin protocols differed somewhat across the sample of mothers, with some receiving a battery of injections while others received them one at a time or in various combinations, which would increase error in the progestin variable. Therefore, to the extent that the obtained t-value was larger than the critical value for one-tailed tests and that the product of the reliabilities of the variables was less than .90, an r of .52 underestimates the effect of hormonal exposure on aggressiveness. Although Reinisch (1981) is but a single study the results are consistent with a huge body of research linking progestin to aggressiveness in animals (for a review, see Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek, & Berenbaum, 2005). Although Reinisch reported no significant differences in verbal aggressiveness due to progestin exposure, it is difficult to determine the meaning of the finding based on the data provided. Reinisch merely indicated “no significant difference.” The means, standard deviations, test statistics, or specific alpha level the test statistic failed to meet were not reported (e.g., .05, .01, one-tailed, two-tailed?). In part, whether physical aggression, verbal aggression, or more conciliatory responses are endorsed depends on the nature of the conflict presented in the scenario and perhaps the extent of exposure to the affecting hormones. Given the impact of prenatal hormone exposure demonstrated in the literature, however, studies such as Reinisch’s in which better measures of verbal aggression, with known psychometric features such as Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale, would be highly informative. Neurobiological Systems that Moderate Aggression Knowing that various forms of aggression are heavily influenced by genetic inheritance or prenatal hormone exposure is important because predictive power is central to the value of scientific theory but theory must also explain how the exogenous variables affect other variables in a model. As mentioned previously in this chapter, the effects of both heredity and prenatal hormone exposure on aggressiveness are mediated by neurobiological systems. Specifically, genetic and prenatal factors produce individual differences in the operating parameters of neurobiological systems which in turn manifest as individual differences in the predisposition toward and intensity of aggressive action. Understanding how individual differences manifest in neurobiological systems requires a basic grasp of neuron functioning. As is widely known, neurons consist of a cell body and branch-like extensions called axons and dendrites. Cell bodies contain genetic matter and material required to function as a conductor of the electric charge necessary to trigger the release of its neurotransmitters. Dendrites protrude from the cell body and function as receptor sites. Unless stimulated, the inner side of a dendrite is negatively charged, with a greater concentration of potassium (K +) ions inside than outside the dendrite, but the concentration of sodium (Na +)

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

13

ions is greater outside than inside the dendrite. The permeability of the outer membrane of the dendrite is altered by neurotransmitters released by nearby neurons such that positive sodium ions enter the dendrite, resulting in a less negative inner face. If the effect of the neurotransmitter is sufficient, a nerve impulse or graded potential charge is triggered, conducted through the cell body and transmitted to the axons. Axons are protrusions from the cell body that transmit graded potential charges away from the cell body and, when stimulated by the charge, secrete neurotransmitters into the synaptic space. The neurotransmitters in turn stimulate permeability of the dendrites of another neuron. Individual differences can occur anywhere in the neuron or its functioning. Strelau (1994) pointed out that the individual differences in neurobiological systems may take the form of “sensitivity to the neuron’s post synaptic receptors, or sensitivity in their synaptic transmission, the amount of neurotransmitters being released, the activity of the neural structures (including receptors), to different kinds of stimuli” (p. 135). The individual differences in sensitivity can manifest in dendrite or axon thickness. Nerve impulses follow the laws of physics, with impulses traveling more rapidly when axons, which are inborn features of neurons, are thicker. Also, the material in the cell body varies in the degree to which charges are conducted. The operating parameters of neurons vary within individuals depending on the particular system (e.g., motor versus perceptual). Overall, then, the threshold for reacting to particular stimuli and the intensity of the response varies across individuals as well as within individuals. One neurobiological system common to all humans but differentiated across the species in terms of operating parameters that has been linked to aggressive behavior was referred to as the fight-flight system (FFS; Gray, 1991, 1994). This system consists of the basolateral and centomedial nuclei of the amygdala, ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus, central gray regions of the midbrain, and the somatic and motor nuclei of the brain stem. Research focused on biochemical signatures of activity in this system and aggressiveness is consistent with the idea that activity in the FFS is an important predictor of aggression. For example, several studies reviewed in literature summaries (e.g., Beatty & McCroskey, 1997; Lish, Kavoussi, & Coccaro, 1996; Zuckerman, 1995) have shown that problems in either the production or uptake of serotonin are associated with aggressiveness (Hamer, 1997; Spoont, 1992) because serotonin inhibits FFS activity and opiates projected from the amygdala to the ventromedial hypothalamus are necessary for prosocial interpersonal behavior (Panksepp, 1982). In absence of opiate, lesions of the ventromedial hypothalamus reduce aggressiveness. In their initial work, Beatty and McCroskey (1997) proposed that neurobiological systems that inhibit behavior, which manifest as neuroticism and anxiety proneness (Eysenck, 1986; Gray, 1991, 1994; Strelau, 1994), ought to counteract the fight impulse, resulting in verbal aggression rather than physical assault. Within a biological model, aggressive behavior can be stimulated if the person is provoked enough to trigger the FFS

14

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

system. In general, communicators high in trait verbal aggressiveness simply have lower thresholds for activation of the FFS, meaning that less stimulus is required to induce a behavior. Research using personality measures indicated that, as predicted, neuroticism interacts with psychoticism (a proxy for the FFS) in the prediction of trait verbal aggression (Valencic et al., 1998). This system consists of the hippocampus, subiculum, septum, medial wall of the limbic lobe, olfactory cortex, cingulate and subcallosal gyri, subcortical areas of the amygdala, hypothalamus, epithalamus, anterior thalamic nuclei, and the basal nuclei (Gray, 1991, 1994). Stimulation of the FFS and BIS trigger impulses to behave accordingly and the threshold for activating these systems varies across communicators as discussed earlier. However, there are also profound individual differences in the neurobiological systems that act to control such impulses. There are a huge number of studies focused on the role of resting asymmetry in the anterior cortex in the self-control of emotion and behavior (see Davidson & Hugdahl, 1995). Lower levels of impulse control are associated with greater electrical activity in the left than the right anterior cortex. This is because emotional impulses rise from the amygdala through the anterior cortex and the right anterior cortex is believed to moderate those impulses. Simply put, a lack of right-side activity relative to left-side activity indicates that the right side is not working as intensely against the impulse as the left side is implementing the impulse. In the literature, researchers often refer to lower self-control being a function of greater right-side activation. However, activation is a construct that, among other things, represents the inverse of electrical activity. This asymmetry research is important in the study of verbal aggression because (1) various dimensions of impulse control, manifest as pro and antisocial personality traits and social behavior, can be predicted from the difference in electrical activity in the right and left side of the frontal cortex while at rest, (2) asymmetry can be detected in infants as early as six weeks from birth (Davidson & Hugdahl, 1995), and (3) asymmetry does not appear to be inherited (Anokhin, Heath, & Myers, 2006), thereby contributing unique variance to that accounted for by genetic inheritance. From this perspective, a verbally aggressive act occurs because the impulse from the FFS overwhelms the self-control mechanism implemented in the anterior cortex. At the biological level, high levels of trait verbal aggression might occur in different ways. For example, in Beatty and McCroskey’s (1997) initial model, trait verbal aggression was mostly due to extremely reactive FFS systems but it is possible that some people act on rather modest impulses from the FFS due to impaired impulse control owing to anterior asymmetry. A recent meta-analysis (Pence et al., 2008) examined published correlations between resting anterior symmetry and variables related to communication avoidance, competence, and other constructs, including two studies of verbal aggressiveness (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998; Harmon-Jones & Siegelman, 2001). Overall, resting asymmetry in the anterior cortex accounted for 16 percent of the variance (mean r = .401) in the constructs. There was no

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

15

indication of moderator effects and the variance in the effects was clearly attributable to sampling error. Within the data set, however, it is notable that Harmon-Jones and Siegelman (2001) reported a (disattenuated) correlation of .63 between resting prefrontal asymmetry and adults’ aggressiveness in response to an insult. Just as importantly, prosocial interpersonal orientations such as sociability, social competence, and perspective-taking ability were negatively correlated with asymmetry, meaning that higher scores on measures and indices of these variables were associated with symmetry in the resting activity of the anterior cortex. Importantly, considerable evidence exists to suggest that physical asymmetries of all sorts, including regions of the brain, are greatly affected by prenatal hormone exposure, especially testosterone (see Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek, & Berenbaum, 2005).

Social Learning and Skills Theories as Alternative Explanations There is doubtless some degree of multicollinearity between hereditary and prenatal hormone exposure due to the fact that some of the individual differences in hormonal environments can be traced to individual differences in mothers’ susceptibility to stress and anxiety. However, some of the effects, such as asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex, are largely orthogonal to heredity. If the analysis presented in this chapter is correct, summing the biological effects for heredity and prenatal factors accounts for virtually all of the variance in verbal aggressiveness, which leaves questions regarding social learning theory and argumentative skills deficiency explanations unanswered. A compelling biological model of any social behavior or trait must demonstrate superiority along several fronts rather than merely add to the proliferation of plausible alternatives. There are three general ways to accomplish such a task: (1) explain the research findings supporting alternative views within the new framework, and/or (2) identify flaws in the methodology and/or conceptual logic, and (3) demonstrate superiority in terms of criteria for evaluating theory (e.g., predictive power). The present treatment of social learning theory and argumentative skill deficit theory will draw upon all three approaches. Social Learning Theory The central thesis of social learning theory of aggression (Bandura, 1973) is that people imitate the aggressive behavior of models (i.e., significant people), such as actors in motion pictures. Imitation is more likely if the model is rewarded for the behavior. Beatty, McCroskey, and Valencic (2001) critiqued social learning theory in general along several lines, all of which apply to the study of verbal aggression. First, published research provides weak support at best for the modeling of aggression. Studies indicate that putative effects of violent content in the media of aggression, for example, are limited to a particular and abnormal portion of the population. Consider the meta-analyses of that literature

16

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

(Paik & Comstock, 1994; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). The average effect indicates that violent media accounts for less than 10 percent of the variance in aggressiveness. Even if the methodology were adequate, attributing 10 percent of the variance to media effects and removing it from the variance in trait verbal aggressiveness reported by Infante and Wigley (1986) would only reduce the standard deviation from 9.79 to 9.28. In other words, large unexplained individual differences would remain. Moreover, Beatty, McCroskey, and Valencic (2001) point to several unconventional practices, such as failure to weight effects for sample size which leads to capitalization of sampling error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) and counting children selecting one toy truck over another as an aggressive act, which served to inflate the average effect. One clue to the true nature of the relationship between media content and aggressiveness can be gleaned from the evidence for the presence of moderators although Paik and Comstock’s (1994) search failed to identify them. Unfortunately, data pertaining to personality were not collected in the studies sampled. However, experimental research by Zillmann and Weaver (1997) demonstrated that media effects on aggression are probably limited to the highly psychotic. The effect was in the .50 range for participants scoring extremely high on Eysenck’s measure of psychoticism but the effect was virtually .00 for everyone else. Therefore, it is errant to interpret the meta-analyses as detecting a small but possibly desensitizing effect on the culture. Rather, Zillmann and Weaver’s findings suggest that while violent media content may well affect psychotic individuals it probably has little effect on anyone else’s behavior. Recall that both Gray (1991, 1994) and Eysenck (1986) observed that sensitivity of the fight/flight system was a defining neurobiological condition of psychoticism. Although it is reasonable to be concerned both from a theoretic and public policy perspective about factors that excite psychotic citizens, the social learning mechanism does not, however, provide an adequate explanatory principle of how people become verbally aggressive if the effects are limited only to those who are already biologically wired for aggression. However, a theory placing individual differences in operating parameters of neurobiological systems such as the fight/flight system accounts for verbal aggression quite well, both in terms of variance explained and a comprehensible explanation for the emergence of the trait and behavior. Similar observations have been made about the parental influence on aggression (Lish, Kavaissi, & Caccaro, 1996). As with media effects, the magnitude of the correlation between parents’ behavior and children’s aggression is small and if the covariance due to common genetics were removed, the size of the association is even smaller. The small effect for parenting is consistent with the magnitude of shared environment effect reported in meta-analyses of twin studies (e.g., Beatty et al., 2002). Moreover, a huge amount of work in the dysfunctional parenting literature shows that a unidirectional effect from parents to children has been replaced by a reciprocal model in which children’s temperaments affect parents’ behavior toward the children (see Belsky & Von-

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

17

dra, 1993). Therefore, any correlation between parents’ behavior and children’s subsequent behavior cannot be taken as a social learning effect. A basic conceptual problem with learning theories is that, as seen with the effect of violent media, experience is mediated by individual differences in cognitive processing that are not explained by social learning. The classic study by Smith and Sarason (1975) illustrates the point well. Both socially anxious and confident students were shown videotapes of audiences that were purportedly reacting to a videotape of the student’s speech. Smith and Sarason found that compared to confident student speakers, socially anxious students rated the audience responses as more negative and less positive even though all of the students were, in fact, shown the same audience videotape. Similar results have been obtained regarding children’s responses to family environment. For example, children scoring high in neuroticism rate the home environment less stable than do their more secure siblings (Saudino & Plomin, 1997). In short, the magnitudes of the effects observed are far too small to sustain a social learning theory of verbal aggression and the recursive or at least enmeshed nature of the relationships among social stimuli and personality or temperament in both the media and family research tend to suggest a latent variable common to the observables, which is a scenario that is inconsistent with the directional mechanism presumed in social learning principles. Argumentative Skills Deficiency Hypothesis The argumentative skills deficiency (ASD) hypothesis holds that verbal aggressiveness results because the message source’s advocacy skills are inadequate to secure compliance or the desired attitude change on the part of the receiver. Although there are significant problems related to the close connection assumed in the literature between propensity or inclination to argue and possession of argumentation skills (i.e., knowledge regarding claim, warrant, and evidence, ability to identify reasoning fallacies, sensitivity to burden of proof, etc.), the point will be temporarily stipulated to examine the relevant ASD research in light of biological facts. If low argumentativeness is accepted as a valid proxy for an argumentative skills deficit, then the correlation between argumentativeness and verbal aggression would indicate the predictive power—upon which the value of any theory hinges—of ASD theory. However, in the study (Infante et al., 1984) often cited as evidence of the relationship (e.g., Wigley, 1998), the magnitude of the association between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness was very small. In that study, Infante et al. divided the sample into high, moderate, and low argumentativeness and examined mean differences in verbal aggressiveness of planned responses to adaptable and obstinate roommate scenarios. Two aspects of the reported findings are inconsistent with ASD theory. First, contrary to the proposition that the more argumentative the less aggressive a person is expected to be, the most aggressive messages were generated by the moderately argumentative group, not the low argumentative group. With respect to remediation,

18

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

this finding is important because most protocols designed to alter traits limit their expectations to moving people from extreme to moderate levels. For instance, no one expects systematic desensitization to turn highly apprehensive speakers into supremely confident ones. Along these lines, Infante et al.’s findings suggest that programs that would increase argumentativeness from low to moderate would be counterproductive because they would increase verbal aggression. Second, even if (1) objections to the treatment of categories derived from a continuous scale and treating them as randomly assigned conditions violates the assumptions of difference tests are suspended (Cohen, 1990), and (2) the mean aggressiveness of messages generated by the high and low argumentative groups are considered, the magnitude of the relationship between argumentativeness and verbal aggression is tiny. Although Infante et al. did not directly test the difference in verbal aggressiveness due to argumentativeness, it is possible to estimate the effects by reconstructing the variance estimates from the data reported. Using liberal estimates for every parameter, the largest association expressed as a correlation between argumentativeness and aggressiveness of messages produced is, approximately, r = .14. Even this estimate is generous because testing differences between groups constructed on the basis of extreme scores artificially inflates the magnitude of association. The inflated nature of the relationship was demonstrated by Infante and Wigley’s (1986) later study in which the correlation between trait measures of verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness was −.04. Although the adage “correlation does not equal causation” is well known, it is equally true that one variable cannot be taken as the cause of the other if they do not covary. The relationship between argumentativeness and verbal aggression is simply too weak to sustain a causal theory based on the proposition. To illustrate, consider that because the beta weight in simple regression analysis computed on standardized data indicates the proportion of change in standard units in the dependent variable (e.g., verbal aggressiveness) attributable to a one standard unit change in the independent variable (e.g., argumentativeness) and that a correlation coefficient is equivalent to a beta weight in simple standardized regression analysis, then even the inflated correlation of .14 indicates that it would take a change of approximately 7.14 standard deviations in argumentativeness, or 70.19 points based on the standard deviation of the argumentativeness scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982), to produce a change of one standard deviation or 9.79 points on the verbal aggressiveness scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Even then, according to Infante et al.’s (1984) results, most highly aggressive communicators would remain above the mean on verbal aggressiveness and some would actually become more aggressive. The actual correlation between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness is much smaller than .14. Furthermore, according to ASD theory, the buffer against becoming verbally aggressive afforded to the highly argumentative communicators is that they are able to induce compliance through the use of well-constructed arguments. In contrast, low argumentative communicators resort to verbal aggression because

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

19

they lack the skills necessary to persuade receivers. However, research by Infante (1981) established that argumentative people are not more persuasive than those low in the trait. Infante paired high and low argumentative participants into dyads and instructed them to discuss a controversial topic. Participants who scored in the middle range on the argumentativeness scale served as observers. In addition to observer ratings, Infante collected participant ratings of the dyadic partner across a number of dimensions. With respect to persuasiveness, dyadic members rated the degree to which they were persuaded by the other. In addition to the differences being statistically nonsignificant, calculation of the effect expressed as a correlation coefficient (for the formula, see, Rosenthal, 1991, p. 19) indicated a very small effect (r = .11). In addition, dichotomizing continuous scales using techniques such as a median split decreases the magnitude of the relationship between two variables from what would otherwise be found if correlation coefficients were calculated between two continuous versions of the measure (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), as mentioned, comparing extreme scorers from opposite ends of the scale and discarding the middle of the sample artificially enhances the range of the independent variable, in this case argumentativeness, and inflates the effect estimate (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, p. 38). Therefore, the .11 correlation between argumentativeness and persuasion in Infante’s study, and for that matter the .14 correlation between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness estimated for Infante et al. (1984), is actually inflated. The perceptions of high versus low argumentative communicators provided by observers for dimensions such as expertise and dynamism yielded correlations in the .30 region, which also are inflated by the extreme group comparison technique. In fact, the effects are probably around the .20 region. Moreover, when interpreting the observer data, it is essential to remember that the observers were moderately argumentative and Infante et al. (1984) demonstrated that this group was the most verbally aggressive, which according to ASD equates to being the least skillful at argumentation. Given that the observers also rated highly argumentative communicators as more verbose, it is possible that the observers, inclined toward verbal aggression themselves, have cognitive schema regarding argument that confounds expertise with dynamism, verbosity, and other signs of dominance. The important point is that if there is no difference in the persuasive skill of high and low argumentative communicators, then both groups have equal success achieving their rhetorical goal and neither would be more inclined than the other to turn to verbal aggression. Certainly, it is possible that argumentativeness, as an inclination to engage in conflict over ideas, is different from being good at it. Furthermore, studies that have attempted to improve argumentation skills have focused on relatively trivial, perhaps even unimportant, features of argumentative performance such as number of arguments in favor of a proposition (Rancer et al., 1997) rather than skills such as the ability to identify reasoning fallacies, employ symbolic logic and rules of deduction, detect flaws in evidence, and anticipate receivers’ responses and craft rebuttals for several iterations. To date, there are no

20

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

scientific studies which show large differences in those abilities as a function of argumentativeness, and therefore, no evidence that verbal aggression is due to argumentative skills deficiency. Also missing from the ASD conceptual treatment of verbal aggressiveness is the proposition that argumentative skills, even if they were greater among highly argumentative people, often have little impact on compliance. A huge amount of psychological theory (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Osgood, Souci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), often cited in the communication literature, addresses the prevalent human tendency to retain counterfactual attitudes even in the face of strong arguments to the contrary. Attitudes upon which actions rely are often anchored by emotion, ideology, superstition, habit, psychological problems, and a host of other influences that make the attitude impervious to reason. If verbal aggression results from social influence failures and the exhaustion of logical arguments, then increased skills would not lessen verbal aggression when resistance to persuasion is not based on reason or evidence. Thus, the assumption that improving argumentative skills would produce sufficient success to reduce the impulse toward verbal aggressiveness does not seem well founded in theory pertaining to human information processing and behavior. The preceding discussion directs attention at unanswered questions in the ASD writings as to why communicators low in argumentation skills turn to aggression when losing arguments. Why don’t they simply concede? Do highly skilled arguers concede when they face a more skilled adversary or do the principles of dissonance theory apply? It is possible that competence in a variety of types of social skills plays a role in aggression but, as in the media effects studies of aggression, the latent personality dimensions moderate the effects of social stimuli including failure to achieve interaction goals through argument.

Conclusion The search for a scientific theory of verbal aggressiveness is ongoing. Although the research reviewed pertaining to heredity, prenatal hormone exposure, anterior asymmetry, and the neurobiological systems that implement aggression is suggestive, a biological theory is far from definitive. Therefore, research directed at alternative theories including social learning and ASD should continue. Furthermore, attempts to develop programs to reduce verbal aggression should also continue. However, research designed to test the efficacy of protocols must attend to the standards and conventions of research necessary to ensure internal and external validity of findings. When self-report measures are employed, validly constructed placebo treatments must also be administered. Otherwise, the effects observed might be due to demand characteristics, especially when pre-test/post-test designs are employed. The same care should be taken when attempting to document improvements in argumentativeness or argumentative skills. Although it was known for years in the psychological literature, for example, that anxiety reduction techniques such as systematic desensitization (SD) were no more effective than an equally credible

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

21

placebo treatment (Kazdin & Wilcox, 1976), it wasn’t until recently that communication researchers demonstrated that placebo worked as well, if not better, than SD in the treatment of public speaking anxiety (Duff et al., 2007). Despite the lack of predictive power demonstrated by social learning theory and ASD theory, many theories are one discovery away from being resurrected just as many prominent theories are but one discovery or detected error away from being relegated to the discard pile. Theories are rarely, if ever, accepted as definitive. Instead, the status of theory in a discipline, or one of its fields, always depends on which theory better accounts for the data. At present, it seems clear that verbal aggression is best accounted for by biological factors rather than variables in the social environment. It may well be that biological factors account for the bulk of the variance in verbal aggression and that the mechanisms identified in social learning theory and ASD theory explain the remainder. However, because biology is given primacy, social factors should be included only when a purely biological approach appears to be inadequate and, even then, biological variance nested social factors must be removed to determine the unique contribution to a model of verbal aggression. Although the primary purpose of any discipline is the explanation of major phenomena, the many members of the discipline of communication perceive their major contribution to be in the arena of remedial skills development. There are good reasons to teach students to be more effective at argument even if the results do not lessen verbal aggressiveness. Skills at detecting reasoning errors, misuse of evidence, and emotional appeals, enable students to resist bad arguments and to defend their own positions on issues. Although proposing airtight cases does not guarantee rhetorical success, it ensures that the proposal cannot be easily rejected on logical grounds. Likewise, reducing aggression is a laudable goal. However, the perspective advanced in this chapter, which hopefully was advanced in accord with the principles of argumentation, is that achievement of those goals depends on an accurate explanation of the causes of verbal aggression.

References Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision-making. In J. S. Carroll and J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anokhin, A. P., Heath, A. C., & Myers, E. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on frontal EEG asymmetry: A twin study. Biological Psychology, 71, 289–295. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beatty, M. J. (2002). Do we know a vector from a scalar?: When r (not r-square) is the appropriate measure of effect. Human Communication Research, 28, 605–611. Beatty, M. J. (2005). Fallacies in the textual analysis of the communibiological literature Communication Theory, 15, 456–457. Beatty, M. J., & Heisel, A. D. (2007). Spectrum analysis of cortical activity during verbal planning: Physical evidence for the formation of social interaction rituals. Human Communication Research, 33, 48–63.

22

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Hall, A. E., Levine, T. R., & La France, B. H. (2002). What can we learn from the study of twins about genetic and environmental influences on interpersonal affiliation, aggressiveness, and social anxiety: A meta-analytic study. Communication Monographs, 69, 1–18. Beatty, M. J., & Lewis, R. J. (2009). Cognitive neuroscience perspective. In M. J. Beatty, J. C. McCroskey, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, research, and methods (pp. 33–39). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as temperamental expression. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Pence, M. E. (2009). Communibiological paradigm. In M. J. Beatty, J. C. McCroskey, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, research, and methods (pp. 3–16). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Belsky, J., & Vondra, J. (1993). Lessons from child abuse: The determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 153–202). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cates, D. S., Houston, B. K., Vavak, C. R., Crawford, M. H., & Uttley, M. (1993). Heritability of hostility-related emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 239–256. Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of aggression and irritability: A twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273–284. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–312. Cohen-Bendahan, C. C. C., van de Beek, C., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2005). Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-type behavior: Methods and findings. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 353–384. Davidson, R. J., & Hugdahl, K. (Eds.) (1995). Brain asymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. de Turck, M. A. (1987). When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliance gaining strategy. Communication Monographs, 54, 106–112. Duff, D. C., Levine, T. R., Woodbright, J., Park, H. S., & Beatty, M. J. (2007). Testing public speaking anxiety treatments against a credible placebo control. Communication Education, 56, 72–88. Eley, T. C., Lichtenstein, D., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sex differences in the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior: Results from two twins studies. Child Development, 70, 155–168. Ellis, L., & Aims, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality–heterosexuality. Psychological Review, 101, 233–258. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality study ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 3–19.

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

23

Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: Wiley. Fava, G. A., Grandi, S., Rafanelli, C., Saviotti, F. M., Ballin, M., & Pesarin, F. (1993). Hostility and irritable mood in panic disorder with agoraphobia. Journal of Affective Disorders, 29, 213–217. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson. Ghodsian-Carpey, J., & Baker, L. A. (1987). Genetic and environmental influences on aggression in 4 to 7-year old twins. Aggressive Behavior, 13, 173–186. Goldsmith, H. H., & Gottesman, I. I. (1977). An extension of construct validity for personality scales using twin-based criteria. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 381–397. Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gomba: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament (pp. 105–128). New York: Plenum. Gray. J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion systems (pp. 243–247). New York: Oxford University Press. Hamer, D. (1997). The search for personality genes: Adventures of a molecular biologist. Current Trends in Psychological Science, 6, 111–115. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1998). On the etiology of the rebuff phenomenon: Why are persuaders less polite after rebuffs? Communication Studies, 49, 305–321. Harmon-Jones, E. & Allen, J. B. (1998). Anger and frontal brain activity: EGG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation despite negative affective valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1310–1316. Harmon-Jones, E., & Siegelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797–803. Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2006). Are cognitive representations of friends’ refusals implemented in the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices? A cognitive neuroscience approach to “theory of mind” in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 249–264. Heisel, A. D., La France, B. H., & Beatty, M. J. (2003). Self-reported extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism as predictors of peer rated verbal aggressiveness and affinity-seeking competence. Communication Monographs, 70, 1–15. Horvath, C. W. (1995). Biological origins of communicator style. Communication Quarterly, 43, 394–407. Hughes, C., & Cutting, A. L. (1999). Nature, nurture, and individual differences in early understanding of mind. Psychological Science, 10, 429–432. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communication behavior in situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265–272. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., Trebing, D. J., Sheperd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 60–77.

24

Michael J. Beatty and Michelle E. Pence

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577–591. Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Reinmann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–1565. Kazdin, A. E., & Wilcox, L. (1976). Systematic desensitization and nonspecific treatment effects: A methodological evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 729–758. Lim, T. S. (1990). The influences of receivers’ resistance on persuaders’ verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 38, 170–188. Lish, J. D., Kavoussi, R. J., & Caccaro, E. F. (1996). Aggressiveness. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Personality characterisitics of the disordered (pp. 24–28). New York: Wiley. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martin, N., Boomsma, D., & Machin, G. (1997). A twin-pronged attack on complex traits. Nature Genetics, 17, 387–392. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: Unversity of Illinois Press. Owen, D. R., & Sines, J. O. (1970). Heritability of personality in children. Behavior Genetics, 1, 235–248. Paik, H., & Comstock, G. A. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. Panksepp, J. (1982). Toward a general psychobiology of emotions. Behavior and Brain Research, 5, 407–467. Pence, M. E., Heisel, A. D., Reinhart, A., Tian, Y., & Beatty, M. J. (November, 2008). Prefrontal cortex asymmetry and the regulation of communication avoidance, competence, and other constructs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Beatty, M. J. (1985). Modeling parents’ assertiveness: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 249–257. Plomin, R. (1986). Behavioral genetic methods. Journal of Personality, 54, 226–261. Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V. G., Kosberg, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescents. Communication Education, 46, 273–286. Reinisch, J. M. (1977). Prenatal exposure of human fetuses to synthetic progestin and estrogen affects personality. Nature, 266, 561–562. Reinisch, J. M. (1981). Prenatal exposure to synthetic progestins increases potential for aggression in humans. Science, 211, 1171–1173. Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury, CA: Sage. Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neal, M. C., Nias, D. K. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Altruism and aggression: The heritability of individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1192–1198.

Verbal Aggressiveness and Selected Biological Influences

25

Saudino, K. J., & Plomin, R. (1997). Cognitive and temperamental mediators of genetic contributions to the home environment during infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 1–23. Smith, R. E., & Sarason, I. G. (1975). Social anxiety and evaluation of negative interpersonal feedback. Journal of Consulting and Counseling Psychology, 43, 429–439. Spoont, M. R. (1992). Modulatory role of serotonin in neural information processing: Implications for human psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 330–350. Strelau, J. (1994). The concept of arousal and arousability as used in temperamental studies. In J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior (pp. 117–141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press. Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality similarity in twins raised apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031–1039. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. Valencic, K. M., Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. E., Dobos, J. A., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). An empirical test of a communibiological model of trait verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 46, 327–341. Widom, C. S. (1991). A tail on an untold tale: Response to “biological and genetic contributors to violence—Widom’s untold tale. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 130–132. Wigley, C. J., III. (1998). Verbal aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 191–214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Wood, W., Wong, F. Y., & Chachere, J. G. (1991). Effects of media violence on viewers’ aggression in unconstrained social interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 371–383. Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B., III. (1997). Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on acceptance of violence as a preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 613–627. Zuckerman, M. (1994). An alternative five factor model for personality. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament from infancy to adulthood (pp. 53–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zuckerman, M. (1995). Good and bad humors: Biochemical basis of personality and its disorders. Psychological Science, 6, 325–332.

Chapter 2

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry Alan D. Heisel

In their seminal article, Infante and Wigley (1986) offered a conceptualization of verbal aggression that has remained relatively unchanged for nearly two and a half decades. They characterized verbal aggression as “an attack on the self-concept of an individual instead of, or in addition to, the topic of communication.” The most salient characteristic of verbally aggressive messages is that the attack is designed to inflict psychological pain. This feature clearly distinguishes verbally aggressive messages from other types of communication intended to influence the behavior of others. Indeed, while verbally aggressive messages can sometimes alter another person’s behavior in ways consistent with the goals of a source, the relational costs can be significant. Furthermore, messages designed to influence others always have implicit or explicit goals, whereas verbally aggressive messages may or may not have any other purpose than to cause the receiver to experience psychological pain. It is important to note that one does not typically need specialized knowledge to identify a message designed to hurt. Nearly everyone has either been a sender, observer, or a target of verbally aggressive messages. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have also been the source of such messages at one time or another. In any case, whether as an observer or as the target, verbally aggressive messages are often highly stressful and unpleasant. After all, the inducement of psychological pain and discomfort is a defining characteristic of such messages. Identifying verbally aggressive messages is relatively straightforward. When the message itself is the focus, there is a directly observable phenomenon to serve as the basis for classifying the message as verbally aggressive. The more common types of verbally aggressive messages identified by Infante and Wigley (1986) include profanity, threats, and attacks on background, competence, character, or physical appearance. Such messages are relatively easy for observers to identify. Consider the following statement: “You’re stupid and you look like a freak!” In most contexts, this is likely to be classified by observers as verbal aggression, even though additional information could mitigate the meaning into something positive. This is an example of what might be termed explicit verbal aggression. That is, consider a message in which the words and context make alternative explanations to the inducement of psychological pain

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

27

highly unlikely. It is also possible that the source may have no intention of causing psychological pain. Thus, it is possible that a message might be interpreted by both the target and/or observers as being verbally aggressive when in fact, that was not the intent of the sender. Perhaps it is easiest to simply state that a message that contains explicit verbal aggression requires more contextual information to modify the meaning than other forms of communication that are more positive or neutral. For example, how much information is required to modify the statements “you’re stupid” and “you look like a freak.” Questions such as: What is the relationship between the source of the message and the target? What happened immediately prior to delivery of the message by the source? What is the shared history of the message source and the target? What is “normal” for interactions between the message source and the target? With no additional information, “you look like a freak” seems to be a hurtful message. To make this message positive or neutral, would it be enough to know that the message’s source and the target were acquaintances to change the intent? What if they were long-time friends? What if they regularly traded playful insults or if both perceived the word “freak” to be positive or empowering? Evaluating whether a message is verbally aggressive (explicit or otherwise) with reasonable assurance requires not only contextual information but also information about the delivery of the message. When assessing the intent behind any message, the way something is said is often more telling than the words that are actually used. The nonverbal elements of communication that can modify the meaning of a message are referred to as paralanguage, and this is an important consideration in verbal aggression research. Paralanguage includes elements of delivery such as volume, pitch, tone, breathiness, nasality, and other nonverbal expressions that co-occur with the words in a message. These characteristics of delivery help to indicate what meaning should be derived by the receiver. Other nonverbal cues, such as body posture and facial expression, can also influence the interpretation of the receiver. Indeed, the meaning of words can be dramatically altered through paralinguistic and other nonverbal cues. For example, consider a message such as, “You are so smart, Murray.” Without any paralinguistic cues, the meaning of the message is somewhat equivocal. It could be a compliment, an insult, or a “good-natured jab.” Delivered with normal volume, pitch, tone, relaxed posture, and a pleasant facial expression, the receiver would probably interpret the message as a compliment. Stated with a pleasant facial expression and a friendly grin, it is unlikely that the receiver would interpret the comment as mean-spirited. However, delivered in a loud voice with an exaggerated or derisive tone and accompanied by stiff body posture and an unpleasant facial expression, it would be difficult for the receiver to misinterpret the meaning the source intended. The example of Murray is one in which the message might be said to contain implicit verbal aggression because without any additional information, the words and known contextual information make the inducement of psychological pain highly unlikely. In contrast to the explicit variant discussed earlier, implicit verbal aggression requires more contextual information to be known

28

Alan D. Heisel

before observers will modify an initially positive or neutral meaning to something that reflects the sources’ intent to cause psychological pain. While much of the research in verbal aggression involves traditional (i.e., face-to-face) communication, technologies such as email and texting can be, and are, used by people to effectively express both implicit and explicit verbal aggression in messages. The lack of traditional nonverbal cues often requires receivers to rely on non-traditional cues (or those directly related to the technology) for contextual information regarding the meaning of a particular message. For example, CAPITALIZATION, word choice, spelling, grammar, and emoticons (e.g., smiley faces and frowns) alter the meaning of a message in ways that are similar to the way that changes in the pitch and voice tone can change meaning. Similarly, awkward pauses in face-to-face interactions can be equally telling online. For example, if two people have been rapidly exchanging text messages and an unexpectedly long pause occurs, the next message received after the pause would be interpreted in the context of the pause, as well as the previous message. From the standpoint of researchers who seek to better understand verbal aggression, there is a multitude of factors that could alter the perceived intent and ultimate outcome of a message. Indeed, if the focus is shifted from the messages themselves to characteristics of the source and the receiver, even more factors emerge. For example, do people vary in the degree to which they see verbal aggression in messages? If so, what makes them more or less prone to seeing aggressive intent in messages? What would make some individuals more likely to interpret a message as being specifically intended to cause psychological pain, even when observers disputed the interpretation and the source did not intend the message as an attack? Similarly, it is well known that people vary in the degree to which they engage in verbal aggression, and that this is associated with other dominant personality and approach-oriented personality characteristics. Why do some individuals use more verbally aggressive messages than others? How does the intent of the source to cause psychological pain relate to other goals that the source might hope to achieve by delivering verbally aggressive messages? Students and scholars alike use the term “verbally aggressive” to describe individuals who habitually use implicit and explicit verbal aggression in their interactions in a variety of different contexts over time. Psychometric tests are the traditional method of classifying individuals as high, moderate, or low in verbal aggression. The most common self-report index in communication research is Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggression Scale (VAS). Although some researchers have begun using a ten-item version of the scale (see Beatty, Rudd, & Valencic, 2000), the VAS and its variants remain the preferred measurement instrument. Such measurement techniques allow researchers to make more precise comparisons between individuals in terms of their communication behavior and tendencies. From one point of view, it is unnecessary to ask someone to fill out a scale to find out whether they are verbally aggressive as their behavior will determine the answer. Indeed, one can easily envision a verbally aggressive individual berating someone for merely asking them to fill out a scale! Still,

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

29

people are relatively adept at identifying verbally aggressive behavior and individuals. Certainly, an observer will ascribe meanings to such behaviors and individuals—often as either mean or funny—depending on the personality of the observer and whether he or she is the target of the message. Regardless of the judgments ascribed to verbally aggressive behavior, as a characteristic of the source, verbal aggression has traditionally been conceptualized as a trait-like variable. That is, individuals who are highly verbally aggressive tend to engage in such behaviors regularly over time and across contexts, regardless of situational restraints or consequences. In contrast, individuals low in verbal aggression will engage in such behaviors rarely if at all, even when an observer might deem it appropriate to do so. The trait-like conceptualization of verbal aggression allows speculation about the biochemical, biological, or neurobiological antecedents of such behavior. Beatty and McCroskey (1997) used the classic fable of the Frog and the Scorpion to illustrate this aspect of verbal aggression. According to the fable, a scorpion wants to cross a wide river and asks a frog to carry him on his back so that he can get to the other side. The frog, fearful of being stung, initially refuses, saying that the scorpion would sting him if he allowed the scorpion to ride on his back, but when the scorpion points out that he would drown if he were to sting the frog, the frog reluctantly agrees. The scorpion climbs onto the back of the frog and the frog begins to carry the scorpion across the river. Halfway through their journey, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog begins to die and the scorpion begins to drown, the frog asks, “Why did you sting me?” to which the scorpion replies, “I’m a scorpion, it’s in my nature.” While the use of verbal aggression on occasion is relatively common— particularly among some groups, such as highly competitive sports teams—only a small proportion of the population engage in the behavior regularly enough to be classified as high in verbal aggression. What is the experience and motivation of these highly verbally aggressive individuals? What is the source(s) of the observable differences between them and individuals who manifest low to moderate levels of verbal aggression? What factor(s) makes some people more prone to using messages that cause psychological pain? Unfortunately, there is no empirical or physiological mechanism currently available that can consistently, accurately, and objectively evaluate a source’s intent. Consider this: is it possible for a person to not know what he or she intended when constructing and delivering a message? On the one hand, it might easily be dismissed since verbal messages “require” conscious thought for delivery. On the other hand, intent to cause psychological pain is not required for a message to induce psychological pain. In fact, some evidence suggests that some individuals classified as high in verbal aggression do not perceive themselves to be inappropriate or intend for them to cause “psychological pain.” Furthermore, one might consciously choose to construct and deliver a verbally aggressive message, but to what extent do individuals have the ability to consciously, or through an act of will, adjust the activity of neurons or the amount of serotonin or dopamine in their brains immediately before a message is

30

Alan D. Heisel

constructed? If intent is merely a post hoc analysis, it is theoretically possible to “make” people verbally aggressive by manipulating the antecedent conditions. Thus, intent will remain a problematic element of verbal aggression. For some verbally aggressive individuals, the goal of their messages might be compliance rather than psychological pain. For others, verbal aggression is engaged in because of visceral factors such as pleasure or satisfaction in being the cause of psychological pain. Again, whether this represents intent or not is open to debate. Although defining intent from a socio-behavioral perspective and establishing a mechanism to assess it is a significant challenge that is unlikely to be overcome in the near future, that does not preclude researchers from identifying observable physiological characteristics of sources high in verbal aggression related to the behavioral manifestation of verbal aggression. Intentional or not, messages can and do cause psychological pain, and purposeful or not, some people are more verbally aggressive in their interactions than others. This chapter will attempt to further explicate one factor that promises to offer some insight into the antecedent conditions, and help determine from whence the variation in verbal aggression arises. The following is an investigation into a neurobiological characteristic that has the potential to explain differences in levels of trait-like verbal aggression. It begins with a basic premise, articulated in the communication discipline by Beatty and McCroskey (1998) under the rubric of communibiology. In a relatively innocuous proposition, Beatty and McCroskey framed communibiology with the assumption that brain activity precedes both conscious thought and communicative acts. One neurobiological variable that holds some promise for informing those interested in the etiology of verbal aggression is frontal asymmetry. Asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex has been associated with the regulation of emotion and impulse control (e.g., Caccioppo, 2004; Coan & Allen, 2004a, 2004b), two factors that may help to explain why some individuals are more verbally aggressive than others.

Asymmetrical Activity in the Prefrontal Cortex Activity in the prefrontal cortex has already been the subject of a number of studies involving communication and/or communication-related behavior (e.g., Beatty & Heisel, 2007; Beatty et al., 2008; Heisel & Beatty, 2006) because extant research indicates that this region plays a major role in generating purposeful behavior (e.g., Tanji & Hoshi, 2001). While each of the communication studies referenced above involved measurement of electrical activity in the prefrontal cortex, Beatty et al. (2008) were the first to analyze cortical activity using an asymmetrical processing model. This paradigm for investigating neurological activity is based on evidence that implicates asymmetrical activity in the left and right anterior prefrontal cortex as a factor that influences the ability of people to regulate their emotions and control their impulses (e.g., Coan & Allen, 2004a, 2004b; Fox, 1994; see also, Davidson, 2000). Specifically, asymmetrical activity has been associated with emotional instability and

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

31

reduced impulse control (Davidson, 2000), while greater symmetry in base-level electrical activity of the left and right anterior prefrontal cortex is associated with greater emotional stability and impulse control. Beatty et al. (2008) used an asymmetrical processing model for their study involving communication apprehension because of the robustness of the prefrontal cortex asymmetry construct. Asymmetry in the brain appears to have a direct impact on emotional and behavioral responses to social stimuli. However, other communication scholars have used similar concepts in the past. The notion of laterality, for example, was first applied by communication scholars in the mid 1980s with some promising results (Stacks & Sellers, 1986, 1989). Brain laterality research focused on the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Although conceptually distinct with different functions and tasks assigned to each, interaction between the two could influence the unique functioning of each hemisphere (e.g., Segalowitz, 1983). Brain laterality studies relied largely on earlier notions of a left-brain right-brain dichotomy in which the left hemisphere was typically associated with logic and rationality while the right hemisphere was associated with creativity and emotion. More contemporary research has refined these concepts, adding motivational (i.e., approach and withdrawal) as well as dispositional (e.g., personality) factors (e.g., Coan & Allen, 2003, 2004b). An asymmetrical processing model of the brain is similar to laterality studies in that a dichotomized comparison is made based on the anatomical structure of the brain. In both cases, the relationship between the selected areas of the brain is examined, and researchers attempt to link that relationship to other brain functions or behaviors. However, unlike the older brain studies limited by technological barriers, contemporary asymmetry research offers great precision when comparing cortical activity in dichotomized regions. Indeed, highly specific regions of the brain (i.e., the left and right anterior prefrontal, dorsolateral prefrontal, or orbitofrontal cortex) can be measured and compared to calculate an asymmetry score. Communication-Related Behaviors Pence et al. (2008) recently conducted a meta-analysis of studies which examined baseline (or resting) frontal EEG asymmetry and variables of interest to communication researchers. Although over 300 published articles on frontal EEG asymmetry were identified, those selected for meta-analysis excluded studies and essays which: (1) did not contain original data (e.g., reviews and editorials), or those which did not report data necessary for meta-analysis; (2) focused specifically on clinically defined mental or behavioral disorders (e.g., autism), or those where the samples were composed of individuals classified as having clinical behavior or personality disorders (e.g., clinically depressed); (3) examined asymmetry in portions of the brain other than the anterior prefrontal cortex (e.g., parietal); and/or (4) examined asymmetry induced by experimental manipulation.

32

Alan D. Heisel

Baseline, or resting measures of asymmetry reflect a dispositional, or trait perspective on human behavior. Similar to verbal aggression, a dispositional approach views baseline activity as a relatively stable characteristic of the individual that is fundamentally related to his or her social, emotional, and behavioral responses to stimuli across time and context. The more symmetrical the activation is at rest, the more likely that the person will respond in an emotionally appropriate manner (resisting perhaps, the urge to respond inappropriately). In contrast, the greater the asymmetry at rest, the more potential that the exposure to any stimuli will induce an asymmetrical state, resulting in corresponding social, emotional, and behavioral responses that are more extreme. Thus, while some with a low resting asymmetry may well experience greater asymmetry during a conflict or other emotionally troubling event, he or she would not experience or respond to the stimuli to the same degree as someone with a much higher resting asymmetry. As an analogy, imagine resting asymmetry as the center (or fulcrum) of a lever. A perfectly centered fulcrum and lever would require equal force to lift an equal amount of weight on either side. However, as the fulcrum is moved away from the center, the effect is disproportionate (vis-à-vis the lever). The closer the fulcrum is to one side, the more extreme the differences in force required. The shorter side would require more force to lift less weight while the long side would require less force and would be able to lift more weight. Although a centered and off-centered fulcrum will both move, given sufficient force, an off-centered or first-class fulcrum is much more efficient. In other words, it takes less to do more. In the case of frontal asymmetry, this means that it takes less to evoke a stronger response when compared to more symmetrical baseline activation. Pence et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis on both temperament and communication-related constructs focusing on resting alpha asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex. The communication-related cluster included variables such as defensiveness (Blackhart & Kline, 2005; Kline, Allen, & Schwartz, 1998; Kline et al., 2001), anger (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998), aggressive responses to insults (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001), social competence (Fox et al., 1995), and sociability (Schmidt, 1999; Schmidt & Fox, 1994), among others. The mean correlation coefficient for the cluster was .41, supporting the notion that prefrontal cortex asymmetry has significant implications and potential applications for communication research. Importantly, the aggressiveness component of the communication cluster bears directly on the topic of this chapter. Communication Apprehension Having spawned countless studies across decades of research, communication apprehension is one of the most enduring areas of research in the discipline. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Beatty et al. (2008) would choose this communication trait as the first to be examined through the lens of asymmetry. Communication apprehension (CA) is the “fear or anxiety associated with

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

33

either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Because trait communication apprehension, like verbal aggressiveness, is conceptualized as a relatively enduring personality-type orientation (McCroskey, 1984), it reflects the same dispositional approach that embodies resting asymmetry studies. Just as dispositional approaches interpret induced asymmetry as a function of (and in the context of) resting asymmetry, McCroskey and Beatty (1998) argued that situational communication apprehension was “simply a manifestation of trait CA and other traits of the individual” (p. 217). In Beatty et al.’s (2008) study, the relationship between resting alpha asymmetry in the anterior prefrontal cortex and communication apprehension was assessed. Participants completed McCroskey’s (1982) Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) prior to the collection of the asymmetry data. Asymmetry data was collected in a lab specifically designed for neurobiological research using an electroencephalograph (EEG). After the EEG data collection procedure, participants completed a state anxiety inventory to partial out potential effects of induced asymmetry due to application and presence of the EEG apparatus. Researchers were concerned that artifacts associated with state anxiety might impact their study for two reasons: First, there was concern that the high communication apprehensives might not participate in the EEG collection at all, resulting in a homogeneous sample. This proved not to be the case as the full spectrum of high, moderate, and low communication apprehensives were present. Second, there was concern that the process of installing the EEG measurement equipment might itself be anxietyinducing, and thus, potentially inducing asymmetry. A regression equation indicated that communication apprehension remained a significant predictor of asymmetry even after the effects of state anxiety were removed. The uncorrected correlation between communication apprehension and resting asymmetry in the anterior prefrontal cortex was moderate and significant at .51, indicating that greater activation in the right anterior prefrontal cortex (relative to the left) was associated with increased reports of both communication apprehension and state anxiety (inverse alpha power). These findings suggest that higher levels of resting alpha asymmetry in the anterior prefrontal cortex may contribute to induced alpha asymmetry and ultimately, both the experience of communication apprehension and the avoidance of communication. Because prefrontal cortex asymmetry has been associated with both approach and avoidance behaviors (e.g., Coan & Allen, 2003), this study provides further support to the possible relationship between verbal aggression and frontal asymmetry. Trait Affection In an effort to identify neurobiological markers, Lewis (2008) tested the relationship between trait affection and resting EEG asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex. According to Floyd (2002), trait affection refers to a person’s

34

Alan D. Heisel

predisposition to express affection or experience affection internally. While previous research had linked trait affection to hemispheric dominance via selfreport (e.g., Floyd & Mikkelson, 2004; Mikkelson, Farinelli, & La Valley, 2006), Lewis (2008) conducted the first direct test. Although he utilized a relatively small sample, Lewis found a large correlation [r (16) = .73] between asymmetrical activation in the prefrontal cortex and scores on the self-reported trait affection scale. Discriminant analysis dichotomizing trait affection into individuals either high or low in the trait using a mean split resulted in 81.3 percent correct classification. Interestingly, when only extreme scores on the trait affection scale were considered (i.e., scores that were either one standard deviation above and below the mean), 100 percent correct classification was achieved, although the sample size was more than halved. In both cases, however, an inverse relationship existed such that high levels of trait affection were associated with less asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex. Thus, one would expect a negative correlation between trait affection and communication apprehension. Given the emotional component of the variables, one might predict verbal aggression to have a similarly valenced relationship. In fact, trait affection might be considered a functional counterpoint to verbal aggression. In contrast to the predisposition to attack the self-concept of another, the expressive component of trait affection (TAS-G, Floyd, 2002) could be conceived, at least partly, as a predisposition to reinforce or support the self-concept of another as both liking and positive regard are elements associated with affectionate communication. Verbal Aggression Across disciplines and perspectives, aggression and hostility are among the most widely researched areas of focus in the study of human behavior. As a result, there is a plethora of research on aggression from situational as well as dispositional (trait) perspectives. In communication, it is those aspects of aggression that are manifest in communicative behaviors or the correlates and consequences of those behaviors that are of principal interest. Beatty and McCroskey (1997) first attempted to frame verbal aggression in the context of communibiology when they posited that communication traits such as verbal aggression were largely heritable (Beatty & McCroskey, 1998). Earlier studies linking neurobiology and personality traits (e.g., Gray, 1991) were used to develop models of genetically influenced neurobiological models (e.g., Beatty, McCroskey, & Heisel, 1998; Valencic et al., 1998). Beatty, McCroskey, and Valencic (2001) argued that communication behavior was itself “an expression of principally inborn functioning” (p. 80). In a 2005 study, Hennig et al. identified a genetic link that provides some support for the Beatty and McCroskey (1997, 1998) perspective. Hennig et al. (2005) examined the effects of the TPH gene on hostility and used the terms aggressive hostility and neurotic hostility to differentiate between the gene’s phenotypes. Importantly, Hennig et al. identifed verbal hostility as a compon-

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

35

ent of neurotic hostility, providing some support for the conclusions drawn by Valencic et al. (1998). In their study of verbal aggression, Valencic et al. concluded that the construct could be viewed, at least partly, as a temperamental expression of neurotic psychoticism. Unfortunately, Valencic et al.’s (1998) study relied solely on self-report measures of temperament as indicators of neurobiological functioning and therefore does not represent a direct test of heredity or even brain function. Although a more direct test of neurobiological functioning, Rybak et al. (2006) examined the more general construct of aggression. Rybak et al. examined frontal EEG asymmetries in aggressive children and adolescents, identifying a greater relative left activation in the prefrontal cortex (inverse alpha power). Other studies, such as Peterson, Shackman, and Harmon-Jones’ (2008) examination of aggression also found greater relative left cortical activity, although their study involved inducement and behavioral aggression similar to that used in the Hennig et al. (2005) aggressive hostility study. In addition, research on deviants and murderers support the role of the prefrontal cortex in inhibiting aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., 1999; Raine, Buchsbaum, & LaCasse, 1997; Raine et al., 1998). While these studies and others support the notion that frontal asymmetry can be applied to inform and expand the concept of verbal aggression, no direct test has been attempted. As a consequence, a direct test involving resting frontal asymmetries and verbal aggression was conducted.

Method Data collection for this study reflected a two-phase process involving the completion of an online survey followed by a lab visit. Two hundred and ninety students enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at a mid-size Midwestern university completed a measure of verbal aggression online for extra credit. Participants were relatively diverse in terms of reported ethnicity with 69 percent identifying themselves as Caucasian (n = 191), 24.5 percent African American (n = 68), 4 percent Asian (n = 11), 2.2 percent Hispanic or Latino (n = 6), and 2.5 percent with multiple ethnic identities or unreported ethnicity (n = 7). Participant sex reflected a greater number of females (n = 198, or 67.1 percent) relative to males (n = 77, or 26.6 percent) with 6.3 percent unreported (n = 15). The average age was 27.8 years. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate if they would be interested in earning additional course credit for participating in a follow-up study using an electroencephalograph (EEG). Only 25 percent (n = 74) of respondents indicated that they would not be interested in participating in the follow-up study. While 5 percent (n = 14) did not respond to the question, the remaining respondents, nearly 70 percent (n = 202), expressed willingness and interest. Participants interested in the second phase of the study were provided with a copy of an informed consent letter that described the procedures, time

36

Alan D. Heisel

commitment, and instructions for scheduling a visit to the EEG lab. Individuals who were willing to participate in the second phase of the study were given an opportunity to reserve a time to have their baseline activity measured which included appointments during the day, in the evening, and on the weekend. More than two weeks elapsed between phase one and phase two for each participant. A total of 32 participants (slightly more than 15 percent of the potential pool) participated in phase two data collection. However, due to measurement artifacts associated with the EEG acquisition process (e.g., unacceptable impedances, muscle contractions, etc.), analysis was limited to 22 participants. Phase two participants were demographically similar to those who completed only phase one with two notable exceptions. First, while Caucasians remained the largest component of the sample, the proportional representation was lower, increasing the presence of the minority sample. Ethnically, 59 percent identified themselves as Caucasian (n = 13), 18 percent (n = 4) as Asian, 14 percent (n = 3) as African American, and 9 percent (n = 2) identified with more than one ethnicity. In addition, the average age of the sample that completed both phase one and two was somewhat younger than the phase one sample at 24.8 years old. Sex remained essentially the same, with 68 percent female and 32 percent male. Phase One A variant of Infante and Wigley’s (1986) verbal aggression scale (VAS) was delivered online to get an estimate of the degree of trait verbal aggression in participants. Specifically, only the ten negatively valenced items in the scale were used. Beatty, Rudd, and Valencic (2000) argued that the multifactor solution they derived from the full VAS suggested that greater reliability and a single factor solution could be obtained by using only the negatively valenced subset. The subscale used a standard five point Likert-type format with a minimum score of 10 and a maximum score of 50. The resulting mean was 35.96 with an sd of 7.76. Importantly, while no participant reported a “perfect” score (i.e., the lowest possible score of 10, or the highest possible score of 50), the sample was representative of the full range of verbally aggressive people with scores ranging from 20 to 45. In addition, the subscale proved to be highly reliable with a Crohnbach’s Alpha calculated at slightly more than .89. Phase Two During the second phase of data collection, participants visited the EEG lab to collect information on baseline anterior prefrontal cortex asymmetry. The researcher briefed participants upon arriving at the lab and then led them to a cubicle where they read and signed the informed consent agreement. Participants then reported sinistrality (handedness), as hemispheric laterality is reversed in approximately 30 percent of left-handed individuals’ brains (Knecht et al., 2000). Next, the researcher determined the appropriate sensor array to use given the participants’ head size and allowed the participant to initially place the cap on

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

37

his or her head before visually inspecting the alignment of the cap according to the nasion, vertex, and inion. Each sensor array consists of 34 silver-silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) sintered electrodes embedded in a spandex cap according to the International 10–20 electrode placement system (Harner & Sannit, 1974). The sensor array includes six additional electrodes which were manually placed using double-sided adhesive discs. One referent electrode was placed on each earlobe while the four remaining electrodes were placed approximately 1–2 cm to the left and right of each eye, 1–2 cm above the left eyebrow, and 1–2 cm below the left eye. Once all electrodes were placed, each was “loaded” using a blunt-nosed syringe filled with an electrolyte gel to decrease electrical resistance between the participant’s scalp and the surface of each electrode. The sensor array itself was connected to a 40-channel Compumedics/ Neuroscan electroencephalograph (EEG amplifier) which records the electrical signals detected by each electrode. Data from the amplifier was then delivered to a monitoring computer for review and analysis. Impedance Check Impedance, a combination of capacitance and resistance, is an important measure of the accuracy (and a potential artifact) to EEG data. High levels of impedance can obscure the observation and measurement of cortical activity in participants. Although the criterion for acceptable impedance values may vary by condition and research paradigm, determining maximum acceptable impedance values from the technical specifications of the EEG is generally preferable. Specifically, a simple calculation can be used to determine acceptable impedance in electrodes based on the input impedance of the EEG amplifier. For each MOhm of input impedance in the amplifier, the acceptable level of electrode impedance would be increased by 1 kOhm (Picton et al., 2000; Pivik et al., 1993). Based on this formula, the 80 MOhm input impedance rating on the EEG amplifier used in this study means that the theoretical maximum impedance should not exceed 80 kOhms. In this study, the average impedance across the entire electrode array was 5.76 kOhms (sd = 3.76), reflecting a balanced array comfortably within accepted margins. Impedances for FP1 and FP2 electrodes (used to calculate PFC asymmetry), were 5.09 kOhms (sd = 2.74) and 5.18 kOhms (sd = 3.40), respectively. Baseline Measurement and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry The process of placing the electrode array on each participant ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Once the apparatus was in place, participants were asked to relax and to minimize movement while the data were being collected. Baseline cortical activity was collected in three five-minute sets in which the participants first sat normally with their eyes open, followed by a second five-minute period in which they sat with their eyes closed, and finally, either open or closed depending on muscle artifacts and/or participant preference. Baseline activity

38

Alan D. Heisel

across collection sets produced no significant differences among sets so the three were averaged to produce baseline scores. Subsequent analyses focused on FP1 and FP2 electrodes to estimate asymmetry in prefrontal cortex activity (odd-numbered electrodes are on the left, while even-numbered electrodes are on the right). Specifically, the aggregate baseline activity of FP2, as measured in microvolts (µV), was subtracted from the corresponding measure of FP1. As a result, negative asymmetry scores reflect greater activity in the right PFC relative to the left PFC, and positive scores indicate heightened activity in the left PFC relative to the right. Importantly, asymmetry estimates that approach zero reflect more symmetrical cortical activity.

Results Knecht et al. (2000) estimated that hemispheric laterality may be reversed in up to 30 percent of left-handed individuals and, with two participants reporting left-handedness (9 percent of the sample), it was necessary to determine if the reported phenomena might impact the planned statistical analyses. A t-test comparing handedness and prefrontal cortex asymmetry indicated a nonsignificant relationship [t (19) = 1.22, p = ns], suggesting that handedness was not a factor. However, a second test was conducted to evaluate the relationship between handedness and verbal aggression to insure that neither the independent nor dependent variables were impacted. This relationship was also nonsignificant [(t(19) = 2.01, p = ns]. Taken together, these results suggest that sinistrality did not have an impact on either variable for participants and, therefore, will not be considered a relevant factor in subsequent analyses. An initial examination of the relationship between verbal aggression and prefrontal cortex asymmetry produced a significant correlation, r (22) = .53, p < .01, Cohen’s D = 1.72. Using Cohen’s (1988) nomenclature, this represents a large effect size. The positive relationship between verbal aggression and prefrontal cortex asymmetry indicates that greater cortical activity in the right PFC (relative to the left) is associated with greater degrees of trait verbal aggression. To test whether trait verbal aggression scores could be used to predict PFC asymmetry, data for VAS subscale was dichotomized using the participants who scored in the top and bottom quartiles. A discriminant analysis using high and low trait verbal aggression to predict PFC asymmetry resulted in 80 percent correct classification [f (1, 8) = 7.03, p < .05, Wilks’ Lambda = .53], with a canonical r of .68. Interestingly, high levels of trait verbal aggression more accurately predicted PFC asymmetry than low levels of the trait when dichotomized. Combined, these results support the notion of a biologically based antecedent to trait levels of verbal aggressiveness.

Conclusions In previous communication research, asymmetrical processing in the prefrontal cortex has been associated with communication apprehension (Beatty

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

39

et al., 2008) and trait affection (Lewis, 2008). In both cases, a greater degree of asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex was associated with more extreme scores on the trait indices. Specifically, greater activation in the right PFC relative to the left was associated with greater levels of communication apprehension (Beatty et al., 2008) and more discomfort associated with affectionate communication (Lewis, 2008). In the current study, verbal aggressiveness was found to have a similar relationship such that verbal aggressiveness was moderately correlated with increased activity in the right PFC relative to the left. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted outside the discipline (e.g., Davidson, 2000, 2004; Urry et al., 2004; Weidemann et al., 1999) that indicate PFC asymmetry is associated with disruption of the normal regulation of emotion. The results of this study were reported using alpha power as the measure of asymmetry. Unfortunately, the reporting of frontal asymmetry results is neither consistent nor standardized. In many cases, it is the inverse of alpha power that is reported in asymmetry studies. As a result, these results are consistent with those studies that identify greater relative left anterior prefrontal cortex activation using the inverse alpha for frontal asymmetry (see, e.g., Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998; Harmon-Jones & Siegelman, 2001).

Implications Trait verbal aggression, based on the findings reported in this chapter, is linked to baseline asymmetrical alpha activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex. Individuals who scored higher on the verbal aggression scale were characterized by a greater degree of frontal EEG asymmetry relative to those who scored lower on the scale. Because frontal asymmetry can be induced by experimental and situational factors, the role that it plays in the etiology of verbal aggressiveness is one of degrees. Much as the trait perspective on verbal aggressiveness presumes that an individual’s average level of verbal aggressiveness will be relatively stable across time and contexts, the dispositional perspective on resting asymmetry suggests that baseline activity, although variable, is nevertheless a relatively stable construct over time and across contexts. Thus, if one were to compare two individuals, one relatively high and the other low in baseline frontal asymmetry scores, it is the one who has greater asymmetry at baseline that is more likely to be verbally aggressive. Because the high asymmetry individual already manifests higher levels of asymmetry at rest, the stimulation required to induce a particular magnitude of asymmetry is less. In contrast, the individual with baseline frontal activity that is largely symmetrical would require greater stimulation to produce a similar magnitude of asymmetry. Although one can speculate on whether or not there is a theoretical magnitude of frontal asymmetry that would trigger verbally aggressive behavior, asymmetry has clearly been implicated in the behavior. While it is possible that a theoretical threshold exists beyond which an individual would inevitably be verbally or physically aggressive, it is equally plausible that such thresholds might be unique to each individual. The fact that individuals classified as trait

40

Alan D. Heisel

high in verbal aggressiveness manifest greater degrees of frontal asymmetry at rest, will most likely impact subsequent increases in the magnitude of asymmetry based on situational factors. Those who are interested in reducing the occurrence of verbal aggression might raise the question of what, if anything, can be done to reduce resting frontal asymmetry in individuals who are high in verbal aggressiveness. In other words, to what extent can baseline frontal asymmetry be modified in an effort to reduce the behavioral manifestations? Research on verbal aggression in which an argumentative skills deficiency model is used to explain variation in verbal aggressiveness (e.g., Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989) could be informed by longitudinal tests of baseline frontal asymmetry as a function of skills-training in effective arguing. Alternatively, stable baseline asymmetry, despite training, may explain the conclusions drawn by Hamilton and Mineo (2002) based on their meta-analysis that an argumentative skills deficit model might be inadequate. Clearly, frontal asymmetry as a conceptual model and framework has significant potential to enhance our knowledge and understanding of verbal aggression. It is equally informative whether approached from a dispositional or a situational perspective. How robust the construct of frontal asymmetry will be in terms of informing verbal aggression research depends largely on its application and implementation. While the results of this study identify a link between verbal aggressiveness and baseline asymmetry, many questions remain. Nevertheless, frontal EEG asymmetry has been demonstrated to be a promising tool in the study of verbal aggressiveness. Future research on verbal aggression should attempt to further clarify the consequences and behavioral correlates of asymmetry.

References Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1032–1037. Beatty, M. J., & Heisel, A. D. (2007). Physiological activity during verbal planning: Physical evidence of the formation of social interaction routines. Human Communication Research, 33, 48–63. Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Lewis, R., Pence, M. (November, 2008). Resting alpha range asymmetry in the anterior cortex as a predictor of trait-like communication apprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego. Top Four competitively ranked paper. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggression as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–461. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

41

as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197–219. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. E., & Valencic, K. M. (2000). A re-examination of the verbal aggressiveness scale: One factor or two? Communication Research Reports, 16, 10–17. Blackhart, G. C., & Kline, J. P. (2005). Individual differences in anterior EEG asymmetry between high and low defensive individuals during a rumination/distraction task. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 427–437. Caccioppo, J. T. (2004). Feelings and emotions: Roles for electrophysiological markers. Biological Psychology, 67, 235–243. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2003). Frontal EEG asymmetry and the behavioral activation and inhibition systems. Psychophysiology, 40, 106–114. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2004a). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological Psychology, 67, 7–49. Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2004b). The state and trait nature of frontal EEG research in emotion (pp. 565–615). In K. Hugdahl & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The asymmetrical brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davidson, R. J. (2000). The neuroscience of affective style. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 1149–1159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davidson, R. J. (2004). What does the prefrontal cortex “do” in affect: Perspectives on frontal EEG asymmetry research. Biological Psychology, 67, 219–233. Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152. Floyd, K., & Mikkelson, A. C. (May, 2004). Human affection exchange: IX. Neurological hemispheric dominance as a discriminator of behavioral affection responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans. Fox, N. A. (1994). Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Behavioral and biological considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 152–166. Fox, N. A., Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Porges, S. W., Calkins, S. D., Long, J. M., Marshall, T. R., & Stewart, S. (1995). Frontal activation asymmetry and social competence at four years of age. Child Development, 66, 1770–1784. Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament (pp. 105–128). New York: Plenum. Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (2002). Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta-analytic review. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through metaanalysis (pp. 281–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1998). Anger and frontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with approach motivation despite negative affect valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1310–1316. Harmon-Jones, E., & Siegelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity:

42

Alan D. Heisel

Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 797–803. Harner, P. A., & Sannit, T. (1974). A review of the international ten-twenty system of electrode placement. Quincy, MA: Grass Instruments. Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2006). Are cognitive representations of friends’ request refusals implemented in the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices?: A cognitive neuroscience approach to “theory of mind” in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 249–265. Hennig, J., Reuter, M., Netter, P., & Burk, C. (2005). Two types of aggression are differently related to serotonergic activity and the A779C TPH polymorphism. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 16–25. Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Kline, J. P., Allen, J. B., & Schwartz, G. E. (1998). Is left frontal brain activation in defensiveness gender specific? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 149–153. Kline, J. P., Knapp-Kline, K., Schwartz, G. E., & Russek, L. G. (2001). Anterior asymmetry, defensiveness, and perceptions of parental caring. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1135–1145. Knecht, S., Drager, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Floel, A., Ringelstein, E. B., & Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123, 2512–2518. Lewis, R. J. (2008). Neural characteristics of affectionate communicators: Trait affection and asymmetry in the prefrontal cortex. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Missouri—St. Louis. McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McCroskey, J. C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective (pp. 81–94). In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (1998). Communication apprehension (pp. 215–231). In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Mikkelson, A. C., Farinelli, L., & La Valley, A. G. (2006). Influences of brain dominance and biological sex on emotional expressivity, sensitivity, and control. Communication Quarterly, 54, 427–446. Pence, M., Heisel, A. D., Reinhart, A., Tian, Y., & Beatty, M. J. (November, 2008). Prefrontal cortex activity and the regulation of communication avoidance, competence, and other constructs: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Peterson, C. K., Shackman, A. J., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). The role of asymmetrical frontal activity in aggression. Psychophysiology, 45, 86–92. Picton, T. W., Bentin, S., Berg, P., Donchin, E., Hillyard, S. A., Johnson, R., Miller, G. A., Ritter, W., Ruchkin, D. S., Rugg, M. D., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Guidelines for

Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry

43

using human event-related potentials to study cognition: Recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology, 37, 127–152. Pivik, R. T., Broughton, R. J., Coppola, R., Davidson, R. J., Fox, N., & Newer, M. R. (1993). Guidelines for the recording and quantitative analysis of electroencephalographic activity in research contexts. Psychophysiology, 30, 547–558. Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murders indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 495–508. Raine, A., Meloy, J. R., Bihrle, S., Stoddard, J., LaCasse, L., & Buchsbaum, M. (1998). Reduced prefrontal and increased subcortical brain functioning assessed using positron emission tomography in predatory and affective murderers. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 319–332. Rybak, M., Crayton, J. W., Young, I. J., Herba, E., & Konopka, L. M. (2006). Frontal alpha power asymmetry in aggressive children and adolescents with mood and disruptive behavior disorders. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 37, 16–24. Schmidt, L. A. (1999). Frontal brain electrical activity in shyness and sociability. Psychological Science, 10, 316–320. Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1994). Patterns of cortical electrophysiology and autonomic activity in adults’ shyness and sociability. Biological Psychology, 38, 138–198. Segalowitz, S. J. (1983). Two sides of the brain: Brain lateralization explored. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stacks, D. W., & Sellers, D. E. (1986). Toward a holistic approach to communication: The effect of “pure” hemispheric reception on message acceptance. Communication Quarterly, 34, 266–285. Stacks, D. W., & Sellers, D. E. (1989). Understanding intrapersonal communication: neurological processing implications. In C. V. Roberts and K. W. Watson, (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes: Original essays (pp. 243–267). Auburn, AL: Spectra. Tanji, J., & Hoshi, E. (2001). Behavioral planning in the prefrontal cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 164–170. Urry, H. L., Nitschke, J. B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D. C., Dalton, K. M., Mueller, C. J., Rosenkranz, M. A., Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). Making a life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psychological Science, 15, 367–372. Valencic, K. M., Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. E., Dobos, J. A., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). An empirical test of a communibiological model of trait verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 46, 327–341. Weidemann, G., Pauli, P., Dengler, W., Lutzenberger, W., Birbaumer, N., & Buchkremer, G. (1999). Frontal brain asymmetry as a biological substrate of emotions in patients with panic disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 78–84.

Chapter 3

Aggressive Communication A Life Span Perspective Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

Attempts to understand and explain how human behavior may change across the life span have increased in popularity throughout a variety of academic disciplines, including programs of research in psychology, sociology, human development, and communication (see Bigner, 1994; Knapp, 1978; Mosher, Youngman, & Day, 1999; Pecchioni, Wright, & Nussbaum, 2005; Smith, 1996; Stevenson, 1994). Life span scholars (including communication researchers), using life span theories, methodologies, and research findings generated from several disciplines, have focused on such topics as changes in language, cognition, communication skills, relationships, and many other communicationrelated phenomena that are typically addressed in the communication discipline (Pecchioni, Wright, & Nussbaum, 2005; Williams & Nussbaum, 2001). However, relatively few communication studies have focused on aggressive behaviors from a life span perspective despite the prevalence and persistence of aggressive communication throughout life. The purpose of this chapter is to examine human aggressive communication from a life span perspective and to merge the life span perspective of human aggression, which has a solid foundation in psychology and sociology, into our understanding of aggressive communication. Specifically, the chapter reviews theory and research stemming from a life span perspective from several disciplines, including communication, psychology, sociology, and human development, and it discusses ways in which this body of research can inform our understanding of aggressive communication throughout the life span. The chapter begins with arguments for the need to study aggressive communication from a life span perspective, a discussion of the life span perspective itself (including major theories within this perspective), and an examination of theory and research of aggression and aggressive communication at different points in the life span. Finally, the chapter concludes with directions for future research, the need for aggressive communication theory development from a life span perspective, and methodological concerns when conducting life span communication research.

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

45

The Need for Studying Aggression from a Life Span Perspective Despite evidence that aggression and aggressive communication appear to persist across time and across generations (Farrington, 1986; Huesmann et al., 1984; Myers & Goodboy, 2006), relatively few studies on aggressive communication have drawn upon a life span perspective. The reasons for the paucity of communication research from this perspective are numerous, including the fact that life span communication research is relatively new to the communication discipline, only a minority of communication researchers currently conduct research grounded in this perspective, the widespread usage of undergraduate student samples in communication research (often ignoring individuals at earlier and later points in the life span), and the tendency of communication researchers to conduct cross-sectional studies. Even most longitudinal studies of aggression have been limited to a relatively short span of years, and those studies that have examined aggression for longer periods of time have been limited in terms of the types of questions they have asked (Tremblay, 2000). Aggression and aggressive communication certainly appear to demonstrate stability and can affect relationships throughout life. Such behaviors are ubiquitous as people encounter conflict in relationships with family members, peers, and co-workers throughout their lives. For example, Tangey et al. (1996) found that aggressive responses to anger remained relatively stable between middle childhood and adulthood. Several researchers have argued that aggression is as stable a trait as intelligence across the life span (Olweus, 1979; Parke & Slaby, 1983). In addition, researchers who have examined aggression across the life span have identified a number of interesting patterns and variations in aggression and aggressive communication over time (to be discussed later), and many of these patterns have been overlooked by researchers who limit their research to cross-sectional studies of college students. Examining aggressive behavior and aggressive communication from a life span perspective may provide important insights into the ways aggression and aggressive communication may vary among individuals over time. Tremblay (2000) laments that in the past, “adult aggressive behaviors were studied without reference to childhood behaviors. Adolescent aggressive behaviors were studied as if they emerged during adolescence, and most specialists of the early development of aggressive behaviors concentrated on the school years” (p. 130). As early as the 1960s, Lorenz (1966) argued, “a complete theory of aggression, whatever its orientation, must explain how aggressive patterns are developed” (p. 43). Moreover, Tremblay (2000) argues that in order to understand the origins of aggressive behavior, researchers need to focus on the development of aggressive behavior in the first few years after birth. According to Pecchioni, Wright, and Nussbaum (2005), “researchers have only recently considered our ability to communicate effectively or to manage interpersonal conflict may actually increase or, at the very least, change as we

46

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

age” (p. 5). Given the need for a more comprehensive understanding of aggression and aggressive communication that takes into account developmental changes and variations throughout life, communication researchers have the opportunity to contribute to this understanding by drawing upon a life span communication framework when studying aggression.

The Life Span Perspective The life span perspective assumes that in our attempts at understanding and describing human behavior, we should recognize that human development extends throughout the entirety of our life span. Although most developmental scholars agree that rates of development vary across the life span and that certain characteristics of human behavior may experience critical development periods, it is important to recognize that one of the fundamental assumptions of the life span perspective is that important and interesting events occur throughout the entirety of our lives. Based on Baltes’ (1987) conception of the life span perspective, Pecchioni, Wright, and Nussbaum (2005) point to five assertions of the life span approach: (1) positive development occurs throughout the life span; (2) diversity and pluralism occur in the changes throughout life; (3) development is best viewed as a gain–loss dynamic; (4) inter- and intra-individual diversity exists as we progress through the life span; and (5) a person–environment interaction cannot be ignored in our explanations of development (p. 5). In addition, they posit that the nature of communication is fundamentally developmental, our understanding of human communication is dependent on multiple levels of knowledge that occur simultaneously, current theories of communication can be incorporated into the life span perspective as long as they are testable and the results are meaningful, and that unique methodologies are required to capture communication change across the life span. Finally, these authors argue that communication scholars should incorporate the content of life span developmental psychology (including intelligence, memory, language, etc.) and the content of sociology (such as demography, culture, social policy, etc.) into explanations of human interaction.

Early Developmental Studies and Defining Aggressive Communication The first studies of developmental trends in aggression can be traced back to the 1920s and 1930s. For example, Bridges (1931) and Murphy (1937) documented tantrums and conflicts among small samples of children during this time period. Since these early studies, numerous studies of social aggression have been conducted, and a host of definitions of aggressive communication exist among researchers. Overall, aggressive communication can be conceptualized as a class of behaviors that serve the same function in social interaction: to hurt another person by doing harm to his or her self-concept or social standing (Galen &

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

47

Underwood, 1997). Underwood (2003) outlines four major forms of aggressive behavior which include physical aggression, property damage, verbal aggression (i.e., verbal threats of physical aggression, hostile teasing, and name-calling), and social aggression (i.e., relationship manipulation, spreading rumors, and verbal and nonverbal socially excluding behaviors). In addition to the behaviors noted above, aggressive communication can take many different forms, including nonverbal displays of disdain, negative facial expressions or body movements, verbal attacks, cruel gossiping, and social exclusion (Galen & Underwood, 1997). Communicative acts geared toward damaging a friendship such as exclusion, gossip, and withdrawing group acceptance are linked to depression, loneliness, and social isolation (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Harre and Lamb (1983) argue that social aggression tends to have the following features: (1) aggressive behavior must be perceived negatively by the victim; and (2) aggressive behavior must be intentional. Studies of aggression often confound physical aggression with verbal aggression, indirect aggression, and relational aggression. Interest in the developmental nature of aggressive behaviors (both verbal and physical) is not a new phenomenon.

Theoretical Approaches to the Development of Aggression This section provides a brief overview of several theoretical frameworks that have been used when conducting life span aggression research. While an overview of all theories is beyond the scope of this chapter, we will detail several of the most prominent theories below. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) has had a strong influence on developmental approaches to the study of aggressive behavior. From this perspective, people acquire aggressive responses in the same way they acquire other complex forms of social behavior. Social learning theory helps to explain the acquisition of aggressive behaviors via observational learning processes. For example, researchers from this perspective have identified a number of environmental and cognitive factors that may influence the tendency to model aggressive behavior that is witnessed in the social world, such as whether or not a child’s imitation of the aggressive behavior is rewarded or punished, whether or not the child feels the aggressive behavior is justified, and whether or not social cues provoking aggression in media content are similar to cues in other contexts (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Social cognition approaches (Crick & Dodge, 1994) to the study of aggression have also been influential. Scholars using this approach argue that mental representations and information-processing strategies form the basis of social knowledge that individuals use when interpreting their social worlds and when translating their goals (i.e., motives, developmental tasks) into behaviors. Similarly, Dodge, and Somberg (1987) propose that individual differences may impact the perception of hostile acts. Their Hostile Attribution Bias proposes that certain children have a tendency to interpret ambiguous acts as

48

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

threatening or hostile, particularly when those acts are pertinent to the self, thus reacting aggressively. Social interaction theory (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) posits that aggressive behavior is a form of social influence. According to this theory, individuals are decision-makers whose choices are directed by perceived rewards or outcomes. Individuals learn to use aggressive behaviors to obtain these rewards throughout their relational history with family and peers, and they view aggression as a viable social influence strategy for obtaining their desired outcomes. Thus, social interaction theory provides an explanation of aggressive behaviors as motivated by higher (often rational) goals. Finally, script theory (Schank & Abelson, 1977) argues that scripts are well rehearsed, are highly associated concepts in memory, often involve causal links, goals, and action plans, and are cognitive structures that may influence aggression and aggressive communication. Scripts tend to be strengthened by multiple rehearsals which may result from repeated social interactions with family and peers as well as conflict situations learned from the mass media. The theory is particularly useful in terms of explaining the development and automatization of complex perception-judgment-decision-behavioral processes.

Aggression and Aggressive Communication in Early Childhood Biological Influences on the Development of Aggressive Behavior There is certainly empirical evidence for innate forms of aggressive behavior, although most life span aggression researchers acknowledge the contribution of genetic and environmental influences on aggressive behaviors. In terms of evidence for innate aggression, Lewis, Allesandri, and Sullivan (1990) found that four-month-old babies clearly expressed facial anger reactions to frustrations, and these same reactions tended to become more pronounced in the following months as the child’s motor skill development allowing him or her to express anger in more complex ways (i.e., kicking and hitting). Tremblay et al. (1999) found that the onset of physical aggression appears to occur between 12 and 17 months after birth and also tends to peak around this time period. However, most children learn to inhibit physical aggression by the time they enter school. Physical aggression clearly appears to be an ontogenetical antecedent to verbal aggression (Cynader & Frost, 1999). Researchers have found that children begin by displaying physical aggression in infancy and then gradually shift to verbal aggression as their language skills develop (Choquet & Ledoux, 1994; Tremblay et al., 1999). Tremblay et al. (1996) found that aggression in children tends to become more indirect and verbal over time.

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

49

Sex Differences Several developmental studies have found that boys generally tend to be more physically aggressive than girls (Campbell, 1993; Hyde, 1984; Maccoby, 1990; Parke & Slaby, 1983) while indirect aggression is often higher among girls (Cairns et al., 1989; Largerspetz, Bjorkquist, & Peltonen, 1988). While boys are socialized to exhibit frustration and anger in very physical and direct ways (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Lagerspetz, 1994; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988), girls have been found to use more subtle and indirect forms of social aggression focused on relational and social characteristics (Cairns et al., 1989). Bjorkqvist, Logerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992) found that indirect aggressive strategies were prominent among girls as young as 11 years old. While some research has identified socially and relationally aggressive behaviors in preschool aged children (see Underwood, 2003 for review), girls have been found to rate social aggression as more hurtful than physical aggression. This finding is the exact opposite of that found in boys (Galen & Underwood, 1997). Girls appear to be more likely to hurt others by damaging relationships with peers than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). However, the magnitude of aggression differences between males and females appears to be a function of how aggression is defined and operationalized (Cairns & Cairns, 1984). Consequently, Underwood (2003) proposes that understanding gender differences in aggression might not be as important as understanding the meaning of physical and social aggression for each gender. In a longitudinal study, Cairns et al. (1989) found that physical aggression continued within male–male conflicts throughout childhood to early adolescence while physical aggression within female–female conflicts decreased over the same time period. Feshbach (1969, 1971) tested sex differences in adolescent reactions to newcomers to a group and found that girls often acknowledged newcomers less frequently than boys, were less friendly, and sometimes chose not to speak to the group newcomer. In addition, reports of social alienation and ostracism increased more dramatically for girls compared to boys as the participants entered adolescence. Environmental Influences on the Development of Aggressive Behavior Aggression in Interactions with Family Members Interaction with parents and the parent’s management of children’s behavior reinforces aggressive behavior (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991). According to Patterson, Capaldi, and Bank (1991), “We believe that reinforcement for aggression is provided directly in the interaction among family members. The antisocial behaviors then generalize from home to other settings” (p. 139). Prosocial skills develop within the context of supportive relationships at home, and through these early positive relationships, children

50

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

typically develop prosocial skills and learn to regulate their effect within the preschool years (Eisenberg, 1982). However, children’s feelings of anger are tied to external displays of emotion, and some have argued that parents and other adults help socialize the expression of negative emotions of boys and girls differently (Brody, 2000), thus influencing the differing aggressive reactions to anger and frustration. Aggression in Interactions with Peers Prosocial skills learned within the family context are further developed as children begin having greater interaction with peers (particularly upon entering school). According to Dumas, Blechman, and Prinz (1994), “When children enter school, these early skills become associated with the emergence of positive peer relationships and academic success, which contribute to a growing sense of competence and self-esteem” (p. 349). Relatively little information is available regarding the communication competency differences between aggressive and nonaggressive children. However, from a competency-based perspective, some empirical evidence suggests that the degree to which children possess prosocial coping skills tends to reduce reliance on antisocial or aggressive behaviors (Blechman & Culhane, 1993; Dumas, Blechman, & Prinz, 1994). Children develop varying degrees of prosocial coping skills during the early and middle childhood years as they repeatedly encounter affective challenges during interactions with peers (i.e., a conflict with a peer at school), or other personal challenges such as adapting to the demands of schoolwork (Eisenberg, 1982). According to Dumas, Blechman, and Prinz (1994), “children who cope prosocially tend to use information exchange, behavior management, and problem solving, whereas children who cope antisocially rely on overt and covert aggression and on blaming others” (p. 349). These authors found that aggressive children had a more limited repertoire of communication skills, were less able to communicate effectively, and were more likely to engage in disruptive communication than nonaggressive children. In addition, aggressive children were rated as more distressed and less happy than nonaggressive children. The authors concluded that “ineffective communication may account for a significant amount of variance in the developmental progression from early aggression to peer rejection and depressive symptoms” (p. 356). Mass Media Influence on the Development of Aggression In recent years, more and more attention has been given to the potentially negative influences of television and other mass media on the development of aggressive behavior (Donnerstein, Slaby, & Enron, 1994). According to Huesmann (1998), “exposure to violence in the mass media and the real world play major roles in creating cognitive and emotional structures that make aggressive behavior more likely in human beings over the long run” (p. 9).

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

51

Several studies have linked playing violent video games to aggressive behaviors, including verbal aggression (see Anderson & Dill, 2000; Sherry, 2001; Silvern & Williamson, 1987). However, Sherry (2001), in a meta-analysis of literature on violent video game usage and aggressive behavior, found relatively small effect sizes for the influence of video games, particularly compared to the effects of violent content on television. Van Erva (1998) identified a number of viewer variables related to violent content on television that may influence the development of aggressive behavior. These variables included sex differences, intelligence scores, amount of time viewing violent content, and mediation effects (i.e., the influence of parents and other individuals with whom a child interacts while watching television). In a review of the mediation literature Nathanson (2001) found that a wide variety of research suggests that parents who engage in active mediation (i.e., active discussion and guidance while watching television with a child) may help children reduce aggressive behavior after viewing acts of aggression or violence. However, co-viewing, or passively watching television with other children, may reinforce some of the negative effects of television which can include acceptance of aggressive behavior. More recent research on the effects of media violence on aggression with young children indicates that viewing aggression on television can have an immediate impact on subsequent aggressive responses (Coyne, Archer, & Elsea, 2004). Childhood Aggression as a Predictor of Adult Aggression There is empirical evidence that the stability of aggression is already high in preschool years (Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1989; Keenan & Shaw, 1994). However, measurement validity issues, including techniques such as the use of parent recall, have clouded the picture in terms of assessing the stability of aggression as a trait across the life span. Gustavsson et al. (1997), in a nine-year longitudinal study of twins in Sweden (one subset of the sample was separated at birth and the other subset consisted of twins who grew up together) found the propensity to engage in verbal aggression to be a stable personality trait across time. In addition, higher verbal aggression scores were found to be predictive of lower family satisfaction and higher job stress. In a rare 22-year longitudinal study, Huesmann et al. (1984) found that early aggressive behavior in life was predictive of later aggressive behavior. In addition, the male participants were found to exhibit more stability in aggressive behavior than female participants. Some researchers (Cairns et al., 1989; Ferguson & Rule, 1980; Loeber & Hay, 1997) have found that physical aggression in children tends to increase systematically with age. For example, Cairns and Cairns (1994) found that the mean frequency of physically aggressive acts decreased from age 10 to age 18. However, other studies have found that aggression tends to decrease with age (Loeber, 1982), while still other studies have

52

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

found that aggression levels tend to remain the same throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Aggression and Aggressive Communication in Pre-Adolescence and Adolescence Much of the developmental work on aggression in the past 30 years has focused on aggressive behavior during elementary school and adolescence. As we have seen, based on the results of a relatively large number of longitudinal studies, researchers have concluded that childhood aggression is one of the best predictors of adolescent and adult aggression (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Reiss & Roth, 1993). In terms of communication, studies have focused on three contexts: interactions with family members, interactions with peers, and the influence of the mass media on aggression. Among adolescents, researchers have found that aggressive behavior with peers can lead to social rejection (Carlson et al., 1987; Dodge, 1983; Patterson, 1982) and symptoms of depression (Hodgens & McCoy, 1989; Kovacs et al., 1988). Studies have pointed to developmental differences between aggressive children and their nonaggressive peers in terms of social, affective, and cognitive dimensions in laboratory and naturally-occurring situations that elicit competition or the potential for aggressive reactions (see Lochman, Meyer, Rabiner, & White, 1991). Moreover, researchers have found aggression among adolescents to be correlated with substance abuse (Farrington, 1994; Olweus, 1993). McCord (1983), in a 40-year longitudinal study, found that aggressive adolescents were more likely to be convicted of a crime as adults than nonaggressive adolescents. Lindeman, Harakka, and Keltikangas-Jarvinen (1997), in a large-scale study of pre-adolescents and adolescents, found that aggression in pre-adolescence and adolescence developed in a curvilinear pattern. Specifically, aggression was found to be the least often used reaction during pre-adolescence, the most often used in mid-adolescence, and used less frequently in late adolescence (returning to pre-adolescence levels). These researchers concluded that since cognitive abilities do not develop in a curvilinear fashion, these findings are most likely explained by changes in peer relationships, group norms, and in developmental tasks. Mayeux and Cillessen (2008) argue that during adolescence individuals may be engaging in relationally aggressive behaviors as a way to maintain popularity and/or gain social status. They found that adolescents who were popular and aware of their popularity scored highest on peer-nominated aggression. Continued focus on popularity and social status remains a viable avenue for research on aggression. Bullying Peers who bully are often physically stronger and more psychologically confident (Whitney & Smith, 1993). McGrath (2007) concluded there are three major

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

53

types of bullies: 1) confident bullies who enjoy aggression, feel secure, and are physically strong; 2) anxious bullies who are weak academically, overreact to perceived threats, and are less popular; and 3) bully/victims who are bullies in some situations and bullied in other situations, are unpopular, and have behavioral problems. Regardless of the type of bully, children look to parents, teachers, and other authority figures to help determine how to act in public places, what constitutes appropriate behavior in the home, and also how to treat others at school and during play. Research also indicates child development is dependent upon the parental and sibling caretakers (i.e., parental attachment) as well as the influence they have on the child’s development of the self (Bowlby, 1969; Brown, 1998). Connolly and O’Moore (2003) found children who bully others at school tend to have controlling and dominating home environments. Christie-Mizell (2003) argues that family is the primary agent in the child’s socialization, hence, the child internalizes violence and discord between parents which influences the child’s aggressive behavior. Holt, Kantor, and Finkelhor (2009) found children who were bullies were members of homes with little supervision, child maltreatment, and exposure to domestic violence. A child’s bullying behavior may also be attributed to peer influences. Consequently, these relationships must not be taken so lightly when considering how children develop aggressive behaviors. The classroom is a place where children encounter acceptance and/or rejection by peers, and how teachers react to, or treat their students has a direct effect on how those students are treated by their peers (Eccles & Roeser, 1999). Specifically, a child’s position can be affected by the management and social structure of the class (Roland & Galloway, 2002). Also, it is important to highlight the fact that, many times, children are struggling to gain status and power among peers which may manifest itself in terms of bullying behaviors (Sijtsema et al., 2009). McGrath (2007, p. 4) notes, “In bullying incidents, there is an imbalance of physical, psychological, and/or social power.” Bullies utilize their relationships with peers to both develop bullying behaviors as well as implement these behaviors physically, emotionally, and relationally. Prevention programs tailored to address bullying behaviors in children remain a top priority for parents, school administrators, and the legal community (Baldry & Farrington, 2004; Epstein, 1983; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; McGrath, 2007).

Aggression in Young and Middle Adulthood Olweus (1993) found that individuals who were aggressive toward their peers in middle school and/or high school tended to be more likely to carry these behaviors into adulthood. In addition, Olweus found that adults tend to engage in more covert aggression than overt aggression in the workplace. In a sample of adult employees (ages 21 to 50), researchers found that although women continued to utilize more covert forms of aggression than men, men also engaged in more indirect methods of aggressive expression within the workplace (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1994).

54

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

Pulkkinen (1996), in a longitudinal study that measured aggression among participants at age 8, 14, and 27, found that males who displayed proactive aggression in childhood were more likely to externalize problems and to be involved in criminal behavior in adulthood than participants who were less aggressive as children. In addition, Pulkkinen found that female participants who were proactively aggressive in childhood were more likely to internalize problems and display neuroticism in adulthood than their less aggressive peers. Moreover, both aggressive male and female participants were more likely to engage in problem drinking during adulthood than less aggressive individuals. Nakhaie (1998) found that younger adults were more likely to exhibit physical and verbal aggression in marriages than older adults. Suitor (1991) found that the frequency of verbal aggression during conflict situations between married couples tended to be significantly higher when children were in pre-school and middle school compared to when the children were teenagers and adult children, and the age of the child was a better predictor of engaging in verbal aggression than division of household labor. Bookwala, Sobin, and Zdaniuk (2005) examined marital aggression from a life span perspective. Controlling for marriage duration and number of previous marriages, these authors found that younger and middle-age couples were more likely to engage in verbal aggression than older married couples. Moreover, younger and middle-age married couples reported more incidents of physical aggression than older married couples, and younger couples were more likely to throw things or hit one another than middle-age or older couples. Younger couples were less likely to keep disagreements to themselves than middle-age and older couples. These authors also found an age X gender interaction effect when examining the conflict resolution styles of each marital partner in the study. Specifically, older women were more likely to keep their disagreements to themselves during conflict situations whereas younger women were the least likely to do so. In addition, when examining incidents of heated argument and shouting during marital conflict situations, females (across all age groups) scored higher on arguing/shouting heatedly than their male counterparts. Sillars and Zietlow (1993) investigated married couples’ (23 to 83 years of age) conflict behaviors. They found that young couples were more inclined toward explict conflict negotiation, being more engaging and direct when discussing marital conflict. In contrast, midlife couples exhibited higher percentages of denial, equivocation, noncommittal styles, and lower frequencies of direct confrontation. Retired couples exhibited the highest frequency of noncommittal behaviors and the lowest frequency of direct confrontational behaviors. Sillars and Zietlow (1993) concluded that older couples may be more inclined than younger couples to choose their battles because they were more willing to engage salient topics. Bergstrom (1997) examined self-reported conflict strategies of young, middleaged, and older adults when in conflict with their mothers. He found a consistent linear increase in preference for solution-oriented styles of conflict, and a corresponding decrease in preferences for controlling styles as age increased.

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

55

Bergstrom and Nussbaum (1996) contend that younger adults’ more limited life experiences may be associated with their preferences for both competitive engagement tactics and avoidance tactics when conflict situations become more difficult to manage. Older adult preferences for more cooperative tactics as well as being more selective in terms of the issues in which they are willing to engage in conflict may be the result of their greater life experience (including past experience with managing conflict over the course of their life). Aggressive Behaviors among Adult Siblings Relatively few studies have examined sibling conflict following adolescence. Sibling relationships often contain the most frequent and intense conflict with the most negative effect, especially during early childhood (Collins & Laursen, 1992; Vandell & Bailey, 1992). Martin, Anderson, and Rocca (2005) identified ten types of aggressive messages siblings use with each other, including attacking the sibling’s intelligence and threatening to get the sibling in trouble with parents. Many of these aggressive messages appear to persist into adulthood. Sibling relationships are typically the longest relationships individuals have during their life span (Cicirelli, 1995; Mikkelson, 2005), and conflict patterns that include the use of verbal and physical aggression between siblings often remain stable over long periods of time, although there is a tendency for less heated conflict in later stages of life. Variables such as birth order, control issues, and relational history may influence aggressive communication between siblings during conflict situations (Vandell & Bailey, 1992), although it is important to point out that aggression is unilateral whereas conflict requires mutual opposition. Myers and Goodboy (2006) found that perceived sibling use of verbally aggressive messages decreases across the life span in that verbally aggressive messages are used more frequently in young adulthood than in either middle adulthood or late adulthood. As siblings enter old age, their relationships tend to become more egalitarian, which may partially account for the reduction in conflict. Myers and Goodboy (2006) also found that decreased effect between siblings due to decreases in liking, trust, and commitment may spur increases in aggressive behavior.

Aggression and Aggressive Communication among Older Adults Not surprisingly, relatively few studies have examined aggression among older adults. Similar to other areas of life span communication research, less is known about aggressive communication among older adults than individuals at early points in the life span. However, most empirical studies have found evidence that aggressive behavior and confrontational conflict strategies tend to decrease with age (Archer, 2000; Bookwala & Jacobs, 2004; Myers & Goodboy, 2006; Suitor, Pillemer, & Straus, 1990). According to Bookwala, Sobin, and Zdaniuk (2005), “As women and men grow older they tend to use fewer

56

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

confrontational/maladaptive problem resolution techniques and they are less likely to engage in physical aggression during arguments” (p. 804). These authors contend that this pattern is part of a longitudinal trend they refer to as a “mellowing across the life span” when it comes to aggressive behavior in interpersonal relationships. However, age cohort differences in terms of how people were socialized with regard to acceptance and tolerance for aggressive conflict in marriages may also explain differences in aggression between individuals from different age groups. In terms of verbal aggression, Straus and Sweet (1992) found that verbal aggression tended to decrease among married couples with age. Bergstrom and Nussbaum (1996), using a cross-sectional design, compared conflict preference styles of younger and older adults. Younger adults reported using a controlling style more frequently than did older adults, whereas older adults reported using more solution-oriented conflict styles. These authors argued that their findings reflect important developmental processes during adulthood in that the frequent use of controlling behaviors among younger adults demonstrates that they have not fully developed the skills necessary for productive conflict management. By comparison, older individuals appear to have more highly developed skills (most likely due to greater life experience) for engaging in more productive conflict. One interesting finding regarding aggression among older individuals is that there is a tendency for older adults to engage in indirect rather than direct forms of aggressive behavior (Walker & Richardson, 1998; Walker, Richardson, & Green, 2000). Walker, Richardson, and Green (2000) also found that participants who rated themselves as more assertive and instrumental were more likely to report frequent use of indirect aggressive behaviors. These authors contend that this finding is likely related to the general trend among adults in general (young, middle-age, and old) to use more indirect aggressive strategies, particularly within environments such as the workplace, assisted living communities, etc. where individuals often wish to avoid negative social repercussions associated with more direct forms of aggressive behavior (Green, Richardson, & Lago, 1996). Changes in a person’s social network structure as they age may also account for the tendency to engage in less aggression or more indirect aggression among older individuals. Socio-emotional selectivity theory posits that social networks tend to become smaller and more dense (i.e., composed of closer ties who communicate frequently) as people age (Carstensen, 1992; Lang & Carstensen, 1994). Researchers have found that indirect aggression tends to occur more frequently within small, high-density social networks than in larger, lowdensity social networks (Green, Richardson, & Lago, 1996; Walker, Richardson, & Green, 2000). Consistent with socio-emotional selectivity theory, Bookwala, Sobin, and Zdaniuk (2005) contend that “as people get older they orient themselves toward enhancing emotional closeness in their significant personal relationships. It is possible that one way people manage to achieve higher emotional benefits from their marriage is by avoiding confrontational or unpleasant interactions with their partner” (p. 803).

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

57

Future Directions for Research on Aggression throughout the Life Span This section explores directions for future research in the area of life span aggression. In addition, it will focus on theoretical issues that need to be addressed in future studies as well as examine various methodological concerns when conducting life span communication research. Theoretical Concerns While most life span studies of aggression and aggressive communication have drawn on a variety of theoretical frameworks such as social learning theory, social cognitive approaches, and script theory, and to some extent social network theories, such as socio-emotional selectivity theory, there is clearly a need for the development of unique life span theories of aggression that are communication based. Toward that end, future researchers of aggression utilizing a life span perspective should focus on how the varied ways that aggressive communication changes throughout different stages of life can be captured in a more comprehensive theoretical framework (ideally including biological and environmental influences on aggressive communication from birth to old age). More effort could be spent identifying physical and social aggression as acts which ebb and flow over the entirety of one’s life. While this is a tall order for communication scholars, such a comprehensive theoretical framework is important in terms of accounting for how human beings grow and develop throughout the entirety of life, learning from their experience and redefining the meaning of their own aggressive behavior and life events where aggression is encountered. Far too few theories in the communication discipline capture communication dynamics as the change across the life span, although, as the literature reviewed in this chapter suggests, individuals appear to be constantly adapting to their changing circumstances, learning from their experiences, and renegotiating their relationships throughout life. Like other comprehensive theories, such a framework will likely develop as the result of combining and refining smaller theory development efforts (such as studies that empirically test various models of aggressive communication at particular points in the life span as well as theories that are tested longitudinally across different points in the life span). One area of study which has recently garnered attention is the use of new technologies to enact aggressive communication. This area of research would benefit from a life span perspective in that as individuals mature, so do their abilities to engage in aggressive communication utilizing mediated channels of communication. Within populations of younger children, cyberbullying has been linked to depression, low self-esteem, helplessness, social anxiety, reduced concentration, alienation, and even suicide, and is of great concern for parents, educators (Chibbaro, 2007), and lawmakers (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Willard, 2007). In a sample of primary and secondary school children

58

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

(N = 1,211), Dehue, Bolman, and Völlink (2008) found that 16 percent had engaged in bullying via text messages and the internet, while 23 percent had been victims of cyberbullying. The frequency and effects of cyberbullying have also been empirically tested within culturally diverse samples (Aricak et al., 2008; Li, 2008; Topçu, Erdur-Baker, & Çapa-Aydin, 2008). For adults, phenomena such as cyber harassment, cyber-stalking, and cyberobsessive relational intrusion (Sptizberg & Hoobler, 2002) has received some attention from researchers. New technologies now provide opportunities for anything from annoying text messages to sending threatening pictures/images or from exposing private information to sending pornographic/obscene messages (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002). Future research should examine aggressive communication through the use of instant messaging, email, text messaging, social networking sites, chat rooms, blogs, and websites, but more importantly the development of aggressive communication utilizing computer-mediated channels throughout multiple stages of life. Future research should also include how members of close social networks may facilitate the communication of aggression against group members. Cillessen and Mayeux (2004) identified relational aggression as a means of acquiring power and status within adolescent cliques. They claim, “relational aggression is affiliated with manipulative social skillfulness and favorable outcomes, at least in terms of gaining power and influence in the peer group” (p. 160). Adler and Adler (1995) found that high-status group members could actually turn other group members against other individuals within the group. Xie et al. (2002) explained that, “In order for a social attack to be effective, a person needs accurate knowledge of the networks of interpersonal relationships and subtle skills of manipulation” (p. 207), and concluded that the use of social aggression was associated with higher network centrality. Questions remain concerning how social networks function as a breeding ground for social and relational aggression. Specifically, relational and social aggression (i.e., gossip and spreading rumors) requires intimate knowledge of a particular individual as well as an extended social network for the aggressive communicative act to be successful. Additionally, what becomes of most importance is how engaging in aggression within close social networks may function as an exclusionary tool for the target of the aggressive act as well as a tool for enhancing cohesion among the rest of the social network tied to that target. Individuals may band together with other group members, discuss the target with outside group members like family and significant others, and even converse about the target with other friendship cliques within the extended social network. Thus, relational aggression becomes a way of communicating solidarity within the social network, and communicating exclusion of a particular member of the group.

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

59

Methodological Issues Future life span research and theory development in the area of aggressive communication hinges on our ability to capture the dynamics of human aggression at different points in time. However, as we have seen, relatively few studies of aggression and aggressive communication have utilized longitudinal studies. Although cross-sectional studies can certainly shed light on aggression at different points in time, longitudinal studies offer clear benefits in terms of observing how individual aggressive communication may fluctuate across time and life events. In terms of selecting samples for research studies, most communication researchers have relied on college students (although we are seeing an increase in the number of studies that have examined conflict and aggression among older adults). In psychology and sociology, aggression studies have primarily focused on earlier points in the life span (particularly children and adolescence). As we have seen, aggression and aggressive communication appears to diminish to some degree at later points in the life span. However, due to the relatively small number of studies dealing with aggression and aggressive communication among older individuals, it is difficult to make strong conclusions about the nature of aggression during old age. Future life span studies of aggressive communication should target later points in the life span in an effort to more fully understand later life developmental changes. Although a number of researchers have focused on such topics as marital aggression or aggression in the workplace, most studies have relied on samples of younger individuals (i.e., people in their 20s and 30s). Most developmental studies have ignored middle-age adults. This may be a fruitful area of research for future life span studies of aggressive communication. Hocker and Wilmot (1995) noted the tendency for objective questionnaire studies of conflict and aggressive communication to be more susceptible to response bias because of participants’ desire to cast their conflict behaviors in a positive light. This is a concern that researchers should pay attention to in future life span studies of aggressive communication. In addition, researchers should attempt to understand the reasons behind using specific verbally aggressive messages. Understanding the motives for choosing aggressive messages and how they may change at different points in the life span would add greater depth to understanding developmental changes when using aggressive communication. Moreover, according to Young (2004), measuring the intensity of a message is an important factor in assessing the impact of hurtful messages. However, few studies have examined message intensity or nonverbal communication that conveys message intensity when assessing verbally aggressive behaviors. This an area that it would be beneficial to address in future studies of verbal aggression.

60

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

Conclusion As we have seen, the study of aggression and aggressive communication from a life span perspective spans a variety of academic disciplines. Communication scholars have played, and will continue to play, an important role in contributing to this important interdisciplinary body of work. The overall trend of aggression throughout the life span based on this research suggests that there are innate forms of aggression which often develop into more sophisticated forms of physical and verbal aggression depending upon a child’s social interactions with family, peers, and the mass media. As children develop greater language and social skills, there is a tendency to move away from physical aggression to more verbal aggression. There are sex differences in aggressive communication, and it tends to remain relatively stable into young adulthood (often peaking during adolescence). In adulthood, characteristics of marital and family relationships and a host of other environmental concerns may influence the tendency toward aggressive communication. In later life, aggression appears to diminish to some degree as older individuals become more selective about engaging in conflict and may have a more developed repertoire for dealing with conflict situations. Despite the advances that researchers have made in terms of understanding aggression and aggressive communication over the past several decades, there is much more work to be done in order to gain a sophisticated understanding of aggression throughout the life span.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145–162. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., & Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 253–261. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. (2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 1–15. Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New York: Holt. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston Bergstrom, M. J. (1997, May). Cooperative conflict behaviors of adults: A test of three life-span stages. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada. Bergstrom, M. J., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1996). Cohort differences in interpersonal conflict:

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

61

Implications for the older patient—younger care provider interaction. Health Communication, 8, 233–248. Bigner, J. J. (1994). Individual and family development: A life-span interdisciplinary approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27–33. Blechman, E. A., & Culhane, S. E. (1993). Aggressive, depressive, and prosocial coping with affective challenges in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescents, 13, 361–382. Bookwala, J., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Age, marital processes, and depressed affect. The Gerentologist, 44, 328–338. Bookwala, J., Sobin, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (2005). Gender and aggression in marital relationships: A life-span perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 797–806. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss. Vol. I. London: Hogarth. Bridges, K. M. B. (1931). The social and emotional development of pre-school children. London: Kegan Paul. Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament, and differentiation. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 24–47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D. (1998). Self-esteem. In J. D. Brown (Ed.), The self (pp. 190–229). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D. (1984). Predicting aggressive patterns in girls and boys: A developmental study. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 227–242. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariespy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320–330. Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carlson, C. L., Lahey, B. B., Frame, C. L., Walker, J., & Hynd, G. W. (1987). Sociometric status of clinic-referred children with attention deficit disorders with and without hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 537–548. Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338. Chibbaro, J. (2007). School counselors and the cyberbully: Interventions and implications. Professional School Counseling, 11, 65–68. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from PsycINFO database. Choquet, M., & Ledoux, S. (1994). Adolescents: Enquete Nationale: Paris: INSERM. Christie-Mizell, C. A., (2003). Bullying: The consequences of interparental discord and child’s self-concept. Family Process, 42, 237–251. Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development, Vol. 3 (pp. 779–862). Toronto: Wiley.

62

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (1992). Conflict and relationships during adolescence. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 216–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Connolly, I., & O’Moore, M., (2003). Personality and family relations of children who bully. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 559–567. Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Elsea, M. (2004). Cruel intentions on television and in real life: Can viewing indirect aggression increase viewers’ subsequent indirect aggression? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 234–253. Crick, N., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Cummings, E. M., Iannotti, R. J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1989). Aggression between peers in early childhood: Individual continuity and developmental change. Child Development, 60, 887–895. Cynader, M., & Frost, B. (1999). Mechanisms of brain development: Neuronal sculpting by the physical and social environment. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 153–184). New York: Guilford Press. Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 217–223. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399. Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attribution biases among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats to the self. Child Development, 58, 213–224. Donnerstein, E., Slaby, R. G., & Enron, L. D. (1994). The mass media and youth aggression. In L. D. Enron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reasons to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth (pp. 219–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dumas, J. E., Blechman, E. A., & Prinz, R. J. (1994). Aggressive children and effective communication. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 347–358. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (1999). School and community influences on human development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (4th Ed.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 503–554). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N. (1982). Development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press. Epstein, J. L. (1983). School environment and student friendships: Issues, implications and interventions. In J. L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school: Patterns of selection and influence in secondary schools (pp. 93–115). New York: Academic Press Inc. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What we have learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. R. Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 359–384). New York: Academic Press Inc. Farrington, D. P. (1994). Childhood, adolescence, and adult features in violent males. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 215–240). New York: Plenum.

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

63

Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1980). Children’s evaluations of retaliatory aggression. Child Development, 59, 961–968. Feshbach, N. D. (1969). Sex differences in children’s modes of aggressive responses toward outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249–258. Feshbach, N. D. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent reactions toward newcomers. Develomental Psychology, 4, 381–386. Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589–600. Green, L. R., Richardson, D. R., & Lago, T. (1996). How do friendships, indirect, and direct aggression relate? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 81–86. Gustavsson, J. P., Weinryb, R. M., Goransson, N. L., Pederson, N. L., & Asberg, M. (1997). Stability and predictive ability of personality traits across 9 years. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 783–791. Harre, R., & Lamb, R. (1983). The encyclopedia dictionary of psychology. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. Hodgens, J. B., & McCoy, J. F. (1989). Distinctions among rejected children on the basis of peer-nominated aggression. Journal of Clinical Childhood Psychology, 18, 121–128. Holt, M., Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 42–63. Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstrein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for policy. New York: Academic. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120–1134. Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are differences in aggression? A developmental metaanalysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722–736. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of aggression in toddlers: A study of low income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 53–77. Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greetings to goodbye. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kovacs, M., Paulauskas, S., Gatsonis, C., & Richards, C. (1988). Depressive disorders in childhood: III. A longitudinal study of comorbidity and risk for conduct disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 15, 205–217. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Lang, B. F., & Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology of Aging, 5, 315–324. Largerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females: Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403–414. Lewis, M., Allessandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1990). Violation of expectancy, loss of control, and anger expressions in young infants. Developmental Psychology, 26, 745–751.

64

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50, 223–234. Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (1997). Age and gender differences in adolescents’ reactions to conflict situations: Aggression, prosociality, and withdrawal. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 339–351. Lochman, J. E., Meyer, B. L., Rabiner, D. L., & White, K. J. (1991). Parameters influencing social problem-solving of aggressive children. In R. J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families, Vol. 5 (pp. 31–63). London: Jessica Kingsley. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431–1446. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. F. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410. Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Rocca, K. A. (2005). Perceptions of the adult sibling relationship. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 107–116. Mayeux, L., & Cillessen, A. (2008). It’s not just being popular, it’s knowing it, too: The role of self-perceptions of status in the associations between peer status and aggression. Social Development, 17, 871–888. McCord, J. (1983). A forty year perspective on effects of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 265–270. McGrath, M. J. (2007). School bullying: Tools for avoiding harm and liability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Mikkelson, A. C. (2005, February). Communication in the adult sibling relationship. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western States Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Mosher, R. L., Youngman, D. J., & Day, J. M. (Eds.), (1999). Human development across the life span: Educational and psychological applications. New York: Praeger. Murphy, J. B. (1937). Social behavior and child personality. New York: Columbia University Press. Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2006). Perceived sibling use of verbally aggressive messages across the lifespan. Communication Research Reports, 23, 1–11. Nakhaie, M. R. (1998). Asymmetry and symmetry of conjugal violence. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 549–567. Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Mediation of children’s television viewing. Working toward conceptual clarity and common understanding. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 115–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 852–875. Olweus, D., (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 547–641). New York: Wiley. Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach to family intervention: III. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting

Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective

65

delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pecchioni, L. L., Wright, K. B., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life span communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pulkkinen, L. (1996). Proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence as precursors to anti- and prosocial behavior in young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 241–257. Reiss, A. J., & Roth, J. A. (Eds.) (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Roland, E., & Galloway, D., (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research, 44, 299–312. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409–431. Sijtsema, J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of bullies’ status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 57–67. Sillars, A. L., & Zietlow, P. H. (1993). Investigations of marital communication and lifespan development. In N. Coupland & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Discourse and lifespan identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Silvern, S. B., & Williamson, P. A. (1987). The effects of video game play on young children’s aggression, fantasy, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 453–462. Smith, A. D. (1996). Memory. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (4th ed., pp. 236–250). New York: Academic Press. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Cyberstalking as (mis)matching. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 127–146). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71–92. Stevenson, M. R. (Ed.), (1994). Gender roles through the life span: A multidisciplinary perspective. Muncie, IN: Ball State University Press. Straus, M. A., & Sweet, S. (1992). Verbal/symbolic aggression in couples: Incident rates and relationships to personal characteristics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 346–357. Suitor, J. J. (1991). Marital quality and satisfaction with the division of household labor across the family cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 221–230. Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital violence in a life course perspective. In M. A. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 305–317). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Tangey, J. P., Hill-Barlow, D., Wagner, P. E., Marschall, D. E., Borenstein, J. K., Sanftner, J., Mohr, T., Gramzow, R. (1996). Assessing individual differences in constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 780–796. Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, & coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Topçu, Ç., Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Çapa-Aydin, Y. (2008). Examination of cyberbullying

66

Kevin B. Wright and Elizabeth A. Craig

experiences among Turkish students from different school types. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 643–648. Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129–141. Tremblay, R. E., Japel, C., Perusse, D., Boivin, M., Zoccolillo, M., Montplaisir, J., & McDuff, P. (1999). The search for the age of “onset” of physical aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9, 8–23. Tremblay, R. E., Masse, L. C., Pagani, L., & Vitaro, F. (1996). From childhood physical aggression to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 268–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press. Vandell, D. L., & Bailey, M. D. (1992). Conflicts between siblings. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 242–269). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Van Erva, J. P. (1998). Television and child development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Walker, S., & Richardson, D. R. (1998). Aggression strategies among older adults: Delivered but not seen. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 3, 287–294. Walker, S., Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (2000). Aggression among older adults: The relationship of interaction networks and gender role to direct and indirect responses. Aggressive Behaviors, 26, 145–154. Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bully/victim problems in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25. Willard, N. (2007). The authority and responsibility of school officials in responding to cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, s64–s65. Williams, A., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2001). Intergenerational communication across the life span. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224. Young, S. L. (2004). Factors that influence recipients’ appraisals of hurtful communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 291–303.

Chapter 4

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Psychometric Concerns and Advances Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

Knowledge generated through empirical research can be no more valid than the measures used to make the observations. Thus, measurement validity is an absolute prerequisite for obtaining valid research results and for the defensible interpretation of findings. In short, the path to verisimilitude goes through measurement. Past and current trends in graduate education in most of the social sciences emphasize the analysis of data over the methods of observation used to produce data. Consequently, the typical researcher publishing in the social sciences probably took several advanced statistics classes but likely had little advanced training in psychometrics. Perhaps as a result, measurement is often the weakest link in our empirical knowledge claims. It is our experience that most published measures are never put to rigorous test, and of those that are put to the test, most do not fare very well. Published measures that have serious validity problems may even be more the norm than the exception. Examples that readily come to mind include Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970) and self-construal (Singelis, 1994) scales. Research has shown substantial measurement problems in these two widely used measures (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Hunter, Gerbing, & Boster, 1982; Levine et al., 2003b). The purpose of this chapter is to take a close and critical look at the measurement of trait argumentativeness and trait verbal aggressiveness with the Argumentativeness Scale (ARG scale) and Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) respectively. Both of these constructs are important communication traits, and both the scales are widely used and accepted. The validity of both scales, as we will see, is debatable and less well documented than many people may think. After reviewing the existing evidence, we will conclude with some advice on how to score these scales and some speculation on what scores on these scales might mean. Our conclusion is that neither scale measures its intended construct, but both the scales do measure other constructs that may be of interest. If this is the case, findings in the literature do not mean what research may think they mean, but they do mean something.

68

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

The Basics of Measurement Validity Constructs are conceptual or theoretical entities that are not directly observable and that are the topics of research. Constructs and their interrelationships are the things researchers are interested in knowing about. The meaning attached to a given construct is specified in a conceptual definition. Measurement, on the other hand, is the act of assigning numbers or numerals to represent attributes of people, objects, or events (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). That is, measurement is the process of systematically converting abstract ideas into empirical data. Measurement allows for the representation of abstractions (i.e., constructs) with observable values or scores so that speculation, hypotheses, and theories about how various constructs are related can be put to empirical test. Measurement validity generally refers to how closely the values produced by a measure reflect the construct being measured. That is, a measure is valid to the extent that there is fidelity between scores and what the scores are meant to represent. Put differently, measurement validity is the extent to which a measure assesses what it is purported to measure, and nothing else. There are many sub-types of measurement validity. Researchers talk of face validity, content validity, construct validity, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Each of these sub-types reflects a different way of testing the degree of correspondence between the construct and measure. A high degree of correspondence between the conceptual definition of a construct and the constructs measure is desirable. When the correspondence between construct and measurement is low, true relationships between constructs can appear to be false and false relationships between constructs can appear to be true. Because of this fact, although we have said it before, the results of research cannot be more valid than the measures used to make the observations. Therefore, documenting that scores mean what they are purported to mean is absolutely essential to the enterprise of research. It is important to point out that validity is not a binary construct and therefore measures are not either invalid or valid. It is usually more useful to think of validity as a continuum reflecting the degree of confidence researchers have in a measure given the specific use for which the measure is being used, reserving a conclusion of measurement invalidity for situations when researchers are absolutely sure that the correspondence between the construct and observed scores is zero. Even the best measures in the social sciences are not perfect. But some measures, like IQ scores for example, have considerable bodies of evidence suggesting substantial correlation between the construct and observed scores with only a small amount of systematic error (Lubinski, 2004). For other measures, like self-construal scales for example, the evidence is much more consistent with major problems: a weak correlation between the construct and observed score attributable to substantial confounding. Consequently, researchers ought not to place much confidence in the meaning of the scores on self-construal scales (Levine et al., 2003a). Another important point about measurement validity is that it is an empirical

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

69

issue, requiring empirical evidence of a variety of sorts and sources to achieve. As evidence consistent with validity amasses over time, it is possible to have more confidence that scores on the measure are indeed indicators of the construct. Absent a substantial amount of evidence, arguments for a scale’s validity cannot be considered reasonably defensible. That is, a lack of evidence does not mean that a measure is invalid, but rather that validity is indeterminate. Further still, a scale is never proven valid because new data might arise in the future that tips the scales back toward invalidity, the definition of the construct may change over time, or responses elicited by the measure may change over time. Because it makes little sense to measure something unless you know precisely what it is you want to measure, usually the most reasonable place to start when thinking about a measure is with the conceptual definition of the construct that is to be measured. Further, because measurement validity is the extent or degree of correspondence between a score and a construct, the conceptual basis of the construct is an obvious starting point for most discussions of measurement validity.

Conceptual Foundations of Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Argumentativeness Communication traits are predispositions or tendencies to communicate in particular ways. Both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are conceptualized as behavioral communication traits, meaning they refer to tendencies to overtly act in a particular way. This can be contrasted with a communication trait like communication apprehension which is an affective trait; that is, a tendency to feel a particular way. Therefore, people who are argumentative engage in argumentative behavior whereas verbally aggressive people say mean things to others. Communication traits reflect important individual differences that are relatively cross-situational and relatively stable temporally. These characteristics of traits mean that people’s communication varies in terms of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Some people are more argumentative than others. Some people are more verbally aggressive than others. These differences are relatively stable across situations and over time. People who were argumentative yesterday are likely to be argumentative on Thursday of next week, a month from now, and so on. Also, people who are argumentative tend to be this way regardless of the setting, context, and topic. This being said, traits are relatively stable, so it does not mean an argumentative person is invariably argumentative, rather they tend to be more so relative to less argumentative people. Argumentativeness is a “trait that predisposes people to advocate positions on controversial issues while attacking verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72). Given this definition, people can be arrayed on a single continuum ranging from low in

70

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

argumentativeness to high in argumentativeness depending on a person’s tendency to advocate positions on issues and to counter-argue the positions taken by others. People on the low end of the argumentativeness continuum would almost never engage in these behaviors. These people are characterized as argument avoiders. People on the high end of the argumentativeness continuum almost always argue about everything. These people have a strong tendency to argue with almost no inhibition. Of course, most people fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Thus, scores on a valid measure of argumentativeness would place people along the argumentativeness continuum accurately reflecting the person’s tendency to argue. One issue in the definition of argumentativeness is that it is defined as the tendency to argue, not as the ability or proclivity to argue well or ethically. From a communication competence perspective, this may actually suggest at least two sub-types of argumentative people that are functionally quite different. There may be the competent argumentative who has a good feel for informal logic, who is factually knowledgeable, who is therefore able to create valid and sound arguments, and as consequence, tends to be influential and an opinion leader. This type of argumentative person would be seen by most people in our culture as a desirable and adaptive trait. There may also be a second type of argumentative person, the obnoxious contrarian, who disagrees with others simply to be disagreeable, or who argues points with little concern for right or wrong. There is likely weaker consensus about the desirability of this second type of argumentative person. Problematically, these two types of people fit logically within the conceptual definition of high argumentativeness. A second issue with the conceptual definition of argumentativeness involves the Infante and Rancer (1982) distinction between the tendency to approach arguments (ARGap) and the tendency to avoid arguments (ARGav). In places, Infante and Rancer make clear that they view these as opposite ends of the same continuum. Defining argumentativeness as ARG = ARGap − ARGav, for example, presumes just this conceptualization. Confusion, however, arises when argumentative approach and avoidance tendencies are thought of, or scored as, two different dimensions rather than as opposites. Infante and Rancer treat approach and avoidance both ways, leading to confusion regarding whether argumentativeness varies along one dimension or two. The difference between one- and two-factor conceptualizations of argumentativeness is depicted visually in Figure 4.1. A conceptualization of approach and avoidance as opposite ends of the same continuum is depicted in the unidimensional model. On the other hand, a model with approach and avoidance as two dimensions is depicted visually as the two-factor model in Figure 4.1. If approach and avoidance are conceptualized as two different dimensions, or factors, then there is an issue of what it means for a person to be high in both approach and avoidance. If such people are not common, nonexistent, or not possible, there is little theoretical reason to conceptualize approach and avoidance as two different dimensions. Although this is a conceptual question

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

71

Figure 4.1 One- and Two-Dimensional Models of Argumentativeness.

at the core, it is also an empirical question. An important characteristic of a valid measure is that the conceptual and empirical answers match. Verbal Aggressiveness The commonly accepted conceptual definition of verbal aggressiveness is “a personality trait that predisposes people to attack the self-concepts of others” (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 61). This definition is less than ideal for at least two reasons. First, it offers an overly narrow range of behaviors that fall under the umbrella of verbal aggression, which minimizes the definition’s utility. For example, it could be reasonably argued that the definition includes insults but not threats although both are aggressive in nature. Second, and more importantly, the definition is unclear as to what behaviors might define the verbally un-aggressive person. Nevertheless, verbal aggressiveness is a

72

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

continuum defined by the tendency to berate and insult the self-concepts of others. The ambiguity in what counts as low verbal aggressiveness leads to the two conceptual possibilities depicted in Figure 4.2. Verbal aggressiveness may be thought of as varying along a continuum ranging from verbally aggressive to verbally un-aggressive or it may range from verbally aggressive to egosupportive. In other words, the conceptual definition does not specify if low verbal aggressiveness is an avoidance of personal attacks on the self-concepts of other people or if low verbal aggressiveness is the active verbal boosting of other people’s self-concepts, or ego-supportive communication. This distinction creates the need to contrast a unidimensional model, where verbal aggression varies from aggressive to supportive, with a two-factor model where one dimension reflects an aggressiveness continuum and a second dimension reflects

Figure 4.2 One- and Two-Dimensional Models of Verbal Aggressiveness.

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

73

an ego-supportive continuum. Although both of these possibilities are plausible, one makes more conceptual and empirical sense. Unlike argumentativeness, where the thought of a high-approach, highavoidance person seems odd and unlikely, it is possible to readily imagine the type of person who is both aggressive and supportive. These people readily insult others when they think the other has it coming but also are free with praise when they believe that it is deserved. This type of person can be contrasted with those that insult but do not praise, those who are ego-supportive but rarely aggressive, and those who are largely indifferent, being neither aggressive nor supportive. That is, it is possible to theorize the existence all four types of people. Therefore, the two-dimensional model that unconfounds aggressiveness and supportiveness makes good conceptual sense. In this twofactor model, only the aggressiveness dimension reflects verbal aggressiveness. Ego-supportiveness is a different construct, requiring a different conceptual definition and a different measure.

Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Scales By far the most widely used measure of argumentativeness is Infante and Rancer’s (1982) ARG scale. The ARG scale contains 20 Likert-type items with a common five-point response format. One-half of the items are designed to measure approach tendencies and one-half are reflected, reverse-scored items designed to measure argument avoidance. Verbal aggressiveness is most often measured with the VAS developed by Infante and Wigley (1986). The original VAS also contains 20 Likert-type items with a common five-point response format. One-half of the items are designed to measure a tendency to engage in verbally aggressive behavior while the other half are reverse-scored items. Some of the reverse-scored items appear to measure a mere lack of aggression while the others appear to reflect ego-supportive communication. Dimensionality Argumentativeness A component of addressing whether observed scores on the two scales correspond with the constructs they are designed to measure, absent systematic error, is the issue of dimensionality. As alluded to earlier, the dimensionality of the ARG scale has been ambiguous from its inception. On one hand, Infante and Rancer (1982) provide a single conceptual definition of argumentativeness. Obviously, where multiple constructs are involved, multiple conceptual definitions would be required. Also consistent with unidimensionality, approach and avoidance are discussed as opposites and the formula ARG = ARGap − ARGav implies these two tendencies combine additively, which logically and

74

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

mathematically supposes unidimensionality. On the other hand, Infante and Rancer (1982) report a principal component analysis with varimax rotation suggesting two dimensions, they score ARGap and ARGav separately, and report separate correlations for each with outside scales. Some comments on the original Infante and Rancer (1982) analysis are in order because subsequent research comes to a different conclusion. First, they used principal component analysis (PCA) rather than factor analysis. PCA is more suited for data reduction than for identifying dimensionality (see Park, Dailey, & Lemus, 2002). More importantly, they used a varimax rotation. Varimax is an orthogonal rotation; meaning that the extraction algorithm forces the identified factors to be uncorrelated. Additionally, varimax was developed in the debates over intelligence testing to minimize the appearance of an underlying common factor (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Thus, the choice of PCA with varimax maximized the chances of identifying two factors rather than one. Further, although Infante and Rancer (1982) report that the correlation between ARGap and ARGav was only r = .07, this does not mesh well with their other findings in which the two dimensions are subsequently correlated with several outside measures. In every case where there are statistically significant correlations with outside factors, the correlations are similar in magnitude but opposite in valence. For example, ARGap is correlated with the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) at −.45 whereas ARGav is correlated with the PRCA at +.41. This evidence indicates that with respect to outside variables, the two dimensions function as parallel opposites and not at all like orthogonal measures. In fact, the patterns in Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Tables 2 and 3 are consistent with this claim. The results reported in the original article indicated inconsistency with the two-factor model and are instead consistent with unidimensionality. Subsequent studies that have assessed the factor structure of the ARG scale with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) find that a unidimensional model fits after dropping a number of poor (i.e., content invalid) or weak (i.e., unreliable) items (e.g., Boster, Kotowski, & Andrews, 2006; Boster & Levine, 1988; Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993; Kotowski et al., 2009). Meta-analytic evidence lends further evidence consistent with this assumption (Hamilton & Mineo, 2002). Thus, the available evidence is supportive of the conclusion that the ARG scale is unidimensional with several problematic items. Verbal Aggressiveness The original development and validation of the VAS was by Infante and Wigley (1986). Infante and Wigley’s reporting of the factor analytic results is unclear. For the analysis of their first data set, they report that “factor analysis and item analyses resulted in a 20-item unidimensional scale” (p. 64). No mention of extraction algorithm or rotation method is made. The results from the second data set were reported as follows:

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

75

A factor analysis of responses also produced results consistent with the first study; i.e., a two-factor varimax solution was obtained with all of the items loaded on the first factor worded positively and all of the second factor items worded negatively. As in the first study, it was decided that the scale was unidimensional with a latent variable being item wording which creates a simple structure for the items. (p. 65) It is difficult to understand how finding two orthogonal factors might lead to a conclusion of unidimensionality, especially when a similar factor analytic result was obtained during the earlier ARG scale development and a conclusion of multidimensionality was reached. Suzuki and Rancer (1994) report a second validation study that included a partial replication of Infante and Wigley (1986) in both the U.S. and Japan. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), they found evidence consistent with a two-factor VAS measurement model, and that the two-factor solution provided a much better fit to their data than a unidimensional VAS measurement model. Again the aggressively-worded items loaded on one factor while the reverse-scored ego-supportive worded items loaded on a second factor. The correlation between the factors was r = −.46. Beatty, Rudd, and Valencic (1999) argued for the utility of considering aggressive and ego-supportive tendencies as separate dimensions rather than as opposite ends of the same continuum. They proposed that the non-reflected, aggressively-worded items likely measure verbal aggressiveness whereas reversescored, benevolently-worded items may assess tendencies to actively “engage in nurturant, supportive, confirmational behavior during interaction” (p. 12). Beatty, Rudd, and Valencic (1999) conducted exploratory factor analyses and found, consistent with previous research, that a unidimensional solution was problematic and the two-factor solution accounted for more of the variance in the data. As in previous studies, aggressively-worded items loaded on one factor while benevolently-worded items loaded on a second factor. They recommended that the two dimensions be scored separately. The findings that the VAS is multidimensional with two factors and that only the ten non-reflected, aggressively-worded items measure verbal aggressiveness has now been replicated twice, both times with CFA (Kotowski et al., 2009; Levine et al., 2004). Further, they provided evidence that the two factors differentially predicted communication outcomes and, therefore, are not opposite ends of a single dimension. Summary and Conclusions about Dimensionality The dimensionality (i.e., factor structures or structural validity) of the ARG and VAS are now well documented in the literature. The ARG scale is a unidimensional continuum with argument avoidance on the low end and argument

76

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

approach on the high end. The factor structure, however, lacks consistency and is obscured by several poor and (or) weak items. In the most recent analysis, 60 percent of the items had to be removed to obtain consistency (Kotowski et al., 2009). Although the number of items that are problematic varies from data set to data set, the conclusion of unidimensionality with several bad items that should be removed is consistent across studies (Boster, Kotowski, & Andrews, 2006; Boster & Levine, 1988; Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993; Hamilton & Mineo, 2002; Kotowski et al., 2009) and well documented. Although the verbal aggressiveness construct is unidimensional, the original 20-item VAS is not. The measure is clearly two factors, one of which appears to measure verbal aggressiveness. The other factor consisting of the items initially intended to be reverse scored instead measures endorsement of an egosupportive, esteem-validating communication style in addition to a simple lack of aggression. Consequently, the VAS should be scored as a ten-item scale consisting only of the aggressively-worded items. Knowing about the dimensionality of a scale is an essential part of the measurement validity argument. For a reasonable validity argument to be made for a measure, the dimensionality of the measure must be known and it must match how the construct is conceptualized. This has been a problem in the past for both the ARG scale and VAS, but given the accumulation of evidence in the extant literature these issues have now been resolved. It is important to remember, however, that evidence for dimensionality is necessary but not sufficient for a validity case. Knowing that a set of indicators measure something consistently does not tell much about what is that something. But, before getting more deeply into construct validity, we take a brief diversion into the topic of reliability. Reliability Measures are reliable to the extent that they are free from random measurement error, assuming they are also free from systematic error. In fact, Cronbach’s α can be roughly interpreted as 1 minus measurement error as long as the measure is free from systematic error. Obviously, higher reliabilities are usually desirable, although high reliability can be a trade-off with precision and content validity. The relationship between reliability and validity is more nuanced than typically depicted in textbooks. In one sense, reliability impacts validity and scales cannot be more valid than they are reliable because the random error sets an upper limit on the correspondence between the construct and observed scores. That is, a lack of reliability attenuates validity coefficients, so that a validity coefficient can never be larger than the square root of the reliability. But, on the other hand, a measure’s reliability can be estimated even without being valid. Estimating the reliability of a measure lacking validity produces reliability estimates that are meaningless and seriously misleading. In fact, it is possible that certain validity problems (e.g., certain types of confounded measurement) can

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

77

artifactually inflate estimates of a measure’s reliability (Shevlin et al., 2000). In this sense, structural validity is a prerequisite for understanding reliability. For this reason, it makes sense to discuss reliability only after the dimensionality of a measure has been established with confidence. The practice in many literatures of reporting Cronbach’s α, or any other reliability estimate for that matter, without first establishing unidimensionality evidence (e.g., with CFA) is seriously problematic. The reliabilities for both the ARG and VA scales hover around .80 which is usually considered acceptable for most basic research. Infante and Rancer (1982) originally reported reliabilities in the range of .86 to .91 for the ARG scale, but when the scale is scored as unidimensional with the problematic items removed, the reliability drops slightly (Hamilton & Mineo, 2002; Kotowski et al., 2009). Nevertheless, when these later reliabilities are adjusted using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula to account for the fewer items, they fall well within the range reported by Infante and Rancer. The reliability for the ten-item VAS which includes only the aggressively worded items has been found to range from .77 to .82 (Kotowski et al., 2009; Levine et al., 2004), which is quite similar to the original reliability obtained from all 20 items by Infante and Wigley (1986) who reported Cronbach’s α = .81. Construct Validity Traditionally, there are two primary strategies for establishing the construct validity of a measure. The most common but least convincing is the Cronbach and Meehl (1955) nomological network approach. The nomological network approach involves creating a network of theoretically deduced hypothesized relationships among constructs with the construct of interest at the center. Measures of these constructs are then identified, data is collected, and if the measure of the focal construct is related to measures of the other constructs as hypothesized, then the measure is functioning as a measure of the construct according to the theory. Consequently, evidence for construct validity is inferred. The initial validation studies for both the ARG scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982) and the VAS (Infante & Wigley, 1986) used the nomological network validation strategy. The main trouble with Cronbach and Meehl’s (1955) nomological network construct validation strategy is that, in practice, clearly invalid scales can pass this sort of validity test with flying colors because of at least two reasons. First, validation of the focal measure assumes the network measures are highly valid, which given the current state of most measurement in the social sciences is a difficult assumption to defend. Second, measurement theory posits that the observed scores on any measure result from a causal relationship with the construct being measured, which the nomological network approach does not test. For example, theory posits that communication apprehension will have a substantial positive correlation with social anxiety and therefore measures of these two constructs can be expected to correlate similarly in a nomological

78

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

network validation study. The nomological technique, however, does little to test if the correlation between measures is spurious because of a shared characteristic of the measures or if the observed scores on each measure indeed result from the direct causal influence of the constructs they are purported to measure and the measures are correlated only because the constructs are correlated. Clear examples of both of these reasons can be found in the self-construal scale literature. Although self-construal scales are almost certainly deeply flawed, they nevertheless look great in nomological network tests (cf. Bresnahan et al., 2005; Levine et al., 2003a, 2003b). Stronger evidence for construct validity can be obtained through the Campbell and Fiske (1959) multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) approach. At its core, the MTMM approach involves systematically examining the matrix of correlations among different constructs as measured by different methods. Relying on the principle of triangulation, MTMM allows a researcher to assess both the convergent and discriminant validity of a measure. Convergent validity involves showing that alternative measures of the same construct converge, or covary strongly. Discriminant validity involves showing that measures of different constructs function differently, or covary weakly. The MTMM also has the advantage of being able to isolate method variance, which is the tendency for measures using a common method, such as self-report, to correlate spuriously as an artifact of the shared method. Two major downsides of the MTMM approach are that it is hard to do well and it tends to be very labor-intensive. The primary criteria for construct validity for the ARG scale and the VAS, however, are straightforward thanks to the commonality in the conceptual definitions of each construct. Because each construct is defined as a behavioral trait, there are clear and objective behavioral tests that can be applied. If the ARG scale a is valid measure of a “trait that predisposes people to advocate positions on controversial issues while attacking verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72), then people who score more highly on the ARG scale will argue more than people who score low on the measure. That is, people can complete the self-report ARG scale, and then be observed engaging in argumentative communication when they are put in a situation where someone disagrees with them. To the extent the ARG scale has characteristics of construct validity, it ought to predict who advocates and refutes positions and who does not in the behavioral situation. Similarly, if the VAS has characteristics of construct validity, scores on the VAS will predict who will and who will not “attack the self-concepts of others” (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 61) especially when they are put in a situation where someone disagrees with them. In short, both conceptual definitions specify quite clear objective and observable standards for assessing construct validity. In the case of the ARG scale, there have been four studies to date that examined the association between scores on the ARG scale and observation of arguing behavior. Infante (1981) found that scores on the ARG scale were associated with several dimensions of behavior in actual arguments. Statistically significant associations with behaviors ranged in size from r = .11 to

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

79

r = .33. The effects for will-to-argue and argumentative skill were r = .20 and r = .26, respectively. Clearly, these associations are too small to provide solid evidence for validity, indicating substantial variance in argumentative behavior that is not accounted for by scores on the ARG scale (i.e., from 89 percent to 99 percent). But, these findings were stronger than those reported in three subsequent replications. Kotowski et al. (2009), Levine and Boster (1996), and Semic and Canary (1997) found no statistically significant relationships between self-reported argumentativeness on the ARG scale and observed argumentative behavior. Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that the ARG scale does not measure the tendency to “advocate positions on controversial issues while attacking verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72). Scores on the ARG appear uninformative about, and independent of, peoples’ actual argumentative behavior. For the VAS, only one study has examined VAS scores in conjunction with behavioral observations of verbally aggressive behavior. Kotowski et al. (2009) found that scores on the VAS were not statistically associated with behavioral observations of verbally aggressive behaviors. In fact, the correlation was small and negative, r = −.12. Given these findings, there are strong and convincing reasons to doubt the construct validity of the ARG scale and VAS as measures of their intended constructs. Both conceptual definitions make clear that the intended constructs are behavioral traits, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that observed scores on the two measures are uninformative about argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors. The evidence provided here indicates that the scales fail to measure what they are purported to measure.

Conclusions Given the research reviewed here, the reader might call for the dismissal of the ARG scale and VAS as hopelessly invalid and the extant research as a total waste of time and journal pages. This, however, is far from our recommendation. Unlike scales like self-construals scales which are hopelessly confounded, the ARG scale and VAS are reasonably valid measures of something—just not behavioral traits as designed. Consider the evidence again. The sets of items comprising each of the refined scales exhibit good internal consistency and parallelism characteristics to form reasonably reliable unidimensional measures of underlying latent constructs; it is only that the nature of the underlying latent constructs are less clear. Whereas the scales do not appear to predict observable argumentative or verbally aggressive behavior, these scales do fit within a different well-documented nomological network. Both scales, for example, predict self-reported message behavior well (Kotowski et al., 2009; Levine et al., 2004). For example, if people are asked to imagine themselves in a hypothetical situation and given choices among several message options, people who score more highly on the ARG scale are more likely to endorse highly argumentative options and less likely to

80

Timothy R. Levine and Michael R. Kotowski

pick more passive options. Similar findings have been found with the VAS and verbally aggressive message options. There are also effects for the ARG scale and VAS when subjects are asked to write out what they would say in an open-ended response format. Further yet, other research finds associations between the ARG scale and VAS and scores on other measures. Clearly, the ARG scale and VAS measure things systematically that are related to a host of other communication-related constructs. So, what kind of constructs might be consistent with these patterns of results? One possibility is that the measures tap general attitudes toward argumentative and verbal aggressive communication, respectively. That is, the ARG scale may measure one’s evaluation of advocating positions on controversial issues and counter-arguing the positions of others. Similarly, the VAS may measure the tendency to endorse attacks upon the self-concepts of others as an acceptable form of behavior. Another possibility is that the measures tap self-concept and the tendency to see one’s self as argumentative and verbally aggressive, respectively. Interpreted in either of these lights, the existing literature can make sense. Although the empirical evidence indicates that the ARG scale and VAS are probably indicators of different constructs than originally intended and there is still a need for researchers to determine exactly what these two measures are measuring, the ARG scale and VAS can be useful and important measures as long as the implications of each measure’s validity and reliability issues are considered for the specific application for which the measures are being used.

References Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. E., & Valencic, K. M. (1999). A re-examination of the verbal aggressiveness scale: One factor or two? Communication Research Reports, 16, 10–17. Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., & Andrews, K. R. (2006, November). Identifying influentials: Development of the connector, persuader, and social maven scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX. Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. R. (1988). Individual differences and compliance gaining message selection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, dogmatism, and negativism. Communication Research Reports, 5, 114–119. Boster, F. J., Levine, T. R., & Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior. Communication Quarterly, 41, 405–414. Bresnahan, B. J., Levine, T. R., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Park, C. Y., & Kiyomiya, T. (2005). A multimethod-multitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the U.S. Human Communication Research, 31, 33–59. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (Eds.) (1970). Studies on Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

81

Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (2002). Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta-analytic review. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 281–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hunter, J., Gerbing, D., & Boster, F. (1982). Machiavellian beliefs and personality: Construct invalidity of the Machiavellianism dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1293–1305. Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265–272. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 63–69. Kotowski, M. R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C., & Bolt, J. (2009). A multi-trait multi-method validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs, 67, 443–462. Levine, T. R., Beatty, M. J., Limon, S., Hamilton, M. A., Buck, R., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2004). The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs, 71, 245–268. Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (1996). The impact of self and others’ argumentative talk about controversial issues. Communication Quarterly, 44, 345–358. Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2003a). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication Research, 29, 291–308. Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G., Shearman, S., Lee, S. Y., Chung, D. H., & Ohashi, R. (2003b). Self-construals scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210–252. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) general intelligence objectively determined and measured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. Park, H. S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 562–577. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Semic, B. A., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions. Communication Quarterly, 45, 355–378. Shevlin, M., Miles, J. N. V., Davies, M. N. O., & Walker, S. (2000). Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 229–237. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent selfconstruals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, 256–279.

Chapter 5

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China Its Cultural Roots, Strategies, and New Developments Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao Aggressive communication is a unique phenomenon that has attracted much attention from researchers in the United States during the last few decades. Scholarly research into symbolic aggressive communication in the discipline of communication studies has reached several milestones and represents one of the most productive lines of research. For example, Infante (1987) conceived a framework that classifies symbolic aggressive communication into two categories: constructive and destructive. Infante and Rancer (1982) and Infante and Wigley (1986) developed two scales, the “Argumentativeness (ARG) Scale” and the “Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS),” respectively. These scales assess the two traits of aggressive communication. Guided by the framework that based verbal aggressiveness in hostility and argumentativeness in assertiveness, researchers have conducted scores of studies devoted to help understand aggressive communication in various contexts and social situations (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Noticeably, a large number of those studies in intercultural contexts focus mainly on the aspect of cross-cultural comparison of aggressive communication traits (e.g., Avtgis & Rancer, 2002; Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990). Because of cultural influence, the characteristics of aggressive communication (such as its forms, functions, and strategies) in one culture/society may be very different from those in another culture/society (see, for example, Goldstein & Segall, 1983; Segall, 1988). However, it is rare to come across a study in the discipline that investigates aggressive communication in a specific culture or society, except for the United States of America. Such a void in the research needs to be filled. Obviously, by any measure, it is an enormous undertaking that requires contributions by researchers from each and every corner of the world. As a small part of that overall effort, this chapter focuses on Chinese culture and examines symbolic aggressive communication in mainland China. The history of world civilization shows China has made tremendous contributions to the development of human society for thousands of years. More recently, since 1979, China has undergone a social and economic reform that has helped create one of the largest economic transformations in human history. With the largest population in the world and unprecedented economic achievements,

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

83

China today is considered a fast-emerging power in the world. Such events as China’s becoming a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, hosting the Summer Olympic Games in 2008, and the growing influence on global economic policy demonstrate that China needs to be engaged with global partners, and that global partners need to understand China. A successful engagement of China with the world depends, to a large degree, on effective communication between China (i.e., the Chinese people) and the rest of the world. It is therefore essential for the world to understand the influence of Chinese culture on their communication. In general, when people refer to “Chinese people” it is a referent to Chinese people living in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese communities within other nations or regions in the world. The analysis presented in this chapter will focus primarily on Chinese people in mainland China.

The Term of Aggressive Communication in Contemporary Chinese Language Language is one of the fundamental elements of human communication. Language influences the development of culture, and, in turn, is influenced by culture. The language of a particular culture sheds light on the culture, functions, and patterns of communication within the culture. Chinese language has more than 3,000 years of history, and it has evolved slowly to reflect the cultural changes in Chinese society. One of the most significant developments of Chinese language took place in the early twentieth century as a result of the “New Culture” movement in China. This movement helped create contemporary Chinese language. Later in the 1950s, the central government launched a national campaign to promote a common language, Putonghua (普通话; also known as Mandarin). It is believed that the spread of Putonghua helped reduce the rate of illiteracy among Chinese people and facilitate communication between Chinese people of different ethnicities and regions. Putonghua is considered the official language in mainland China today. Many foreign words and phrases have been introduced to Chinese people over the years. Given the vast differences between Chinese and Western cultures, it is sometimes difficult to provide an accurate translation for an English word or concept into the Chinese language. Communication is one such word. In the contemporary Chinese language, different words have been used for “communication.” As a result, currently there exist several different meanings of communication in Chinese culture and these vary from one context to another. For example, in such academic disciplines as natural science, engineering, and their respective professions, communication can be translated into Tong-xun (通讯), exchange of information with the help of an electronic device. In fact, this particular Chinese term had been the only translation for communication in the Chinese language for many years. Chinese translations of communication became somewhat complicated when communication as a concept to describe general human symbolic activities was introduced to the

84

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

Chinese people. For this particular concept, three versions of Chinese translation are the most common: Jiao-liu (交流), Chuan-bo (传播), and Gou-tong (沟通) (Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996). Jiao-liu means “to exchange;” Chuan-bo means “to disseminate;” and Gou-tong means “to connect and [to understand]” (p. 281). These terms have been used in different social contexts in Chinese society. For instance, when describing communication as an academic discipline or a subject of study, people normally use Chuan-bo (传播). On the other hand, either Jiao-liu (交流) or Gou-tong (沟通), or their combination (Jiao-liu and Gou-tong) is frequently utilized to describe an interaction between two parties. Gou-tong is viewed by some to be “the closest Chinese equivalent for communication as it is usually used by Western scholars” (Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996, p. 281). Taken together, as reflected in Chinese language, the concept of symbolic communication in Chinese culture has three dimensions: dissemination of information, interaction between individuals, and the goal or outcome of human interaction (S. Lu, 2000). Accordingly, when translating aggressive communication into Chinese, several terms have been adopted: Jin-gong xing jiao-liu (进攻性交流, being aggressive in communication), Zhu-dong xing jiao-liu (主动性交流, being initiative in communication), Qin-lue xing jiao-liu (侵略性交流, being invasive in communication), and Ji-ji gou-tong (积极沟通, being aggressive in communication). All of them suggest such meanings as “attacking” and “initiating.” Specifically, “attacking,” opposite to “defending,” means approaching and engaging the other party proactively, but in a nonphysical way. As for “initiating,” opposite to “being passive,” it means creating advantage and favorableness to oneself which makes the development of the matter follow one’s own intention. It is on the latter aspect that “being initiative in communication” implies a certain degree of persuasion and control. However, Qin-lue xing jiao-liu (侵略性交流) also suggests an unjust attacking that usually means looting and physical aggression. These terms, to some extent, reflect the views of the contemporary Chinese people on aggressive communication. Jin-gong xing jiao-liu (进攻性交流), Zhu-dong xing jiao-liu (主动性交流), and Ji-ji gou-tong (积极沟通) are generally considered positive terms for aggressive communication regarding its goals and outcomes, while Qin-lue xing jiao-liu (侵略性交流) is widely regarded as a negative term for aggressive communication. As a comparison, aggressive communication in American culture, according to one view, is to apply “force physically or symbolically in order, minimally, to dominate and perhaps damage or, maximally, to defeat and perhaps destroy the locus of attack” (Infante, 1987, p. 158). Aggressive communication can thus be either constructive or destructive or both, and the outcome of aggressive communication can be viewed as either positive or negative.

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

85

The Concept of Aggressive Communication in Chinese Culture Although those specific terms for aggressive communication in contemporary Chinese language are relatively new to many of the Chinese people, the concept and practices of aggressive communication have been part of Chinese culture and society since the very beginning of Chinese civilization. The chosen of those three terms reflects the influence of Chinese culture on the Chinese people’s beliefs and practices of aggressive communication. As commonly accepted, aggressive communication in Chinese culture has three dimensions: aggressive, initiative, and invasive. As mentioned in the previous section, because invasive communication often indicates an unjust attacking brought by one party onto the other party, and results in looting and physical aggression, people generally speak of aggressive communication in terms of its aggressive and initiative dimensions. In any relationship, symbolic aggressive communication can be constructive when any one of the parties or all parties involved employ “verbal or nonverbal symbols to exert control, to obtain justified rewards, and to avoid violation of one’s rights . . . in a socially acceptable way” (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, p. 14). On the other hand, symbolic aggressive communication can be destructive when any of the parties or all parties involved utilize verbal or nonverbal symbols to “express irritability, negativity, resentment, and suspicion” (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, p. 19) and to attack the opponent’s self-concept such as “group membership,” “personal failing,” and “relational failings” (p. 21). Symbolic aggression in American culture is defined as “using verbal and nonverbal communication channels in order, minimally, to dominate and perhaps damage or, maximally, to defeat and perhaps destroy another person’s position on topics of communication and/or the person’s self-concept” (Infante, 1987, p. 164). Clearly, defined by its aggressive and initiative dimensions, aggressive communication in Chinese culture is conceptually similar to what is symbolic aggressive communication in American culture which does not involve physical aggression. Thus, the same categories can be used to classify aggressive communication in Chinese culture: it can be either constructive, destructive, or a combination of both. The remaining sections of the chapter focus on the constructive aspects of aggressive communication in Chinese culture. Traditional Chinese culture, rooted in Chinese Inland Loess Civilization, is considered a culture of agricultural economy—the self-supporting and selfsufficiency of individual farmers whose lives are tied to the land. A main body of the traditional Chinese culture consists of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, and it is characterized by its emphasis of “harmony” (“和”) as its core value. Harmony is “a process of creation and the balance between two opposite states in the natural and the human world” and it “is created from the changing relations among the individuals and is the unifying principles by which things come to exist” (Höchsmann, 2004, p. 174). When dealing with a personal relationship, Confucianism considers harmony

86

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

as the most precious, and advocates the “Doctrine of the Mean” (“中庸”). According to the Doctrine of the Mean: While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium . . . This Equilibrium is the great root from which grows all the human acting in the world, and Harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue. Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish. (Legge, 1955, pp. 2–3, cited in Chen, 2002, p. 5) The Doctrine of the Mean is an idea of compromising, and it is about maintaining a balance and a harmony in human relations. In a coexistence of opportunities for offense and defense, individuals would prefer a neutral or even a defensive position over an offensive or attacking position, and they believe that every measure should be taken to avoid any argument or confrontation that can potentially damage their harmonious relationships with others. The most important writing of Taoism is Dao-De-Jing (Tao-Te-Ching), believed to be the works of Lao-Zi (also called Lao-Tzu, who lived around the sixth century BC). According to Taoist philosophy, individuals should not interfere with the harmony of the universe which, in its own way, functions harmoniously. One of the major concepts in Taoism is “Wu Wei” (“无为”). “Wu Wei,” literally translated from Chinese to English, means “without action.” It suggests, “Practice not-doing, and everything will fall into place” (Mitchell, 2009). Wu wei does not mean to avoid all action, but rather all hostile, aggressive action . . . even to be non-aggressive can be aggression, if by one’s nonaggressiveness one makes others feel inferior. It is to make another person feel inferior that is the essence of aggression. (Welch, 1966, p. 33) “Wu Wei” had been a guiding principle for Chinese people to establish and to maintain a balanced relationship with others by knowing when to take a certain action or not to take any action. Dao-De-Jing also presents other ideas regarding social interaction. For example, in Chapter 56 of the Dao-De-Jing, Lao-Zi said, “Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know. Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity” (Mitchell, 2009). In Chapter 67, Lao-Zi also said, “There are three treasures which I preserve: the first one is benevolence, the second one is frugality, and the last one is the idea that one should dare not to be the first of the world.” The idea of “dare not to be the first of the world” actually means “to be modest and reserved.” Communication should not be a means allowing one party to impose their ideas onto the other. Rather, it should be a process that allows the parties

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

87

involved to identify and understand the key ideas for the purpose of selfpersuasion (Combs, 2005). All these ideas of harmony, modesty, and restraint in regard to human relationships have had a profound impact on Chinese society and the Chinese people for several thousand years. For example, seeking and maintaining harmony with family members and neighbors as well as making and keeping peace with other nations have been a primary goal for the development of relationships (Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996). Often a relationship as complex as the one between two nations, or an interaction as simple as one between two individuals in a conversation, is examined and evaluated through the lens of harmony—successful ones are those which preserve harmony between the parties involved. Assertive and aggressive actions are generally discouraged and suppressed (Bond & Wang, 1983). There are numerous well-known stories, events, writings, and individuals throughout Chinese history that help illustrate those influences of Chinese culture. A few examples are presented here. About two thousand years ago during the Han Dynasty the central government adopted the policies of cementing friendly relations through marriage and appeasement to deal with neighboring ethnic groups. For example, upon the request of Huhanxie, the Chanyu (Khan) of an ethnic group living along the northern border of Han, Emperor Yuan (48 B.C.–33 B.C.) decided to choose one of his own lady servants who had to be both talented and beautiful as a princess to marry the Chanyu. A lady servant, whose name was Wang Zhaojun, voluntarily offered herself. Her marriage lasted for sixty years. During those years, a peaceful relationship between the Han Dynasty and that ethnic group had been first established, and later strengthened. As a result, there had not been any major conflict between the two groups for more than fifty years. Similarly in the Tang Dynasty (618–907 A.D.), Princess Wencheng married Songzan Ganbu, King of Tubo of Tibet, an ethnic group (Tibetans today) living along the western border of Tang, commencing a friendly era between Tang and Tubo. Although there had been wars for many years between these two neighbors, this marriage of state helped establish and maintain a peaceful relationship between the two peoples in the coming years. In contemporary China, many Chinese people continue to follow and practice the principle of the Doctrine of the Mean and modesty, and they discredit those being flippant and impudent. For instance, Mr. Meng Wang, a renowned contemporary writer, once said, “Looking back, I didn’t waste any of my time . . . The only regret is that I speak too much and write too much. I should have been more rigorous, more precise, more restrained and reserved. If I could possess those characteristics, my life would be perfect and profound” (Wang, 2008, p. 4). According to Mr. Zhengkun Jin (2007), a well-known professor and an expert on etiquette and interpersonal communication at Renmin Univesity (People’s University) of China, there are four rules that should be followed when engaging another in conversation. First, one should not interrupt another person. Second, one should not supplement another’s opinion with one’s own. In public, especially a situation involving those whose social status is different

88

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

from one’s own, one should spend more time on listening than on talking as careless talking leads to trouble. Third, one should not correct others or make a quick judgment on others if it is not a matter of the fundamental principles by which you live. Most of the time one may not need to get things straightened out or corrected. Fourth, one should not question others about the truth of their intentions. Also, in negotiation, individuals should show “emotional restraint and self-control,” “careful conformity to politeness rituals,” and “avoidance of aggressive persuasion techniques” (Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996, p. 319). In general, when dealing with personal relationships, Chinese people believe and practice a rule originally written by Confucius, “己所不欲, 勿施于人,” meaning “Do not force others to do the things that you do not want to do.” In other words, individuals should have mutual understanding of each other, or put themselves into the other’s shoes. In order to be harmonious with the surroundings and without doing something extreme, people also adopt “enduring” and “anger-control” as their mottos. To them, enduring is also a strategy for an effective interaction with others; as Confucius once said, “Want of forbearance in small matters confounds great plans.” “Chinese people have been frequently characterized as being cautious, repressed, patient, humble, modest, and non-aggressive . . . [and] [t]hese psychological and behavioral characteristics constitute a temperamental syndrome that may be summarized as self-restraint” (Yang, 1986, p. 140). However, the impact of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism on the use of language in relation to aggressive communication is relatively complicated. Such usage of language can be linked to the two facets of aggressive communication: that which is constructive and that which is destructive. Those resulting in positive outcomes can be considered constructive approaches to personal relationships, while those bringing negative outcomes can be considered destructive approaches. On one hand, people are often judged by such standards as what Lao-Zi said: “Those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know” (“知者不言, 言者不知”) (Mitchell, 2009), and what Confucius said: “Slickness of the tongue corrupts one’s morality” (“巧言乱德”). Therefore, many Chinese idioms, such as “Have a glib tongue” and “Have a gift of the gab” (“花言巧语,” “能言善辩,” “巧舌如簧,” “伶牙俐齿”) are often used as derogatory terms. There also exist other Chinese idioms to remind people of the possibility of unwanted (most likely harmful) consequences from the unnecessary use of words in human interactions, such as “Many words hurt characters” (“言多伤行”), and “The tongue cuts the throat” and “Out of the mouth comes evil” (both mean “祸从口出”), to name just a few. It seems that one who is able to engage in a protracted argument or debate is not considered, in today’s terms, an effective communicator. For example, an implication of this belief for politics suggests that “political discourse was to be based on moral suasion, rather than contention or argumentation” (Kluver, 2002, p. 225). On the other hand, it is also interesting to note that those who were able to use language effectively in aggressive communication had been admired

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

89

throughout Chinese history. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770 B.C.– 476 B.C.) and the Warring States Period (476 B.C.–221 B.C.) in China, a group of intellectuals emerged to create a special profession in which they served as professional consultants to the rulers of different states. These professional consultants traveled extensively within and between the states to engage in debates with individuals of all backgrounds in order to promote the best interests of the respective ruler. Although most of them might possess certain political beliefs of their own, they were willing to trade their positions for gaining personal fame and wealth. They were well versed in politics, military affairs, and diplomacy. With their extraordinary abilities to employ various tactics to argue eloquently, they were able to deal successfully between different political groups. It was during the same historical period that Confucianism, Taoism, Mohism, and other schools of thoughts first emerged. Representatives of each school of thought presented their points of view and debated with each other, which helped to form an era in which a hundred schools of thought contended (such a state is often referred to as “Hundred Schools of Thought Contend” to symbolize an ideal situation of academic freedom throughout the Chinese history). The philosophical thoughts developed during this time helped establish the foundation of Chinese feudalistic culture, and, therefore, had a very profound impact on Chinese culture as a whole. Confucius once said, “A medicine that tastes bitter can be a better cure for your sickness, and a comment that sounds unflattering can be a better advice for your conduct.” He believed, “If a king has no subordinates who dares to make remonstrance with him, a father has no son who dares to argue with him, an older brother has no younger brother who dares to debate with him, a man has no friend who dares to tell him his fault, it seems that everything is fine, but it is in fact a very unwanted situation.” Many Chinese idioms have also expressed the desire of using words to advocate one’s opinions, beliefs, and positions. For example: “Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” (“百花齐放,百家争鸣”); “Tell all that you know and tell it without reserve” (“知无不言,言无不尽”); “Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words” (“言者无罪, 闻者足戒”); “Each airs his own views” (“各抒己见”); “Speak one’s mind freely” (“畅所欲言”); “Draw on collective wisdom and absorb all useful ideas” (“集思广益”); and “Encouraging the free airing of views” (“广开言路”). Overall, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism together played a significant role in developing Chinese cultural traditions. These traditions constitute a main cultural root for Chinese people to conceptualize and to engage in aggressive communication. These traditions may have evolved as the society has changed over time. However, the major components of these traditions “are entrenched so deeply in [Chinese culture] that they persist generation after generation” (Samover & Porter, 2003, p. 10), and they continue to help define Chinese culture today, and, therefore, exert unique impacts on the ways in which Chinese people communicate with each other.

90

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

Strategies for Aggressive Communication in Chinese Culture The tenets of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have guided Chinese people to develop different strategies to engage in aggressive communication. In Chinese culture, engaging in aggressive communication means that one takes or initiates a proactive approach to others for the purpose of moving the matter along the desired course of one’s own. Since it is impossible to come up with a complete list of strategies of aggressive communication employed by Chinese people, this section discusses a few examples of such strategies. There are two strategies reflecting the emphasis of Chinese culture on harmony. The first one of them is the strategy of being intentionally implicit (含蓄). To the Chinese, “being intentionally implicit” means that one party involved in a relationship does not explicitly explain everything to the other party (or parties) and does not show any extreme emotion (such as joy, sadness, and anger) to the other(s) either (Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996). Chinese people are more concerned with how their messages are received by the other party (or parties), and believe that if “there are things left to be said, there is room for ‘free advance and retreat’ ” (p. 284). Once something is said or shown, it cannot be taken back. Because it is difficult to predict how a particular message (verbal and/or nonverbal) will be received by others, it could put people in an awkward situation and make them feel uncomfortable or hurt. Therefore, the more directly and strongly an opinion is expressed, and the more openly extreme nonverbal behaviors are exhibited, the less likely a harmonious relationship can be maintained. As saying fewer words or no words can further reduce the chance of ruining the harmony, Chinese people are more than willing to take the role of listener, which help avoid any direct confrontation such as argument and questioning. The second strategy that focuses on preserving harmony between parties in a relationship is “saving and giving face.” To Chinese people, face consists of both lian (face, 脸) and mianzi (image, 面子). Lian “represents the confidence of society in the integrity of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly within the community” (Hu, 1944, p. 45, cited in Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996, p. 289). Mianzi “stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in [the United States]: a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation” (Hu, 1944, p. 45, cited in Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996, p. 289). Hu (1944) suggested Mianzi is a claim of public image, which is similar to the concept of face in the Western culture, and lian is unique to Chinese culture (cited in Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996). Although it may be true that individuals of different cultures have concerns about their face, the reasons for their concerns are most likely culture-specific, not universal in nature (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Many Chinese people believe that any public argument or dispute between two parties can lead to loss of either kind of face for one party or both parties. As a result, it becomes difficult for the two parties to keep a harmonious

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

91

relationship. To avoid this kind of relational outcome, any one of the two parties makes an effort to save the face of the other party and give the other party face. In order to limit the chance for them to engage in direct confrontation and argumentation with others, Chinese people are willing to appear weak and passive and to deliberately downplay their skills in social interaction (X. Lu, 2000). In other words, Chinese people believe that when in public, one should be unassertive, be indirect, and be non-judgmental about the matter and should try not to embarrass the other party or make the other party lose their reputation (Gao, Ting-Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 2003). Many Chinese consider that “[b]eing assertive reflects the bad character of an individual and threatens the harmony and cohesion of interpersonal relationship” (Gao, TingToomey, & Gudykunst, 1996, p. 291). Saving face and giving face constitute face management skills that require people to exercise a high level of self-restraint and a clear understanding of the importance of harmony in a relationship. There are a few strategies that pay more attention to the component of persuasion in aggressive communication. The first one is the strategy of being considerate. This strategy can be illustrated through a popular story in Chinese history. The story is about an event that happened in the Spring, Autumn, and Warring States Periods of China. In order to develop agriculture and increase crop yield, people of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty planned to replant rice. The Western Zhou Dynasty was located on higher ground and was able to control the water resources. When people in the Western Zhou Dynasty learned about the Eastern Zhou Dynasty’s plan, they refused to open the sluices for the Eastern Zhou. Dai Su of the Eastern volunteered himself to travel to the Western to persuade people there to reconsider their decision. Upon his arrival, Dai Su told people of the Western that their decision was not wise. He pointed out that, if there was no water available for people of the Eastern, they would not be able to plant rice. Instead, they would continue to grow wheat. Therefore, they would not need to beg the Western people for more water. As a result, the Western would not have the initiative in dealing with the Eastern in the future. However, Dai Su suggested to people of the Western that, if they allowed water to flow to the Eastern for this time, people of the Eastern would be able to begin to grow rice. Consequently, the economic lifeline of Eastern Zhou would be under the Western’s control. The Eastern would have to depend on the Western for more water all the time. People of the Western felt that Dai Su had made a reasonable argument to help serve their best interests, and agreed to open the sluices for the Eastern Zhou. This story shows that, when people have different opinions toward an issue, Chinese people believe that an effective way to persuade others to accept one’s own position is to put oneself into the position of others. In other words, “initiating” is a process to make others feel that one is standing on their side, thinking for their benefits, and arguing on their behalf. In doing so, one’s own interest can be advanced. Thus, the goal of “initiating” can be accomplished, which, for many Chinese people, is to make the development of the matter follow one’s own direction.

92

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

The second strategy focusing on the persuasive aspect of aggressive communication is the strategy of story sharing. Again, this strategy can be explained through a popular Chinese story, called “How Zou Ji made the Duke of Qi accept criticism.” The story happened in the Warring States Period of China. Zou Ji was a chancellor of the state of Qi, and he was over six feet tall and considered very handsome. He heard that a man, named Xu Gong, lived in the same city and was handsome too. One morning, after dressing himself up, Zou Ji examined himself in front of a mirror and asked his wife, “Compared to Xu Gong, who is more handsome?” His wife replied, “Xu Gong is no comparison to you.” Zou Ji was doubtful of her remark, and then asked his concubine and his friends the same question. They all answered, “Xu Gong is not as handsome as you.” Zou Ji eventually got a chance to see Xu Gong for himself and found out that Xu Gong was far more handsome than he was. Zou Ji then went to see King Wei of the Qi and told him, “I know very well that I am not as handsome as Xu Gong, but my wife, my concubine, and my friends all told me a different story. The reason for them to do so is that my wife loves me and is partial to me, my concubine fears me, and my friends try to seek favors from me.” Zou Ji added, “Now the land of the state of Qi is large and covers more than 120 towns. The wives and concubines of yours all love you and are therefore partial to you, your ministers are all afraid of you, and your subjects all want to get favors from you. Your Majesty, you are, therefore, in the dark and are totally blind to truth and reality!” The king then realized the situation, and issued an order in which he promised a big reward for any individual, whether he was a government official or an ordinary person, who could point out the king’s faults. A great reward would be given to those who dared to tell him about his mistakes face to face. A moderate reward would be handed out to those who were willing to write to him directly about his shortcomings. Anyone who simply talked about the king’s errors in the public places would be rewarded as well. A large number of individuals responded to this order quickly to express their opinions to the king. In this particular story, Zou Ji anticipated that King Wei, the most powerful person in the state, was most likely to reject any criticism directly against him. By putting him in a relaxed condition, the strategy of story sharing helped eliminate or alleviate the king’s psychology of self defense, and eventually moved him to accept Zou Ji’s viewpoints without a direct confrontation. Listeners can be enlightened in the course of story and are able to reach a conclusion by themselves without feeling pressure from the other party. Being aggressive and taking the initiative with the matter is to be indirect. Establishing a close personal relationship is the third strategy that emphasizes the persuasive aspect of aggressive communication. It is believed that Chinese people view others as either members of the in-group or members of the outgroup, and they interact with in-group members differently than out-group members (Hofstede, 1984). A close personal relationship makes the people in that relationship members of the in-group. Particularly in business negotiation, this strategy is also called the strategy of “private contact.” Individuals of two

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

93

parties in negotiation first spend time together on recreation and entertainment to enhance friendship and understanding. A successful business deal is often a result of a close personal relationship established through those activities. In foreign affairs, the key of the entire body of work can be summarized in a simple phrase: “making friends.” Once people become friends, many issues will be easy to handle. In everyday life, this strategy which focuses on the development of close personal relationships is practiced more pragmatically as “cozying up to someone.” In addition, several strategies were first presented in the influential writings of military theory, and, later, became common tactics in the daily life of Chinese people. One such strategy advocates “breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting” (“不战而屈人之兵”). According to The Art of War: Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence. Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. Thus the highest form of leadership is to thwart the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. . . . Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting. (Rudnicki, 1996, pp. 19–20) It is commonly believed that, in practice, this strategy has two aspects and four levels. “To thwart the enemy’s plans” and “to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces” reflect the thinking of “without fighting.” “To attack the enemy’s army” and “to besiege walled cities” reflect the thinking of “being cautious of fight.” Specifically, “to thwart the enemy’s plans” means solving a conflict in advance before it becomes intensified by employing stratagems involving political, economic, and diplomatic means. “To prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces” means to mobilize the forces of one’s own country and other countries to show one’s determination, resulting in overwhelming predominance or balance of power. This, coupled with warning the opponent of the consequences and offering necessary compromises, results in achieving one’s strategic objectives. Simply stated, this strategy of “breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting” suggests that the first option for individuals to engage in aggressive communication should not be the use of direct confrontation. Other strategies of aggressive communication that were developed from strategies for conducting military affairs are, for example, “try peaceful means before resorting to force (“先礼后兵”), “initiate a surprise attack” (“出其不意”), “strike where the opponent is unprepared” (“攻其不备”), and “know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat” (“知己知彼, 百战不殆”). These strategies, one way or another, help individuals decide when and how to use aggressive communication when interacting with others.

94

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

Aggressive Communication in Contemporary China: New Developments The concept of aggressive communication in Chinese society has been evolving over time. Specifically, a few historical events since 1840 have had a cumulative impact on the Chinese people’s understanding and practices of aggressive communication. In other words, in order to understand the new developments of aggressive communication in contemporary China, one must first examine historical events. One such event is the Opium War (1840–42). In this war, Chinese people revolted against the British invasion passively, and it was simply a reactive engagement with the British. From the experience of passive defense and eventually humiliating defeat in this war, Chinese people came to realize that it was not in their best interests to close the country to international contacts. Zexu Lin, who is known for his forceful action to prohibit use of drugs in Human, China, is considered to be one of the first people who became conscious of the reality in which China existed. He was a pioneer to push China to be more proactively involved in world affairs. Zexu Lin assembled a group of people to translate foreign newspapers and books, and took a lead to compile a book, “A Survey of Four Continents,” that described the geography and history of more than 30 countries around the globe. Based on this book, one of his friends, Yuan Wei, wrote another book to provide more detailed descriptions of world geography, history, politics, education, economy, and technology. Wei’s book, to some degree, helped broaden the vision of then ignorant and ill-informed Chinese people, and open the eyes of Chinese people in order for them to see the world beyond their nation’s boundaries. An idea of learning from the advanced powers was presented in Wei’s book, and this idea greatly influenced many Chinese people and helped generate the Westernization movement in the late Qing Dynasty. The second significant event began in 1915 when Duxiu Chen launched a new magazine, “Journal of Youth,” in Shanghai. The inception of this magazine symbolized the beginning of the New Culture Movement. The New Culture Movement was characterized by calls for democracy and science as well as appeals for equality, freedom, and knowledge of Western countries. This movement had been very critical of Confucianism and its influence on Chinese culture. In the same period of time, there was another event, the May Fourth Movement. As one of the victorious nations of World War I, China should have taken back Qingdao, a Chinese city then under the control of Germany. However, the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919 decided to give the control of Qingdao to Japan, rather than to China. When Chinese people learned about this decision, they marched on the streets of Chinese cities and demanded sovereignty over Qingdao, and, later, the protests developed into a large-scale patriotic movement—the May Fourth Movement. As a result of the New Culture Movement and the May Fourth Movement, Western culture, thoughts, ideologies, and lifestyles began to spread across China, and the

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

95

aggressive and proactive style of communication that is generally associated with Western culture became more acceptable to Chinese people. The Cultural Revolution (1966–76) is, arguably, an event that might have brought more changes to Chinese traditional cultural values than any other event in contemporary China during peacetime. Some extreme concepts and actions became prominent and commonly practiced among Chinese people, which are, for example, “rebellion,” “philosophy of struggle,” “class struggle,” and “thorough revolution.” People during the Cultural Revolution worshiped Chairman Mao, studied the quotes of what he said, believed in his words literally, and acted according to his words. For example, Mao once said, “for all the reactionary things, they will stay alive if you don’t attack them. This is just like sweeping the floor. Dust won’t disappear by itself unless a broom gets it.” People believed that engaging in a direct confrontation with their opponents was the most effective way to get things done. Criticism of individuals with different opinions were shared in the public through Dazibao (texts written in super large font size and posted on walls), and, sometimes, a direct confrontation meant to bring physical tortures to the opponents. China turned a new page in 1979 when it committed itself to economic reforms. The goal of economic restructuring is to establish a so-called socialist market economy. In principle, a market economy encourages competition and opens up new and developing markets and with the new system of economics in China there comes a need for a new style of human communication that is more aggressive, initiative, and straightforward. Cumulatively, the historical events discussed in this chapter certainly played their part in contributing to the societal foundation for the changes in Chinese culture regarding aggressive communication. Some of these changes are manifested in different aspects of Chinese society today. First, Chinese people pay closer attention to the promotion of an ideal social condition: “Harmony” (和谐) and “Being harmonious, yet diversified” (和而不同). Harmony as a state is very important for a society or a relationship. However, harmony should not come at the expense of individuality. An effective way to deal with others is, on the one hand, making an effort to accommodate and respect divergent views, and, on the other hand, to seek common ground while putting aside differences for a common good. Second, Chinese people put greater emphasis on whether one’s intention or one’s action can be truly understood by others. “Nothing could be more joyful than being truly understood” (“理解万岁”) has become a very popular saying. Not only should one expect others to understand one’s motives and deeds, but also one should be tolerant and patient with others’ intentions and actions. The popular saying reflects people’s view concerning the goal of communication. Third, with the deep penetration of the internet into all aspects of Chinese society, interaction (“互动”) has become a frequently used word in individuals’ daily life. This “interaction” emphasizes initiative, delivery, and acceptance, as well as defining a new dynamic relationship between “senders” and “receivers.” This relationship reflects a higher degree of equality than what has existed in the traditional media and among individuals

96

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

in face-to-face situations. This increased level of equality helps facilitate harmonious communication. Fourth, Chinese people put greater stress on one’s own ability to influence the process of communication. Many believe that, “in order to defeat others, one must first overcome oneself.” In order to persuade others and achieve an expected outcome, one must possess enough knowledge and information and master the skills of communication. Fifth, Chinese people have come to realize that China needs to be brought into line with international practices in such areas as trade, education, and cultural exchange. For example, many Chinese people nowadays adopt the Western style of communication such as being direct and explicit and the use of aggressive persuasion techniques, especially in dealing with business matters.

Conclusion This chapter has focused on the constructive aspect of symbolic aggressive communication in Chinese culture. First, it examined the impact of Chinese culture on the Chinese concept and practice of aggressive communication; second, it described strategies employed by Chinese people engaging in aggressive communication; third, it discussed new developments in Chinese society today as they relate to aggressive communication. Chinese culture regards harmony as one of the most important aspects of human relationships. All communication should serve the purpose of maintaining harmony between parties which can be, for example, between family members, friends, colleagues, organizations, or even nations. Although Chinese society has experienced a great deal of change over time and Chinese people have adopted different ways of communication, harmony has been, and still is a core value of Chinese culture on which all relationships are measured. Constructive aggressive communication helps preserve harmony in a relationship, and, potentially enhances such a relationship. The analysis presented here shows that, on the one hand, regardless of cultural differences, aggressive communication is a common form of communication that exists in all human societies. On the other hand, different cultures may have different conceptualizations of aggressive communication. Particularly in Chinese culture, aggressive communication is defined by three dimensions: aggressive, initiative, and invasive. The Western concept of symbolic aggressive communication corresponds largely with that of aggressive and initiative communication in China. Chinese culture and its core values have profound impacts on the daily functioning of the Chinese people and the development of unique strategies for engaging in constructive aggressive communication. This chapter represents one study of a large body of work dealing with aggressive communication in Chinese culture. That is, the positive or constructive nature of aggressive communication within China. What was not examined in this chapter was the destructive aspect of aggressive communication in Chinese culture, which warrants further investigation. Based on the arguments put forth in this chapter, one particular subject for scholars to begin their

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

97

research is the importance of maintaining harmony in relationships. Since Chinese people are so concerned with harmony in relationships with others, any aggressive communication, if it presents a real or perceived threat to relational harmony, can be considered destructive. Destructive aggressive communication imposes a threat to relational harmony, and as a result, creates a conflict between the two parties. Therefore, further research on aggressive communication can be linked to Chinese conflict management. Many of the strategies adopted by the Chinese people to manage conflicts are different from those of people from Western cultures (see, for example, Bond & Hwang, 1986; Chen, 2002; Zhong, 2002). It will be intriguing to learn what strategies would be employed by Chinese people when engaging in, or avoiding, destructive aggressive communication and the similarities and differences, if any, between the two. That is, are the strategies for conflict management and those for destructive aggressive communication in Chinese culture similar, different, or somewhere in between? This chapter has attempted to help readers gain knowledge of Chinese culture. However, in the end, readers may actually raise more questions about the phenomenon than the answers offered in this chapter. A Chinese idiom says, “A thousand-mile journey is started by taking the first step.” This inquiry into Chinese aggressive communication is not “the first step” for sure, but it is certainly one of the first steps since scholarly research on the phenomenon is still considered scarce. Through numerous studies, knowledge of this particular communication phenomenon will be accumulated and synthesized. This body of knowledge on aggressive communication in Chinese culture will enhance our overall understanding of aggressive communication as a common symbolic behavior across cultures.

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. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people, (pp. 213–266). NY: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. H., & Wang, S. H. (1983). China: Aggressive behavior and the problem of maintaining order and harmony. In A. P. Goldstein & M. H. Segall (Eds.), Aggression in global perspective (pp. 58–74). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Chen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 3–17). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Combs, S. C. (2005). The Dao of rhetoric. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Gabrenya, Jr. W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321). New York: Oxford University Press.

98

Yang Lin, Jianguo Zhao, and Fengming Zhao

Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Gudykunst, W. (1996). Chinese communication process. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 280–293). New York: Oxford University Press. Goldstein, A. P., & Segall, M. H. (1983). Aggression in global perspective. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Höchsmann, H. (2004). On philosophy in China. Toronto, Canada: Wadsworth. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46, 45–64. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Jin, Z. K. (Presenter). (2007, October 10–11). The principles of interpersonal interaction [Television Lecture series]. Beijing, China: CCTV-10. Kluver, R. (2002). Political culture and political conflict in China. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 223–239). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Legge, J. (Trans.) (1955). The doctrine of the mean. Taipei: Wen Yo. Lu, S. M. (2000). Chinese perspectives on communication. In D. R. Heisey (Ed.), Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication, (pp. 57–66). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Lu, X. (2000). The influence of classical Chinese rhetoric on contemporary Chinese political communication and social relations. In D. R. Heisey (Ed.), Chinese perspectives in rhetoric and communication, (pp. 3–23). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Mitchell, S. (2009). Translation of Tao-Te-Ching. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http:// academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html#3. Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7, 75–79, Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rudnicki, S. (Trans.) (1996). The art of war (originally by Sun Tzu in the sixth century B.C.). West Hollywood, CA: Dove Books. Samover, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2003). Understanding intercultural communication: An introduction and overview. In L. A. Samover & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (10th ed.) (pp. 6–17). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomason Learning. Segall, M. H. (1988). Cultural roots of aggressive behavior. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology, (pp. 208–217). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. A. Samover & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (10th ed.) (pp. 373–383). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomason Learning. Wang, M. (2008, October 3). Moving of my lifetime. Guangming Daily. p. A4. Welch, H. (1966). Taoism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Psychology of the Chinese people, (pp. 106–170). NY: Oxford University Press.

Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China

99

Zhong, M. (2002). Conflict management in China’s only-child families: Situations and strategies. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 83–100). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Chapter 6

Culture and Aggressive Communication Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

Why Study Aggressive Communication and Culture? The intersection of aggressive communication and culture has long intrigued communication scholars. The particular theoretic tradition examined in this volume focuses on predispositions for symbolic aggression rooted in part on beliefs about argument, making intercultural exchanges a particularly interesting and rich context in which to explore the implications of cultural differences. Clearly, it is differences in beliefs about and predispositions for aggression that require the most attention, as it is these differences that most perplex and aggrieve interactants, thereby begging for explanation. Our ethical grounding in examining cultural implications of aggressive communication is firm. Cultural misunderstandings of aggressive communication may have devastating effects, reverberating from the personal to the global. This social scientific tradition of “communication aggression predispositions” has thus been consistently sound axiologically and praxeologically. Clearly, our moral imperative as social scientists should be to understand these dynamics and to construct explanations that can be applied to prevent and solve pressing practical problems that have dire implications. In short, our hearts remain in the right place. We find in examining this literature, however, pressing ontological and epistemological problems that reflect such difficulties across treatments of culture and communication in the social scientific tradition.

Problematic Issues “Culture” itself is rarely carefully conceptualized. The term is either used with no explicit definition at all, or defined in terms of a set of cultural dimensions— such as high/low context (Hall, 1966, 1976), collectivist/individualist (Triandis, 1986, 1988), or high/low power distance (Hofstede, 1980). These dimensions are usually assumed to be reflective of group-level differences among nationalities and ethnicities and are often used to conceptually differentiate nationalities or ethnicities. These cultural distinctions are then operationalized in one of two ways. First, culture may be operationalized categorically as a grouping variable,

Culture and Aggressive Communication

101

with those categories imposed (usually nationality), implicitly essentialized as a causal factor for behavior, and explicitly treated as a primary identifying factor leading to presumed similarities within and differences between groups. Second, culture may be operationalized as a range of individual-level orientations, or self-construals,1 presumed to stem from group-level belief systems. Individuals with highly independent self-construals (presumed to be predicted by individualist culture) define themselves in terms of their separation from others; whereas those with highly developed interdependent self-construals (presumed to be predicted by collectivist culture) define themselves in terms of their connectedness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Research in this tradition sometimes conceptualizes culture at both levels—both as a grouping variable operationally synonymous with nationality, ethnicity, or race (either imposed directly by the researcher or selected by participants from among a set of labels imposed by the researcher), and at the individual level in the form of self-construals conceptually linked to the grouping variable. While operationalizing culture as a grouping variable is not problematic in itself, given that the groups examined reflect naturally-occurring social differentiations, we have developed a myopia that precludes our treating culture as anything but a grouping variable. Further, self-construal is a limited construct, directly related to the individualism/collectivism dimension of the grouping variable and implicitly presumed to be stable. Interactive and dynamic cultural processes, therefore, go unexamined. Prior to addressing these problems and discussing potential solutions, a review of the specific literature on aggressive communication predispositions is in order. Most of this literature is cross-cultural in nature, so these studies are reviewed in depth.

Cross-Cultural Research The research reviewed here is focused on the specific tradition of communication predispositions of aggression—specifically argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. We provide a summary of relevant research, then critique the research tradition overall according to ways in which these studies reveal a need for more fruitful conceptualizations and operationalizations of culture. We close this chapter with a theoretic and research agenda that sets a new direction in the study of culture and aggressive communication, and we highlight several investigations that have the potential to advance this new direction, thereby improving both the quality of social scientific study and the possibilities for conversations across paradigms. Simple Cross-Group Comparisons From the 1970s to the early 1990s, Donald W. Klopf published numerous research reports of cross-national comparisons on several communication traits and variables between samples from the U.S., Japan, Korea, Guam, and Finland, including comparisons of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, but also

102

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

of communication apprehension, assertiveness/responsiveness, affect orientation, social style, and interpersonal needs (Bruneau, Cambra, & Klopf, 1980; Cambra & Klopf, 1979a, 1979b; Cambra, Ishii, & Klopf, 1978; Cooke, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991; Frymier, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990; Harman, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990; Ishii, Cambra, & Klopf, 1977, 1979; Jenkins, Klopf, & Park, 1991; Klopf, 1976, 1977, 1991, 1992; Klopf & Park, 1992; Klopf, Thompson, & SallinenKuparinen, 1991; Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990; Sallinen-Kuparinen, Thompson, & Klopf, 1991; Scheel, Park, & Klopf, 1991; Thompson & Klopf, 1991; Thompson, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991). Klopf and his colleagues’ research reports on argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and assertiveness are heavily cited by scholars investigating cross-cultural differences in communication predispositions of aggression. Upon close scrutiny, however, the Klopf studies seem to yield very little useful grounding. No effect sizes were reported, but computations and estimations can be done based on the information reported. The results show that significant effects in these reports are quite small. Klopf and his colleagues’ simple cross-cultural comparisons on the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales yield no significant difference between Japanese and American students in verbal aggressiveness (Harman, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990), but do find American students to be higher in general trait argumentativeness (ARGgt) than Japanese students (Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990). The difference appears to be driven by the tendency toward argument subscale (ARGap) of the Infante and Rancer (1982) Argumentativeness Scale, where there was a significant difference. There is no significant difference on the tendency to avoid argument subscale (ARGav). Although no effect sizes are reported, sufficient information is provided to compute accurate effect sizes, using the t-value and df and converting to an r coefficient for interpretation. These are rather small, with nationality accounting for less than 8 percent of the variance in tendency to approach argument and about 4 percent in general trait argumentativeness (ARGap r2 = 0.078; ARGgt r2 = 0.04). Klopf, Thompson, and Sallinen-Kuparinen (1991) report that Finnish students scored significantly higher on the argumentativeness scale than American students, the difference appearing this time in the tendency to avoid argument subscale. No significant difference in the tendency to approach argument is found. The effect size computed from the reported t-value and df is, again, rather small (r2 = 0.073). Unfortunately, the t-value is not reported for ARGgt and as such, the effect size is computed here from the means and standard deviations (r2 = 0.032) which is also rather small. Sallinen-Kuparinen, Thompson, and Klopf (1991) found no significant difference between Finnish and American students on their verbal aggressiveness scores. In a comprehensive review of Korean communication practices, Klopf and Park (1992) provide the results of secondary sources that are unpublished and therefore currently unavailable. Jenkins, Klopf, and Park (1991) found that Koreans score lower than Americans on tendency to approach argument and general trait argumentativeness. Again, effect sizes can only be estimated from the means and standard deviations as the sample sizes are unknown (ARGap r2

Culture and Aggressive Communication

103

= 0.012; ARGgt r2 = 0.014). Scheel, Park, and Klopf (1991) report a unique gender effect in their verbal aggressiveness scale comparisons. (All effect sizes are estimations computed here from the M and SD). Although Koreans scored higher than Americans overall (r2 = 0.002), and Korean women scored higher than American women (r2 = 0.084), American men scored higher than Korean men (r2 = 0.058). It is also reported that all the men scored higher than all the women, but no more detail on this is given. It is tempting to be intrigued by the gender patterns, but with estimated effect sizes ranging from less than 1 percent to 8 percent, little confidence can be placed in these patterns. Even so, these results should give pause to the often assumed low assertiveness level of Asian cultural members as compared to Americans (see also Sue, Ino, & Sue, 1983). Cautionary Tales Sanders et al. (1992) assess interethnic differences among European-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American students, reporting no difference for argumentativeness, but a significant difference for verbal aggressiveness, with Asian-Americans scoring significantly higher than either of the other groups (overall R2 = .03). It must be noted that their category system conflates race and ethnicity. Each of the three categories used actually comprises any number of unspecified ethnicities. Sanders et al. (1992) go on to speculate the meaning of their “counter intuitive” results. We reproduce these speculations in an effort to scrutinize the original findings. This behavior [high verbal aggressiveness] is confounded by Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist philosophic traditions that oppose public argumentation and debate. Asian American students may carry a cultural bias against these forms of communication often preferred in the United States. Some Asian American students may be less likely to have received training in argumentative skills in the home, and may exhibit a greater preference for verbal aggression. This relationship is consistent with Infante [Trebing, Sheperd, & Seed]’s (1984) argument that verbal aggression results, in part, from a lack of argumentative skills. The results for Asian Americans with regard to the preference for verbal aggressiveness are surprising and merit further scrutiny. Ethnicity is not the major factor contributing to the variance in need for cognition and verbal aggressiveness, so additional investigations appear to be warranted. This research might examine the relationship between the length of time in the United States, the scale scores, and the cross national comparisons of these scales. (Sanders et al., 1992, p. 55) These speculations are problematic. First, there are existing studies that call into question the assumption that Asian populations are lower than non-Asian populations on measures of aggression. Second, their essentialization of ethnicity, compounded by its conflation with race, is problematic as evidenced by small effect size observed. Third, this persistent essentialization of ethnicity/

104

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

race ignores the fact that these respondents are American college students, not international students. There is nothing to suggest that “Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist philosophic traditions” are in any way meaningful to these individuals. Neither ethnicity nor race, in and of themselves, constitutes culture. Fourth, there is ample historical evidence of aggression throughout the history of the world—including in Asia—so the argument that Asian cultural values such as “obedience to authority” preclude aggression is problematic as the construct of “aggressiveness” is conceptualized differently in different cultures (see Chapter 5 in this volume). Fourth, there is no indication as to whether these respondents are immigrants, the children of immigrants, or third-plus generation. The researchers assumed that ethnicity alone, measured by a single demographic item that confounds it with race, is a meaningful category system from which to predict human behavior. Finally, Sanders et al. suggest that these respondents are deficient in argumentative skill. Yet, their own data suggests no intergroup differences in argumentativeness, a fact that was not factored into their reasoning. They also do not take seriously enough the actual effect size associated with the significant F: R2 = .03. They do state that “Ethnicity is not the major factor contributing to the variance . . .” which we believe to be an understatement. One other cross-group comparison study is worth noting as a cautionary tale because of its implicit conflation of race, ethnicity, and culture; its faulty presumption that cultural differences underlie demographic categories; and its unselfconscious stereotypical assumptions—again in relation to Asian populations. In a study designed to explore why college debate programs do not draw participation from Asian-American students, Woods and Wang (2004) examine “Asian-American attitudes toward argument and college debate.” However, no questions were asked about attitudes toward college debate; only the argumentativeness scale items and demographic items including collegiate debate participation were administered. It must also be noted that these are racial and not ethnic or national groups, as the Asian-American sample could have represented a variety of non-reported Asian ethnicities and the non-Asian respondents were simply referred to as “Caucasians,” which is considered an oversimplification of ethnicity according to contemporary intercultural communication literature. Race is conflated here with culture, an issue we shall discuss at length later. Asian-Americans scored lower on the argumentativeness scale than “Caucasians.” Because the study was exploratory with a sample size of only 33, statistical analyses were not performed, yet Woods and Wang concluded that Asian-Americans are generally low in argumentativeness, and that this is the explanation for their absence from college debate programs. This conclusion is problematic based on the evidence presented and that which was not included. Their sample included nine Asian-Americans, with a mean ARGgt score of −2.4, including two Asian debaters, with a mean score of 18.5. All 24 debaters (including the Asians) had a mean of 18.79. These mean scores are then used as evidence to support the concluding hypothesis that Asians do not participate in debate because they are inherently less argumentative. However, other

Culture and Aggressive Communication

105

comparative means are not reported. The mean for all nine nondebaters can be easily calculated to be −2.7—a close similarity to the Asian-only nondebater mean. The sheer size of these mean differences does seem to lend support to the hypothesis that debaters are higher in trait argumentativeness than nondebaters (which has long been assumed). However, the generalization of any of these results, particularly that of lower ARGgt scores for Asian-American students, is unlikely with nondebater and Asian subsample sizes of nine, and with Asian debater and non-Asian nondebater subsample sizes of two. Furthermore, the commentary seems based in stereotypical assumptions rather than a careful review of literature, and the results are presented with a decided slant that favors the preconceived argument (not surprising given that the authors are steeped in the debate tradition, but decidedly unscientific). Being a debater is confounded with being a “Caucasian.” The means for the all nondebaters, and for the two “Caucasian” nondebaters, are not even computed or considered relevant for comparison even though a mean based on two Asian debaters is reported. The notion that Asians do not participate in debate because they are essentially nonargumentative simply cannot be supported by these data, and no claim of cross-cultural differences can be supported either. What this study does reveal, however, is a disturbing tendency, even among academics, to conflate race, ethnicity, and culture (an issue discussed at length later) and to give more credence than is prudent to collectivist/individualist, high/low-context stereotypes of aggression. Questioning the Homogeneity of High/Low-Context Cultures Only one other simple cross-group comparison surfaces in literature searches (Avtgis & Rancer, 2002); the majority of cross-cultural researchers prefer relying on cultural dimensions such as individualism/collectivism or high/ low-context, or on self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) rather than nationality or ethnicity, which oversimplifies culture. Avtgis and Rancer (2002), however, compellingly argue that reliance on such dimensions also oversimplifies culture, especially when linking these dimensions to nationalities, which is pervasive in the general literature examining communication predispositions and orientations across cultures. To question presumptions of similarity across low-context cultures, Avtgis and Rancer (2002) measure argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in three presumably low-context societies: the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Australians scored significantly higher on both traits than either of the other groups. Americans scored significantly lower in verbal aggressiveness than the other two groups. Finally, New Zealanders scored significantly higher in argumentativeness than Americans. All effect sizes are around 10 percent, so these differences are rather small. Still, given that differences between high- and low-context nationalities with this same magnitude of effect are routinely viewed as important throughout this literature, these results should again give us pause.

106

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

Clearly, a single simple cultural dimension (regardless of its popularity or esteemed pedigree) cannot begin to account for similarities or differences among societies—nor can it explicate the complex influence of culture on personality, let alone on behavior. Avtgis and Rancer (2002) lead us to the conclusion that many factors beyond “high or low context” distinctions have important influences on the measurement of verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. Cultural beliefs, historical background, and other personality traits may be important factors. It is simply not enough to generalize findings among lowcontext cultures (and by implication high-context cultures, as well), but rather we must take into account the cultural uniqueness of particular populations as well as heterogeneity of personality traits among low-context group members when investigating intercultural differences in aggressive communication. Conceptual and Methodological Equivalence Concerns Two studies are grounded in careful assessment of cross-cultural measurement. With their particular interest in Japan, Suzuki and Rancer (1994) wisely raise concerns about the Klopf studies’ lack of attention to conceptual and methodological equivalence across cultures. Examination of equivalence should precede measurement of the traits using the instruments developed in the United States. We cannot simply assume that the internal structures of the two constructs, the orthogonal relationship between the two, and the construct validity of the scales, which have been tested and supported in the United States, are generalizable to another cultural context. (p. 257) Beginning with Hall’s high/low-context cultural dimension and research that identifies Japan as high and the United States as low, Suzuki and Rancer (1994) review several qualitative studies that clearly indicate a lower level of verbally aggressive and argumentative behavior in high-context compared to low-context cultures. For those unfamiliar with Hall’s terminology, high-context communicative transactions are characterized by “pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message;” whereas in “low-context” communicative transactions “most information must be in the transmitted message in order to make up for what is missing in the context” (p. 101). Suzuki and Rancer (1994) argue that the high-context Japanese cultural environment may include a perceived similarity between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, rather than the differentiated way they are viewed in the low-context cultural environment of the United States. Although the results show this particular concern to be unfounded—and in fact opposite to the actual findings—the idea that our conceptual and operational structures need to be sensitive to cultural contexts is quite sensible. Suzuki and Rancer’s

Culture and Aggressive Communication

107

investigation carefully examines the conceptual structure and reliability of the two scales with Japanese and American samples, as well as their construct validity with the Japanese sample. Confirmatory factor analysis upheld the two-factor structure of both scales, with the Japanese sample perceiving, for each scale, more independence between its two factors (i.e., for the verbal aggressiveness scale the two factors are positively and negatively worded items; for the argumentativeness scale the two factors are ARGap and ARGav). Furthermore, internal consistency of both scales was established in both samples, and argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness were found to be orthogonal for both samples. Suzuki and Rancer also examined the construct validity of both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness for the Japanese sample, using culturally appropriate criterion measures. Both scales are shown to reliably predict actual behavioral intentions, albeit more so for argumentativeness (ARGgt r = .64; VA r = .40 for positively worded items and r = −.22 for negatively worded items). The apparent orthogonality of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the high-context environment of Japanese culture runs counter to the argument justifying the study—that in the high-context environment the two constructs are likely confounded. Suzuki and Rancer present two alternative explanations. First, the external environment may not be the generative mechanism for human behavior that we have long assumed it to be. In other words, culture is not a causal factor in human behavior. It may be that individuals in highcontext cultures are less likely to behave aggressively simply because they do not need to, given the information embedded in the context. Second, previous qualitative research based on external observer ratings of behavior may fall prey to an inconsistency between the actor’s definition of her/his behavior and the observer’s. In short, an external observer might not recognize aggression when s/he sees it. Later, in the investigation reviewed above, Avtgis and Rancer (2002) present the third possibility: that the high/low-context nature of a society may be too broad to account for specific human behaviors. All of these arguments have extremely important implications about the predictive power of high/low-context generalizations, about presumed relationships between culture and behavior, about the conceptual and operational decisions we make in defining culture, and about the importance of culturally-sensitive observations. After careful analysis of several unreliable items, Suzuki and Rancer (1994) concluded that the best measure of each construct in both samples and across samples requires the elimination of several items—but not the same items with each sample. They also point out that alternative ways of measuring these constructs in the Japanese context had not been considered. Despite the careful and comprehensive analyses conducted in this study, we were unable to find any subsequent study using modified scales based on these analyses. Suzuki and Rancer tend to be cited by others, if at all, simply as evidence that the validity and reliability of the scales holds up across cultures, ignoring the facts that unreliable items were carefully identified and that important arguments were

108

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

raised regarding conceptual and methodological equivalence, as well as the relationship between culture and behavior. These arguments, however, lay unaddressed for over a decade, until Avtgis et al. (2008) contended that intercultural communication research suffers from a latent assumption that communication and personality traits, and their measurement, are etic in nature. This assumption precluded researchers from rigorously testing their instruments in an effort to determine if the constructs and measures under investigation were etic in nature (i.e., ubiquitous throughout all cultures), emic in nature (i.e., distinct or restricted to a specific culture), or a mixture of both (i.e., constructs that are neither unique to one culture nor strictly universal in nature) (Brislin, 1993). . . . However, most efforts investigating intercultural comparisons of western developed constructs and measures have assumed theoretical and methodological equivalence without employing appropriate statistical testing procedures. (pp. 17–18) Avtgis et al. (2008) test both constructs and their measures for conceptual and methodological equivalence in Bulgaria, a multi-ethnic Slavic society that includes Croats, Macedonians, Serbs, and Slovenes. No cultural dimensions of Slavic society are addressed (e.g., high/low context, collectivism/individualism, or high/low power distance). Similar to the findings reported by Suzuki and Rancer (1994), there was support for the fundamental conceptual and methodological structures of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Using short forms of each scale, confirmatory factor analysis supported the conclusion that argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as perceived in Bulgaria are conceptually and methodologically equivalent to their conception in the United States. Based on patterns in previous research, Avtgis et al. (2008) also hypothesize sex differences, but no significant differences are revealed. This combination of findings led them to the conclusion that predispositions to aggressive communication are both etic and emic—encompassing elements that are universal across cultures and elements unique to specific cultures. Two observations can be made before we examine the remaining literature, which focuses not on nationalities or ethnicities, but rather on the self-construals associated with them. First, Suzuki and Rancer’s (1994) observation that culturespecific perceptions have not been sought outside the United States should be carefully considered. These two studies (Suzuki & Rancer, 1994; Avtgis et al., 2008) on conceptual and methodological equivalence are limited to concluding only that the questions asked correspond to constructs that people in different cultural contexts are able to differentiate from one another. This is extremely important to know as we continue to use these instruments with various cultural groups. However, there is no evidence that these constructs are culturally or personally salient to the individuals in these non U.S. samples. Second, these constructs and their measures are conceptually grounded in the notion that

Culture and Aggressive Communication

109

communicative predispositions to aggression are personality traits (Infante, 1987), normally distributed, and measurable by self-report (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986). To date, except for Suzuki and Rancer (1994), no studies have been conducted outside the U.S. context to establish that these measures can reliably predict aggressive behavior (and even those criterion measures were self-reports of intentions, not of actual behavior). All we know, then, is that the differentiation of these two constructs, and the measurement of those differentiations promises to be equivalent across cultures—or in the words of Avtgis et al. (2008), that they are, at least in part, etic in nature. In sum, although we have no evidence that these two aggressive communication predispositions are universally salient personality traits, there is also no compelling evidence that measuring them from an external point of view across cultures is problematic. In fact, evidence suggests that their construct validity and measurement reliability hold up quite well cross-culturally. There should be little concern about use of these measures across cultures—provided that presumptions of intra-cultural salience are avoided. Again, just because culturally different samples can reliably differentiate the two constructs conceptually and empirically, we must not conclude that they are intrinsically meaningful across cultures. Culture at the Individual Level Two studies, by Min-Sun Kim and her associates (Kim et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2007), have great promise to forge a more meaningful understanding of the ways in which cultural processes impact individual-level communication behavior. Kim et al. (2001) test the impact of culture and self-construal on argumentativeness and communication apprehension in Korea, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. As is typical for intercultural communication research, Korea and the U.S. are categorized as collectivistic and individualistic, respectively, following Hofstede’s (1980) characterizations. Hawaii, as a pluralistic society with both Western and Eastern influences, is presumed to lie between the U.S. mainland and Korean cultures on the individualism/collectivism continuum. However, no external validation of culture-level individualism/collectivism is offered. Self-construal, conceptualized orthogonally and measured with two separate scales, is hypothesized to be a mediating variable between culture-level collectivism/individualism and the dependent variables (e.g., argumentativeness). Specifically, it was hypothesized that individualism at the culture level will predict independent self-construal, which will in turn predict high argumentativeness. As expected, the mean independent self-construal scores of the three cultural groups are significantly different for all pairs, with the U.S. mainland sample being the most independent and the Korean sample being the least independent. Likewise, significant differences exist between all pairs of the groups for interdependence, with the Korean sample being the highest and the U.S. mainland sample the lowest. The small effect sizes of these differences, however, were not

110

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

addressed (independent η2 = .09, interdependent η2 = .02). Clearly, there are other, more powerful influences on self-construal than nationality. The orthogonality of the independent and interdependence scales was also upheld as the two measures were not significantly correlated for any of the three groups. Argumentativeness was measured with the Infante and Rancer (1982) original Argumentativeness Scale, and within-sample deviations for both subscales were examined. Although the general internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) did not vary across the three samples, patterns of internal variability were quite different, suggesting that the dimensionality differs among the three groups. No factor analysis was conducted. There were no significant differences among the three cultural groups on argumentativeness. However, interdependent self-construal was negatively related to argumentativeness and independent self-construal positively related (R2 = 0.102, with both beta coefficients being significant). The size of the R reveals, yet again, somewhere around 10 percent of variance in argumentativeness explainable by self-construal. While this is not large, it is consistent, indicating a general pattern throughout this literature of a small influence of cultural dimensions on aggressive communication predispositions. Kim et al. (2001) conclude that there is large body of cross-cultural research that investigates verbal communication predispositions. The role that these motivations play in intercultural communication is “virtually unknown. The challenge of understanding communicative behaviors across cultures should include questions concerning individual’s predispositions toward talking and the reactions of others to the manifestations of such predispositions” (p. 404). In short, we still know nothing from this tradition about behavior in intra- and intercultural encounters. Arguing from a broader literature on assertiveness in intercultural encounters, Kim et al. (2007) point out that contextual variables are an important source for understanding the relationship between culture and behavior. Certain contextual variables, such as type of relationship, age differences between participants, and social status, may play a crucial role, as they may operate differently in different cultural settings (Austin, 1975; Chu, 1988; Furuyama & Greenfield, 1983; Song, 1996; Sue, Ino, & Sue, 1983). Kim et al. (2007) required respondents from Japan, Hawaii, and the mainland U.S. to read conflict scenarios with a high-status individual (their professor) and a low-status individual (their classmate) and to complete a modified version of the argumentativeness scale reporting what their behavior might be like in that scenario. Argumentativeness scores differed significantly among the three groups for each situation. In the high-status situation, there were significant differences between the mainland U.S. and the other two groups, with the mainland U.S. reporting higher levels of argumentativeness than either Hawaii or Japan (eta2 = 0.03). In the low-status situation, significant differences appeared between all pairs, with the mainland U.S. scoring the highest and Japan the lowest (eta2 = 0.09). Again, these results show small cultural group differences in argumentativeness. Kim et al.’s (2007) hypotheses that in both situations independent self-construal would be positively related to argumentativeness and that interdependent self-

Culture and Aggressive Communication

111

construal would be negatively related to argumentativeness were upheld, albeit as usual with rather small effect sizes (high-status independent r2 = .03, interdependent r2 = .03; low-status independent r2 = .08, interdependent r2 = .04). Further, results supported the hypothesis that individuals would report higher argumentativeness with low-status conversational partners than with high-status conversational partners (effect size computed from t-value and df: r2 = .07). However, the hypothesis that the predictive power of self-construal would change according to the status context was not supported. Despite these results, the argument that contextual and situational factors are important sources for understanding the relationship between culture and communication should not be abandoned. This study does provide evidence, however, that self-construal as it is currently conceptualized is probably too narrow a construct to capture that relationship between culture and communication.

Promising Directions: Conceptually Grounding “Culture” What is problematic about the studies by Kim and her associates, as is common throughout this literature, is the broad way in which culture is defined and operationalized at the group level and the narrow way in which culture is defined and operationalized at the individual level. Self-construal is an exciting construct that has generated a great deal of fruitful research across the field. However, self-construal taps but one narrow cultural dimension. We have yet to construct a way to conceptualize or operationalize culture in a comprehensive and rich way. We persist in relying on group-level cultural dimensions and their associations with specific national characterizations that are decades old (Hall, 1966, 1976; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1986, 1988). We persist further in assuming, rather than validating, that these societal characterizations largely predict self-construal. We need theoretical and empirical work that attempts to identify current valid indicators of cultural distinctions at the group level, and that broadens cultural distinctions at the individual level beyond independent/ interdependent self-schemata. For example, Lin, Rancer, and Kong (2007), in a study of Chinese students, provide a cross-cultural introduction of a set of interactive constraints that could be further examined to identify salient cultural dimensions across national groups. They apply Chaffee, McLeod, and Wackman’s (1973) theory of family communication patterns to the Chinese context, identifying Chafee et al.’s four distinct family communication patterns and examining their impact on respondents’ argumentativeness. Family communication patterns are comprised of two dimensions: Socio-orientation focuses on maintaining harmonious relationships; concept-orientation focuses on openly expressing ideas and alternative viewpoints. Four types of families are thus identified in a 2 × 2 conceptual structure. For this Chinese sample, students from consensual families (high concept; high socio) and plural families (high concept; low socio) are both higher in argumentativeness than those from protective families (low concept;

112

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

high socio). (No other group was significantly different from the laissez-faire family type.) If argumentativeness is a personality trait, family communication pattern seems to have had some impact on personality development. Lin, Rancer, and Kong (2007) point out several of their own methodological problems, but the important contribution of this study is its implications for identifying a salient cultural dimension. If similar family types can be identified, based on a set of common values, in-depth investigations of the values underlying communication in each type of family might be conducted, with an eye to both quantitative and qualitative observations of aggressive communication manifestations and salient interpretations of similar behaviors. Ontologically and epistemologically, we have been guilty of hasty conceptual and operational decisions. To both examine and solve these problems, we must start with the conceptual. Our ultimate interest in between-group differences, compounded by statistical conventions emphasizing such differences, has led social scientific inquiry to move too quickly to operationalization without thorough conceptualization and to essentialize culture as a causal factor for human behavior—whether at the group or individual level. To solve these problems, we must first establish our ontology of “culture” in a firm conceptual ground that is phenomenally-based. By this we mean that an acceptable conceptualization of “culture” should be grounded in the phenomenon itself, rather than the ontological or epistemological commitments of a particular paradigm. In the field of communication, studies of “culture” can be found in three distinct theoretic spaces, with very little (if any) intersections between them: social scientific, interpretivist (including critical-interpretivist and cultural studies), and rhetorical. Owing to epistemological issues, the social scientific is particularly removed from the others. And yet, all are examining the same set of phenomena. It would seem that a phenomenally-based ontology would allow for more common ground and thereby allow a more well-rounded application of our conclusions. Our focus herein is the social scientific tradition, but a phenomenally-based conceptual grounding has implications across the discipline. Culture often is treated by communication science as operating in isolation from other social-identity factors and relevant only in discussions of comparisons and differences. Comparison and difference are treated at a surface level, essentializing culture as a causal factor in human behavior. The communication literature in general shows no consistent use of the terms culture, ethnicity, and race, resulting in confusion and an inability to articulate that which we purport to understand (Jackson & Garner, 1998). We can easily agree that national borders are a crude operationalization of culture, yet we persist because nationality is clear. Nationality is one’s affiliation with a geographically-determined society and is assumed to reflect ethnicity. But just as culture must be defined differently from nationality, it “must be defined as something different than, but categorically inclusive of, ethnicity and race” (Jackson & Garner, 1998, p. 51). Although both ethnicity and race are related to nationality, race is more obliquely related and framed differently. Ethnicity is marked by shared ancestral origins (Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003), such as nationality, tribal

Culture and Aggressive Communication

113

membership, language, or religious traditions, and is linked to geographical origin (Hall, 1989). Race, on the other hand, has an ethnic basis and is more linked to ancestry than nationality. Race is a function of political and economic power (Nicotera et al., 2009). Furthermore, the examination of ethnic culture is inherently flawed if detached from historical and material contexts (Miles, 1982). For example, class division between ethnic groups is a primary political base for ways in which racial categories are constructed (Haney Lopez, 2000): Class oppression and the history of colonialism frame the processes by which culturally distinct group memberships (ethnicities) are continually socially fabricated as “races.” Political constructions and the social construction of race make possible the privileging of some ethnicities over others. “Race,” as we know it today, was born of the societal political power system and is a socially fabricated political identity based on cultural significations of phenotype; even “geneticists reject the construct of ‘race’ as a useful taxonomy for categorizing human beings” (Nicotera et al., 2009, p. 206; see this source for a full conceptual treatment of race grounded in communication). What is important here is that we establish a conceptual ground for our social scientific understanding of culture that ceases to conflate race, ethnicity, and nationality. Conceptualizing Culture Often, culture is tacitly assumed to be synonymous with nationality and/or with ethnicity and recognizable as a set of shared behavioral expectations, norms, mores, values, beliefs, customs, rituals, ceremonies, morals, attitudes, practices, and other such concepts. In the aggressive communication research tradition reviewed herein, we have assumed such, but have not investigated what those specific expectations, norms, and so on, might actually be for the groups we have studied. We simply have assumed intra-group homogeneity on such amorphous things, and continued on our way, using what is essentially a pair of personality traits as dependent measures. When looked at through this lens, our research tradition should appear troublesome, indeed. Several studies offer an important beginning to the pursuit of such knowledge. Ruggierio and Lattin (2008) examine African-American female athletes’ experiences of their coaches’ verbally aggressive communication. Although the study does not attempt to build a theoretical structure of culture, the cultural implications are clear. They document that verbal aggressiveness is widely seen in the competitive sports arena as a functional behavior of coaches, to drive and motivate athletes to better performance. The AfricanAmerican women athletes interviewed relate obscenity-laden insults, namecalling, and threats from their White female coaches. Many of the women interviewed experienced long-term psychological trauma from this treatment, which was also laden with metaphors of slavery and demeaning racial stereotypes. Verbal aggressiveness, in the context of sports coaching, is not seen as destructive. It is widely believed in competitive sports communities that verbal

114

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

aggression in this context is positive, functional, and constructive because it is defined by its outcomes in athletic performance, point-scoring, and league standings. Even in a U.S. context, here is an example that complicates our presumption of verbal aggressiveness as negative and destructive. Questions then arise about specific cultural nuances of gender, race, occupation, and goals, among other things. This example also illustrates that we need to move beyond the use of aggressive communication predispositions as dependent variables. Aggression is a global human phenomenon subject to ethnic stereotypes that are not easily dispelled. Decades ago Sue, Ino, and Sue (1983) pointed out that the presumed non-assertiveness of Asians is probably unfounded, and yet we persist in characterizing Asian nationalities as “collectivistic,” comprised of individuals who are “interdependent,” who thus eschew aggression. Sue, Ino, and Sue (1983) documented small but significant differences between Asians and “Caucasians” in their self-reported levels of aggression, with lower levels among Asians. However, they noted no difference between these groups in direct observations of aggressive behavior. Cultural factors very likely mediate or moderate the relationship between aggressive predispositions and aggressive behavior. Miczo and Welter (2006) offer another lens from which we might understand cultural interpretations of aggression, examining the relationships among humor orientation, ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, willingness to communicate, and use of aggressive (versus facilitative) humor. Ethnocentrism predicts a predisposition for the use of aggressive humor (or disparagement humor), which is defined as “any humor that derogates or provides negative information about someone or something” (p. 63) and is measured with the negatively worded items from the verbal aggressiveness scale, some of which already refer to uses of humor and some of which were modified to include a focus on humor. We contend here that culture is indeed recognizable by such things as beliefs, expectations, norms, and so on, but as these excellent examples show, it is not defined by them. Rather, culture underlies these constructs used by scholars in a variety of social disciplines to define culture. Such constructs are merely manifestations of culture. Chen and Starosta (1998) define culture as “a negotiated set of shared symbolic systems that guide individuals’ behaviors and incline them to function as a group” (p. 26). This definition grounds culture as an interactive phenomenon existing in a shared pool of symbolic systems from which persons draw individually and collectively. We thereby avoid a conflated and essentialistic treatment of culture, ethnicity, and nationality. We are programmed by our culture to do what we do and to be what we are. In other words, culture is the software of the human mind that provides an operating environment for human behaviors. Although individual behaviors may be varied, all members within the same operating environment share important characteristics of the culture. (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 25)

Culture and Aggressive Communication

115

Hence, people of the same nationality, ethnicity, or race may or may not be of the same culture. Further, culture is rooted in repeated interactions of a group. A person’s ethnicity is traced ancestrally to a group that originally shared a symbolic meaning system (culture) and geographic location (nationality), regardless of whether the individual continues to share that symbolic meaning system in the present (Hall, 1989). Race is a fabricated (Haney Lopez, 2000) class system based on ethnic origin. Social groups of common racial identity then further engender the development of culture as these groups create meaning systems based on both ethnic origins and racial politics. Thus, ethnicity, race, and culture are not synonymous, nor are the relationships among them linear (Nicotera et al., 2009, p. 218). The trouble with using nationality as synonymous with culture is that it conflates ethnicity, culture, and geography rather than recognizing them as separate but related constructs. In short, “nationality” is not an accurate way of operationalizing culture, but rather is a crude approximation. As such, it is not altogether inaccurate, which explains both why we have lived with it for so long and why the effect sizes revealed by research on aggressive communication predispositions continue to be rather anemic. Nicotera et al. (2009) conceptualize culture as both a social process and a grouping system. “As members of groups interact primarily among themselves, cultures emerge. When members of these different cultures interact with members of other groups, social identity is traced to the home culture through the social construct of ethnicity” (p. 218). Ethnicity is, therefore, a form of social identity growing from culture. Further, our understanding of culture as a shared symbol system must also be enriched by exploring salient features of social life that comprise symbol systems in ways that set cultures apart from one another as distinct groups. First, class systems both grow out of cultures and frame them. “Social hierarchy, economic and political power, unearned privilege, and oppression are reflexively part of culture itself” (p. 218). Second, following Giddens (1979, 1984), through symbolic modes of signification, legitimation, and domination, cultural symbol systems dictate what is meaningful and how it is meaningful, what is appropriate, and who is privileged. Olaniran and Williams (1995), in a qualitative study on communication distortion, provide an exemplar of what can be accomplished when culture is treated as both a grouping variable and an interactive phenomenon of meaningconstruction. They observed the visa application interviews of 32 West African applicants in the consulate office of the applicants’ country. All four interviewers represented Western cultures, which were not specified. Qualitative observations noted interactants’ apparently different interpretations of verbal and nonverbal cues. For example, verbally aggressive behaviors, accompanied by aggressive nonverbal cues, were commonly used by the applicants as a way of expressing opinions when according to Western standards such communication would be considered inappropriate. This research implies a cultural dimension to the interpretation of the meaning for aggressive verbal and nonverbal cues. It is the interpretation of meaning that is important here. If within-group

116

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

heterogeneity and between-group homogeneity can be assessed alongside their opposites, a far richer understanding of interactive cultural dynamics and the co-operation of culture and communication might be attained. We simply must go beyond national borders and uni-dimensional self-construals in our conceptualization and operationalization of culture. Culture is both a grouping variable and an interactive phenomenon of meaning-creation. It is this interactive process of meaning-creation that we have neglected. One of our chief difficulties may be that culture is conceptualized as a group-level phenomenon, yet behavioral science uses the individual as the level of analysis. The popularity of self-construal across the field of intercultural communication is likely a result of this basic conceptual mismatch. But such research does not examine the interactive nature of culture and communication. We need to identify salient dimensions of culture beyond self-construal. We can do so by identifying common experiences that lead to the salience of particular cultural dimensions within apparent groups. Other questions then follow: What are the differential experiences that lead to heterogeneity of interpretations within these groups? How do individuals perceive their own grouping variables? Do individuals who are members of apparent groups identify common specific values and beliefs at the abstract group level, regardless of whether they share those same specific values and beliefs? Orientations to aggression are a perfect entrée to such questions: What counts as aggression from within a cultural context? What kinds of aggression are seen as constructive or destructive? Social Scientific Use of this Conceptualization An understanding of culture as an interactive meaning system is a theoretically attractive conceptual ground. However, when confronting the challenge of how we are to use such a conceptualization to examine the influence of culture on behavior in meaningful ways, the appeal of national, ethnic, and racial categories become clear. Whereas rhetoricians, interpretivists, critical theorists, and cultural theorists—with their emphases on language, text, and artifacts—can operate quite satisfactorily with such fluid notions, what is a behaviorist to do? Social science in this tradition has been method- and instrument-driven. Because of the easy availability of sophisticated techniques for examining between-group differences and causal reasoning and the apparent internal consistency of instruments that can be used as dependent measures, we have simply stopped at the convenient pre-selection of nationality as our grouping variable and linear causal modeling as our logic. Hall, Hofstede, and Triandis have become our holy trinity, ubiquitously and unquestionably justifying our doing so, and we have ceased to be curious about what might precisely differ between these groups, how culture might operate interactively, and how meanings might then be constructed and maintained in interaction. In short, we have not really studied communication at all. While few would argue against the claim that culture is not the equivalent of national borders, ancestral origins, or phenotype, behavioral scientists need

Culture and Aggressive Communication

117

to be able to operate more meaningfully. We might start with Nicotera et al’s. (2009) construct of the “cultural self.” Individuals of varying ethnic, raced, gendered, and political identities come to the table with unique individual and group cultural experiences, in addition to the ethnically based cultural meaning systems by which they apprehend the world. A “cultural self” is constructed from these cultural experiences. The cultural self includes values, traditions, beliefs, and attitudes rooted in culture as traditionally understood, but it also includes individual and group cultural experiences that stem from political meanings attached to social categories, such as ethnicity and race (as well as gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, occupation, ad infinitum). (Nicotera et al., 2009, p. 222) Tokunaga (2007) offers yet another way of looking at cultural influences on aggression, suggesting that cultural orientation may moderate media (and, by presumption, other) influences on aggression. Following violent videogame play, individuals’ change in aggression levels were predicted by their cultural orientation (collectivism/individualism as measured by Triandis’, 1995, scale). Aggression was measured by the verbal aggressiveness scale and by Buss and Perry’s (1992) physical aggression questionnaire. Those who scored as individualists had increased levels of aggression after playing the game; whereas collectivists had reduced levels of verbal aggressiveness, but no reduction in physical aggressiveness. Although the study had some problems in its methodological reporting, the results clearly indicate that cultural orientation may moderate the impact of specific experiences on aggression. Culturally different individuals may experience different effects from similar experiences and may be motivated to seek out the same experiences for different reasons. The construct “cultural self” might foster research to answer just such questions, enriching our understanding of the relationship between culture and aggression. This notion of “cultural selves” also offers some promise to allow behavioral science approaches to examine culture in a richer (albeit less convenient) way than afforded by traditional national, ethnic, and racial grouping variables. These grouping variables are not always relevant in particular contexts. Even when they are, their relevance cannot properly be understood without an appreciation for the multiplicity and diversity of identities which become relevant in particular contexts and courses of action. . . . Identity can be respecified more widely and more finely by situating identity within natural language use and social interaction. (Berard, 2005, p. 1) Traditional convenient category systems for culture (nationality, ethnicity, and racial group) reflect a very small part of social grouping, so research that relies on these will inevitably lead to misplaced and inaccurate conclusions about

118

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

culture (Davis, Nakayama, & Martin, 2000; Martin & Davis, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). These traditional grouping variables are rooted in the implicit assumption that members of these convenient groups will have high homogeneity in dimensions presumed to comprise culture, such as self-construals (as well as such things as behavioral expectations, norms, mores, values, beliefs, customs, rituals, ceremonies, morals, attitudes, practices, etc.), paying little attention (if any) to what those dimensions of within-group homogeneity might be prior to examining between-group differences. Nationality is a natural place to start, given that a great deal of common experience can be safely assumed within groups. But social science is guilty not of heading in a wrong direction, but of skipping a step. Nationality is a broader category than culture. Rather than operationalize culture as nationality and treat it as an independent variable, nationality should be used as a preliminary societal grouping variable from which to ascertain salient cultural dimensions. First, a focus on beliefs and expectations held by those with common experiences (nationality), rather than self-reports of behavior, would provide the ground for far more satisfactory operationalizations of culture. Second, we might question members of a group to discover what beliefs and expectations are commonly perceived as existing at the group level, regardless of individuallevel beliefs and expectations. These are two quite different things. Third, rather than assuming that a sample of people who fall into the same convenient category are homogeneous, it would be far more scientifically prudent to identify salient behavioral expectations, norms, beliefs, and so on, and to test whether the sample holds high homogeneity in their own personal valuesystems and in their perceptions of the group-level value-system. This kind of approach is especially important given the fact that these presumably homogeneous groups are being compared to other presumably homogeneous groups with the express purposes of finding and documenting heterogeneity between those groups. In short, because culture is so crudely operationalized as nationality, which is then applied as an independent variable, within-group variance can be treated only as error. Yet, this “error” is an important tool for conceptually identifying the very stuff of culture. What is now a considerable source of error could be minimized by using within-group homogeneity and heterogeneity to identify cultural dimensions of interest, assessing which of these discriminate between groups, and operationalizing culture as a subset of, rather than synonymous with, nationality.

Conclusion The research reviewed in this chapter might be characterized as “the influence of culture on aggressive communication,” but it would be far more fruitful to conceive of this area as “the mutual influences among culture, communication, and aggression.” To progress in our knowledge, we must begin to take seriously the roles of cultural expectations and interpretations rather than

Culture and Aggressive Communication

119

focusing on between-group differences—even if the observation of the phenomenon begins with between-group differences. We must broaden our conceptualization of culture beyond the triumvirate of Hofstede, Hall, and Triandis. With due homage to these renowned scholars and their groundbreaking theoretical structures, it is far past the time when we should have been building upon them rather than remaining constrained by them. Likewise, we simply must break free of our tendency to conflate culture, ethnicity, race, and nationality. Furthermore, we must look at the ways in which culture functions at the individual level, beyond the fertile, but narrow, ground of self-construal. We must examine the interactive mutually constitutive processes between culture and communication, disentangling our thinking from the linear, causal approach that has led to so much reification of inaccurate stereotypes that are unproductive at best and damaging at worst. We must conceptualize culture as dual—both a grouping variable and an interactive process. It is our hope that the notion of the “cultural self” might stimulate such thinking and provide a conceptual structure upon which to build these ideas.

Note 1 The construct self-construal has been the subject of considerable controversy. A review of conceptual and methodological debates is far beyond the scope of the present chapter. Interested readers should consult the following sources: Bresnahan, Lee, and Kim (2007); Bresnahan et al. (2005); Gudykunst and Lee (2003); Kim and Raja (2003); Levine et al. (2003); Matsunaga (2005); Mortenson (2005); Muthuswamy (2007); Zhang, Li, and Bhatt (2006).

References Austin, L. (1975). Saint and samurai: The political culture of the American and Japanese elites. New Haven: Yale University Press. 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. Avtgis, T., Rancer, A. S., Kanjeva, P., & Chory, R. (2008). Argumentative and aggressive communication in Bulgaria: Testing for conceptual and methodological equivalence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 17–24. Berard, T. J. (2005). On multiple identities and educational contexts: Remarks on the study of inequalities and discrimination. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 67–77. Bresnahan, M. J., Lee, H. E., & Kim, K. T. (2007, May). Does method make a difference? Issues of measurement equivalence for self-construal. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Bresnahan, M. J., Levine, T. R., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Park, C.-Yi, & Kiyomiya, T. (2005). A multimethod multitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 31, 33–59.

120

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Bruneau, T., Cambra, R., & Klopf, D. W. (1980). Communication apprehension: Its incidence in Guam and elsewhere. Communication, 9, 46–52. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Cambra, R., Ishii, S., & Klopf, D. W. (1978). Four studies of Japanese speech characteristics. Communication, 7, 7–25. Cambra, R., & Klopf, D. W. (1979a). A cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal needs. Speech Education, 7, 111–115. Cambra, R., & Klopf, D. W. (1979b). Further investigations of communication apprehension in Hawaii. Communication, 8, 44–51. Chaffee, S. H., McLeod, J. M., & Wackman, D. B. (1973). Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation. In J. Dennis (Ed.), Socialization to politics, (pp. 349–364). New York: Wiley & Sons. Chen, G-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Chu, L. L. (1988). Mass communication theory: A Chinese perspective. In W. Dissanayake (Ed.), Communication theory: An Asian perspective (pp. 126–138). Singapore: The Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Center. Cooke, P. A., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1991). Perceptions of world view among Japanese and American university students: A cross-cultural comparison. Communication Research Reports, 8, 81–88. Davis, O. I., Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2000). Current and future directions in ethnicity and methodology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 525–539. Frymier, A. B., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Affect orientation: Japanese compared to Americans. Communication Research Reports, 7, 63–66. Furuyama, M. A., & Greenfield, T. K. (1983). Dimensions of assertiveness in an AsianAmerican student population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 429–432. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. (2003) Human Communication Research, 29, 253–274. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, S. (1989). Ethnicity: Identity and difference. Radical America, 23(4), 9–20. Haney Lopez, I. F. (2000). The social construction of race. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 163–175). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Harman, C. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Verbal aggression among Japanese and American students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70(3), 1130. Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., II, & Ribeau, S. A. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Culture and Aggressive Communication

121

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Journal, 50, 67–77. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Ishii, S., Cambra, R., & Klopf, D. W. (1977). Speaking apprehension among Japanese and American students. Communication, 6, 125–136. Ishii, S., Cambra, R., & Klopf, D. W. (1979). The fear of speaking and the fear of writing among Japanese college students. Speech Education, 7, 55–59. Jackson, R. L., II, & Garner, T. (1998). Tracing the evolution of “race,” “ethnicity,” and “culture” in communication studies. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 47–56. Jenkins, G. D., Klopf, D. W., & Park, M. S. (1991, July). Argumentativeness in Korean and American college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Communication Association, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Kim, M. S., Aune, K. S., Hunter, J., Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2001). The effect of culture and self-construals on predisposition toward verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 27, 382–408. Kim, M. S., & Raja, N. S. (2003). When validity testing lacks validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 275–290. Kim, M. S., Tasaki, K., Kim, I., & Lee, H. (2007). The influence of social status on communication predisposition: Focusing on independent and interdependent self-construals. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17, 303–329. Klopf, D. W. (1976). Forensics in America and Japan. Speech Education, 4, 217–234. Klopf, D. W. (1977). The Speech Institute in Japan and the United States. Speech Education, 5, 35–40. Klopf, D. W. (1991). Japanese communication practices: Recent comparative research. Communication Quarterly, 39, 130–143. Klopf, D. W. (1992). The East goes west—To the Pacific. Communication Quarterly, 40, 368–371. Klopf, D. W., & Park, M-S. (1992). Korean communication practices: Comparative research. Korea Journal, 32, 93–99. Klopf, D. W., Thompson, C. A., & Sallinen-Kuparinen, A. (1991). Argumentativeness among selected Finnish and American college students. Psychological Reports, 68, 161–162. Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Chung, D., & Ohashi, R. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210–252. Lin, Y., Rancer, A. S., & Kong, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and argumentativeness: An investigation of Chinese college students. Human Communication, 10, 12.1–135. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Martin, J. N., & Davis, O. I. (Eds.) (2000). Ethnicity and methodology [Special issue]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(5). Matsunaga, M. (2005, May). Wag the dog: Preconceived ideas, overlooked notions, and the “latitude” of interdependent self-construals. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, New York. Miczo, M., & Welter, R. (2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects

122

Anne Maydan Nicotera and Nicole M. Robinson

of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 61–77. Miles, R. (1982). Racism and migrant labour. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mortenson, S. (2005). Exploring the link between culture and self-construal through structural equation models. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 22–49. Muthuswamy, N. (2007, May). Understanding differences in self construals across cultures: a social networks perspective. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Nicotera, A. M., Clinkscales, M. J., Dorsey, L. K., & Niles, M. (2009). Race as political identity: Problematic issues for applied communication research. In L. Frey & K. Cissna (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Communication (pp. 518–543). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Olaniran, B., & Williams, D. (1995). Communciation distortion: An intercultural lesson from the visa application process. Communication Quarterly, 43, 225–240. Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7, 75–79. Ruggierio, T. E., & Lattin, K. S. (2008). Intercollegiate female coaches’ use of verbally aggressive communication toward African American female athletes. The Howard Journal of Communications, 19, 105–124. Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., Thompson, C., & Klopf, D. W. (1991). Finnish and American university students compared on a verbal aggression construct. Psychological Reports, 69, 681–682. Sanders, J., Gass, R., Wiseman, R., & Bruschke, J. (1992). Ethnic comparison and measurement of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and need for cognition. Communication Reports, 5, 50–56. Scheel, J., Park, M.-S., & Klopf, D. (1991). A comparison study of verbal aggressiveness among Koreans and Americans. Unpublished manuscript. Song, Y. J. (1996, May). Argumentativeness trait between Americans and South Koreans: “Age” and “Relationship” as Contexts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, USA. Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). The measurement of racial and ethnic identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 541–552. Sue, D., Ino, S., & Sue, D. M. (1983). Nonassertiveness of Asian Americans: An inaccurate assumption? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 581–588. Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, 256–279. Thompson, C. A., & Klopf, D. W. (1991). An analysis of social style among disparate cultures. Communication Research Report, 8, 65–72. Thompson, C. A., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1991). A comparison of social style between Japanese and Americans. Communication Research Reports, 8, 165–172. Tokunaga, B. (2007, May). The other halo effect: A cultural comparison of aggression following violent video game play. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Triandis, H. C. (1986). Collectivism vs. individualism: A conceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In C. Bagley, & G. Verma (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and values: Cross-cultural perspectives of childhood and adolescence. London: Macmillan.

Culture and Aggressive Communication

123

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes, and cognition. London: Macmillan. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: New directions in social psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Woods, S., & Wang, J. (2004). Culture and argumentativeness: Exploring Asian-American students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward intercollegiate debate. The Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta, 89, 1–11. Zhang, Z., Li, H., & Bhatt, G. (2006, May). Rethinking culture and self-construal. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.

Chapter 7

Global Communicator Understanding the Role of Verbal Aggressiveness and Argumentativeness in International Negotiations Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

An international negotiation is usually one step in a broader strategy between two entities. Whether these entities are two businesses, two governments, or a business and a government, the underlying goal is the same—reaching the short and long-term goals of both organizations. For this to occur, a trusting relationship must be developed. The negotiations that occur as part of relationship development strongly influence the outcomes of the negotiation. Thus, understanding cultural differences, as well as the role of individual traits in international negotiation, is critical. Accurate communication is critical to our negotiation conversations especially in the international business environment. And persuasion is an integral component of this communication. Messages attempting to persuade another are influenced by both culture and individual style. Understanding the role of traits that impact the choice of persuasive messages should be an important variable in international negotiations. Understanding and interpreting how culture influences behavior, communication, and interpretation of messages, is helpful. Knowledge at the individual level (i.e., communication traits) offers valuable knowledge that cannot be explained by knowledge at the cultural level. More specifically, communication predispositions (i.e., individual level knowledge factors) such as argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are important to research in order to get a more holistic understanding of the everyday business negotiations that are part of the intercultural experience.

Argument for Individual and Cultural Level Analysis Since the early 1990s the need to examine intercultural communication interactions from a multi-level perspective has grown. Gudykunst (1997) concluded that we need to take into consideration how the individual-level factors mediate the cultural-level factors in cross-cultural communication. Kim et al. (2001) concluded that there is growing support for examining crosscultural interactions from an individual level. And Avtgis and Rancer (2002) argue that there is evidence of communication difference within low-context cultures, therefore providing support that cultural tendencies alone are not sufficient for explaining intercultural business negotiation. Oetzel et al. (2001)

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

125

concluded, “cultural and individual-level factors can both account for differences and similarities in communication behavior” (p. 255). Thus, to better understand global business negotiations we must consider the role of cultural tendencies on open debate and argument as well as how individual characteristics relate to negotiation success. Before focusing on argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and their role in international negotiation, the broader context of international negotiation in the global environment will be presented.

Geocentric Negotiation Model of the Global Communicator Prior to globalization, a country’s culture(s) could be analyzed and distinct profiles developed with relative accuracy. With the advancement of technology came a rapid spread of globalization. As a result, cultural generalities that once guided us in conducting business, politics, and everyday interactions have become blurred. The depth of this blurring depends on many factors, including the developmental level of the country, the level of international expertise and experience of the particular organization(s), and the level of expertise and experience of the individual(s) within the organization involved in the international exchange. As such, the global change we are experiencing requires us to reflect on the individual characteristics of the negotiator as well as the cultural elements of the country from which our counterparts come. In order to be successful in the international negotiation environment, it is imperative to understand and embrace the cultural differences as well as the individual communication traits and behaviors that affect the interaction between or among individuals from different parts of the world. This multi-dimensional approach for understanding intercultural communication can offer the insight necessary to advance our understanding of global negotiation interactions. The geocentric approach to successful negotiation model (Rudd & Lawson, 2007) embraces such a perspective by taking an interdisciplinary approach to international negotiation. The model (Figure 7.1) integrates the need for knowledge and understanding of the individual negotiator and the international business and negotiation environment in which the negotiation occurs. It offers an interdisciplinary approach for understanding communication in international negotiation, but it can also be easily adapted to everyday intercultural interactions.

Evolution to a Geocentric Approach The concept of centricity was developed as a result of research that looked at the strategic orientation of firms in the international business environment. Four types or levels of centricity have been identified and explored: ethnocentric, polycentric, regiocentric, and geocentric (Calof & Beamish, 1994; Heenan & Perlmutter, 1979; Perlmutter, 1969). Prior to the trend towards

126

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

Figure 7.1 A Geocentric Approach to Successful Negotiation (Rudd & Lawson, 2007).

globalization, organizations would take an ethnocentric or polycentric approach to international negotiation. Some organizations would choose to use the same approaches internationally as domestically, assuming any cultural differences could be ignored. As companies gained more experience internationally, this ethnocentric approach was replaced with a polycentric approach where firms would adapt domestic strategies and behaviors on a country-by-country basis in order to comply with cultural differences. As organizations gained experience across countries, a more regiocentric approach was used, based on the assumption that countries within a geographic region would have cultural similarities that could be addressed collectively. This approach simplified the knowledge-gaining aspect of preparing for international communication. As firms and other organizations expanded internationally, their knowledge and experiences began to cross regions. The transnational corporation is an ideal example of this evolution. Most established transnational corporations, such as General Motors, Volkswagen, and IBM, began decades ago as ethnocentrically oriented organizations (i.e., they were focused on domestic markets). As they grew globally, the knowledge and experiences of their global personnel expanded to include local, regional and global components, resulting in the creation of a geocentric framework for international strategies and behaviors, including negotiation. The foundation of the geocentric approach to negotiation is the flexibility and adaptation that results from the breadth and depth of knowledge, experiences, and expertise in the international environment. International negotiators with this level of experience are able to exploit similarities across cultures

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

127

while adapting to unique differences that enable them to develop successful negotiation strategies. While knowledge and experience are important factors in successful international negotiation, the individual negotiator is also important. As we move from relatively homogeneous and separate cultures (e.g., countries) to more cross-integration of cultures, interpersonal communication traits require greater exploration and understanding, especially in terms of how specific traits are viewed across cultural differences. Becoming an effective global communicator requires understanding of, and appropriate exhibition of, a variety of traits. This chapter focuses on two of these traits: argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Both traits, viewed globally, have very different interpretations in negotiation. Examining these traits should provide valuable insight in helping to educate individuals for successful interactions in the globalized world.

Culture, Argumentativeness, Aggression As we continue to interact more often with other cultures the distinct differences in communication may begin to change and cultural generalities may become less representative of intercultural communication interactions. However, the connection between culture and individual traits remains an important combination. Although cultures may become more blurred, individual traits may offer valuable insight to appropriate communication practices in a global world. There are several cultural factors that influence the role of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in negotiation. Most noteworthy are the individualist/ collectivist and the high-context/low-context nature of a culture (Hall, 1976; Hall & Hall, 1987; Hofstede, 1983). Individualist cultures tend to focus on the individual rather than the whole. Decisions are made based on what’s best for the individual and his/her immediate group (e.g., family, business unit, negotiating team). Strong individualist countries tend to be low-context communicators where words (spoken or written) are more important than the context within which the communication occurs. With individualist cultures, communication tends to involve more details in the conversations and scripts as opposed to relying on more implicit ways of relaying meaning. Collectivist cultures tend to take a more holistic approach where decisions are based on what is best for the group instead of what is best for the individual. As a result, strong interpersonal relationships are developed, reducing the need for detailed intercourse. Thus, collectivist cultures tend to be high-context communicators where general agreement based on trust is more important than the details of the agreement. Highly individualist cultures tend to accept argumentativeness as an expected component of international negotiations. For countries such as the United States, Germany, France, and Denmark (most highly developed countries tend towards individualism with the exception of Japan), argumentative negotiation

128

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

(e.g., strongly advocating one’s position) is a normal part of the negotiation strategy. If this does not occur, it may be interpreted as a weakness on the part of the negotiator for not fully participating in the debate. It may also be perceived as lacking interest in the relationship. On the other end of the individualist/collectivist continuum, argumentativeness may be perceived unfavorably by collectivist cultures. Strongly advocating for one’s position is contrary to the collectivist’s holistic perspective and may create distrust. Thus, when one side of a negotiation is from a collectivist culture and the other side from an individualist culture, there needs to be sensitivity to the cultural practices of both sides when developing a specific strategy for the negotiation. An individual’s personal trait for argumentativeness will determine his/her ability and willingness to adapt appropriately. In some situations high argumentativeness is good; in other cases it is not. Knowing the difference is an important step. Being able to adjust your negotiation style is critical to success. While argumentativeness tends to be somewhat culturally based, research on verbal aggressiveness is limited and does not provide a clear connection between verbal aggressiveness and cultural influence. However, by understanding the differences between individualist and collectivist cultures, one can infer the detrimental influence verbal aggression would have on an international negotiation. As discussed, in collectivist cultures the focus is on the whole. Thus, verbally aggressive behavior towards one person in a collectivist culture may be interpreted as an insult to the whole group, resulting in a loss of trust as well as face. Verbally aggressive behavior between two individualist cultures may not be as holistically damaging, but it may damage the success of the specific negotiation as well as the prospects for a more long-term relationship for the two organizations. This type of damage is costly to both organizations. As mentioned earlier, an underlying component of success in the international business environment is the ability to develop a strong trust relationship between the two organizations. Based on a series of interviews conducted with international business professionals (Rudd & Lawson, 2007), the personal trust and relationship developed between the individuals representing each company was one of the most critical components of long-term success. More than cultural influences, an individual’s personality may impact the ability to create trust and quality relationships in a negotiation.

The Role of Argumentativeness in Global Negotiation Interactions Every negotiation (and human interaction) has components of persuasion. Some scholars view the negotiation process as a communication predominantly in the form of argumentation (Reiches & Harral, 1974). There may be times, especially in business settings, when conflict arises and individual differences emerge

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

129

that need resolution if the relationship between the two parties is to continue. How one presents and resolves these differences often varies by culture. The role of argumentativeness in the intercultural setting has received the attention of several communication scholars (Hsu, 2007; Klopf, Thompson, & Sallimen-Kupaika, 1991; Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990a, 1990b; Rahoi, Svenkerud, & Love, 1994). Most intercultural studies that examined the role of argumentativeness in cross-cultural settings were comparisons between the United States and another culture. For example, early research compared the United States with Korea and Japan. Prunty, Klopf, and Ishii (1990a, 1990b) reported American students being significantly higher in argumentativeness than Japanese students. Americans were also found to be significantly higher in argumentativeness than Koreans (Jenkins, Klopf, & Park, 1991). In addition, two studies (Klopf, Thompson, & Sallimen-Kupaika, 1991; Rahoi, Svenkerund, & Love, 1994) concluded that Finnish and Norwegian students are higher in argumentativeness than students from the United States. In 2007 Hsu investigated the role of a communication orientation between Taiwanese and Americans. Hsu found that Taiwanese were lower in argumentativeness than Americans. These findings are not surprising in that cultures that are traditionally higher context, collectivist cultures are also cultures lower in argumentativeness. However, there are reported differences within the cultural-level tendencies and therefore examining individual predispositions is necessary in order to get a more complete understanding of the phenomenon. As you may recall, argumentativeness trait is characterized as “one’s predisposition to advocate a position on controversial issues, and to attack verbally the position which other people take on these issues” (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 72). The predispositional tendency in communication interaction to verbally articulate one’s view and attack the other’s stance is representative of the type of communication in low-context cultures and that varies within the general cultural dimension. These initial studies lend support for a geocentric communication model for global negotiations. Understanding individuals’ argumentative tendencies is valuable in creating meaningful intercultural negotiation interactions as well as within cultural negotiations. Initial research in argumentativeness and intercultural interactions found that discrepancies exist in the assumption that low-context cultures are high in argumentativeness and high-context cultures are low in argumentativeness. There is a range in the level of trait argumentativeness within each context (it’s all relative). Therefore, we cannot accurately assume that the cultural level of analysis explains how one communicates in business negotiations (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006; Rudd & Lawson, 2007). Studies such as these provide unique data from the individual where one can examine message choices, thus adding a greater depth to our knowledge about intercultural negotiations. Of significance is the fact that becoming a successful communicator in global negotiations is not determined by an individual’s level of trait argumentativeness, but rather by the knowledge of actual argumentative behavior displayed by the negotiating parties. This argumentative behavior is manifested in

130

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

intercultural negotiations. For example, if you are low in argumentativeness, you want to consider the effects of your avoidance in debating with another person and the possible reaction or perception that may create (especially if the other person is relatively high in trait argumentativeness and is from a low-context culture that values debate). Thus, an important consideration in intercultural negotiation situations is that your trait influences not only your message choice, but also how you perceive the other’s communication behavior. Coupled with the other person’s cultural tendencies and their argumentative trait, the intercultural communication negotiation is vulnerable to a wide range of (mis)interpretations. As Martin et al. (1998) noted, a person’s perception can block information that is inconsistent with one’s own culture. Clackworthy (1996), in his study of U.S. Americans and Germans, suggested that although both cultures are considered low-context and individualistic, there are differences in the perception of communication style during conflict. For example, Americans viewed the German conflict management style as rigid and confrontational, and during discussion Germans tended to defend their position. On the other hand, Americans like to be direct but viewed themselves as tactful (Oetzel et al., 2001). One way to minimize the impact of misinterpretation during an intercultural negotiation is in the negotiation preparation. All negotiators need to have an understanding of their predispositional argumentativeness trait. John Graham wrote in 1996 that “In most places in the world, personalities and substance are not separate issues and can’t be made so” (p. 86). The individual negotiator’s communication traits are critical factors to consider in planning negotiation tactics and strategies. In addition, the negotiators should do their homework on the other negotiating team’s communication tendencies at both the cultural and individual level. To be a competent interactional negotiator one must examine one’s communication traits and skills and cultural biases that may inhibit our view of possible negotiated outcomes. International business negotiations have four major stages: pre-negotiation (planning stage), negotiation process (information exchange, problem-solving stage, and concession making), agreement, and renegotiation (if needed) (see Rudd & Lawson, 2007 for further explanation). There are several critical times in the negotiation when one’s argumentative trait may ultimately contribute to movement toward or away from agreement. The pre-negotiation planning and the exchange of the information-sharing in the negotiation process are critical opportunities for argumentativeness to influence the outcome. Every negotiation has periods of persuasion and debate. Parties present their position and offer reasons and justifications for why they believe the other party should meet their expectations. Expectations are often developed during the planning of the negotiation process. Educating ourselves about the substantive issues and relational issues is critical. It is necessary to know our goals as well as our individual communication style. Understanding our own communication tendencies, especially our argumentativeness, will allow us to develop a strategy for message choice and flexibility to see our differences with the other party. In

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

131

addition, we must also attempt to know those similar tendencies of the other party. Their culture, regional influences or subculture, the organizational culture as well as the individual’s communication style are relevant to successful outcome possibilities. The significance of knowing one’s argumentativeness trait level allows for the negotiator to strategize about the effectiveness of a specific approach and message choice for the upcoming negotiation. For example, if someone is cognizant that he or she is a very highly argumentative individual then they acknowledge that they are likely to strongly advocate for their position and find fault with the opposing party’s proposal. Johnson and Johnson (1974) advocate that the benefit of argumentation during negotiation is that it can reduce egocentric thinking, increase creativity and ultimately lead to better quality agreements. This type of communication will work well with others who share that approach, especially if the culture and individual behaviors are similar. In planning negotiations where there is a great degree of uncertainty regarding the other party’s communication and cultural influences, the choice of a negotiator who has a moderate level of trait argumentativeness would be preferred. The moderate is more likely to search for environmental cues, thus flexibility and contextual factors become deciding variables in message choice. They can construct arguments and rationales that fit within the parameters of the situation more readily. Low-argumentative individuals may find negotiating with others who are from low-context collectivistic cultures as agreeable and ultimately a mutual trusting relationship may emerge, resulting in an efficient agreement. Those low in the argumentative trait may be viewed by collectivistic cultures as collaborative and nonconfrontational. In addition, low-trait argumentative negotiators when negotiating with high-argumentative people need to reconsider their interpretation of the debate. That is, low argumentative trait negotiators may want to develop skills in refuting and argumentation. They may also consider re-evaluating their perception of high-argumentative trait individuals’ communication. Rather than finding high-argumentative individuals’ communication offensive and unsatisfying they may consider the value of presenting issues and the construction of persuasive messages as an opportunity for better problem solving, thus, perhaps, leading to a different listening style than they typically engage in. This sort of argumentativeness training has been successful in a variety of populations (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). The pre-negotiation stage is a critical component and should be analyzed carefully with consideration to an individual’s argumentativeness trait as well as their cultural tendencies toward behavior. By doing so, one increases the opportunities for successful agreement. Usually the presentation of one’s position is offered in the information sharing stage but can continue throughout the negotiation. Cultures vary widely in their view of acceptability of persuasion strategies and tactics. For example, low-context cultures place a higher value on debate and open argument (e.g., Greece) whereas high-context cultures value a discussion of difference but only after developing a relationship with the other (e.g., Japan) (Brett and Okumura,

132

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

1998; Clackworthy, 1996). Individuals who are high in the argumentativeness trait are likely to address controversial issues and directly advocate for their position and offer refuting remarks about the other party’s position early in the negotiation process, such as during the information sharing phase, whereas negotiators from high-context cultures are more likely to wait until later in the process. This incongruity can be detrimental to a successful agreement for several reasons. First, there are cultural level implications. When these incongruent behaviors occur during the information sharing stage, it can be especially damaging in an international negotiation where one party is high context and the other is low context because the high-context culture typically begins the persuasive attempts at this information stage whereas the lowcontext culture is likely to avoid direct confrontation until much later in the negotiation, only after the relationship has been established and trust gained (Menger, 1999). Perceptions of the appropriateness of directness and debate can create a perception of rudeness and mistrust in the negotiator from the high-context culture and a perception of confusion and misinterpretation (perhaps agreement) on the part of the negotiator from the low-context culture. Second, individual level differences between high and low argumentatives can also emerge. The low-argumentative trait individual may perceive the highargumentative as pushy and aggressive, whereas the high-argumentative trait individual may perceive the other party’s lack of argument as characteristic of a “pushover” or one who is at least unwilling to engage with the issues at hand. Third, the level of satisfaction in communicating during the negotiation is hindered and decreases the likelihood of maximizing the potential mutual gains. The impressions that negotiators form during the high rate of information exchange period enhances the role that communication traits play in establishing positive or negative relational climates. Intercultural negotiation research supports the fact that interpersonal attraction influences negotiation outcome more than specific negotiation styles (Graham et al., 1988). Therefore, having an understanding of how cultural and individual trait factors influence the negotiation process deserves the attention of international negotiators. Once individuals become aware of their argumentative predisposition they are better prepared to interact with others who may or may not share their particular style of communicating. For example, let’s assume that Sung Ah is a buyer for a fashion design firm located in South Korea who is negotiating with a silk manufacturer named Rose from Norway. Rose invites Sung Ah to join her for a night on the town. Sung Ah hesitates and would rather stay in and finish preparing for tomorrow’s negotiation but doesn’t want to offend Rose. Rose, however, continues to present logical reasons why Sung Ah should join her. She insists that it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see Norway in the summer. Further, it will provide her with a chance to have a drink and relax as well as help establish her reputation as someone who is interested in building a relationship, not just negotiating. Sung Ah finds Rose’s refusal to accept “no” as insensitive and feels rather uncomfortable with Rose’s confrontation. Sung Ah

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

133

doesn’t feel it is appropriate or necessary to air her reasons for not wanting to join Rose. She is quiet and eventually goes but finds the first interaction with Rose unsatisfying and doesn’t understand Rose’s communication style. Could it be that Rose is just high in argumentativeness and Sung Ah is low in argumentativeness and neither of the two is able to appreciate the other’s style? Does one assume it is a cultural difference or is it simply a communication trait difference that is influenced but not explained by cultural influence? As this example illustrates, the interpersonal argumentative trait knowledge combined with the general cultural-specific research provides a richer understanding of the global communication interaction.

The Role of Verbal Aggression and the Global Communicator The research of the 1990s advanced the study of verbal aggression to intercultural settings. As researchers began investigating the role of differences in verbal aggressiveness in intercultural interactions, the results were mixed. Prunty, Klopf, and Ishii (1990b) found a difference between American women’s verbal aggression and that of Japanese women but no significant difference between their male counterparts. In 1992, Sanders, Gass, Wiseman, and Bruschke examined verbal aggressiveness in American subcultures, specifically Asian, European, and Hispanic groups. Their studies concluded that Asian Americans were more verbally aggressive than European Americans and Hispanic Americans. Avtgis and Rancer (2002) investigated differences in verbal aggressiveness among New Zealanders, Americans, and Australians. Their findings indicated that Australians were higher in verbal aggressiveness than either New Zealanders or U.S. Americans. And U.S. Americans showed significantly less verbal aggressiveness than either group. This is somewhat surprising considering that New Zealand is considered a collectivistic culture. These studies support the need to consider both culture- and individual-level influences when examining international business negotiations. The possible damage to a successful global communication experience is clear when considering high trait verbal aggressiveness. Especially dangerous is the individual who is high in verbal aggressiveness and low in argumentativeness. The likelihood of a verbal attack is most present in this situation. That is, the individual who becomes engaged in a conflict with another person (regardless of culture) is most likely to resort to verbally attacking the other party, especially if the issue is an important one. Their choice of tactics and strategies is limited. Most of the communication is comprised of aggressive messages which attempt to dominate or intimidate the other person. These aggressive actions are rarely, if ever, viewed as a positive and welcoming experience by the target. The severity at which the verbal aggression is measured may be influenced by the culture and the other person’s verbal aggressiveness trait. That is, how we view other’s messages is influenced to some degree by our own traits (Martin et al., 1998). It is therefore important to consider the role that

134

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

verbal aggressiveness in combination with argumentativeness has in unsuccessful attempts at communication in global business negotiations. Similar to argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness can play an important element in the opportunities for reaching an agreement. The negotiation process is often viewed from two dominant perspectives: the hard-bargaining approach and the collaborative approach. The hard-bargaining approach to negotiation is dominated by verbally aggressive messages. Parties use threats, ridicule, and swearing, as well as other bullying tactics, in an attempt to get as much as they can from the other party while giving up as little as possible. The collaborative approach to negotiation is based on asserting one’s position and searching for a mutually satisfying agreement. The focus of this approach is engaging in a communication that searches for common ground upon which to find mutually beneficial outcomes. Although the collaborative approach is less likely to promote verbally aggressive messages, there may be times, such as during an impasse, when people may resort to such message strategies. In addition, during the negotiation process, as parties move toward agreement, concessions become the dominant pattern of communication. If concessions are not reciprocated or are rejected, tension often builds and emotions mount, which can result in another point where verbal aggression occurs in collaborative negotiation. It is important to note that even in a collaborative negotiation process verbal aggressiveness may emerge, albeit to a much lesser extent than is found in the hard-bargaining negotiation. In international business negotiations, verbal aggressiveness can destroy the immediate possible transaction as well as future opportunities. Our attitudes about verbal aggression as part of the negotiation process are influenced by our culture’s view of verbal aggression as well as our level of trait verbal aggressiveness. Individuals who are high in trait verbal aggressiveness and low in argumentativeness are more likely to attack the other party’s self-concept in attempting to win the negotiation. Threats are often used as a tactic to create fear in another party, which ultimately may lead to unequal concessions. Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) warn that the hard-bargaining approach is dominated by deception and threats. They further warn negotiators that use of this form of negotiation produces inferior long-term agreements. Over the last decade, international business negotiations have adopted the collaborative style of negotiating, realizing the importance of long-term relationship development for continued success in the world market. Thus, the tolerance for overt verbal aggression is diminishing although it is still not completely unacceptable.

Future of the Aggressive Communication/Culture Interaction in Global Communication As organizations become more global and interact with organizations from other countries, they develop a stronger knowledge base about countries and cultures within which the other organization operates. This knowledge base becomes an important factor used in the development of the organization’s

Verbal Aggressiveness in International Negotiations

135

international and global negotiating strategies. Likewise, individuals who interact with people in and from other countries as part of their business activities develop experiential-based knowledge. These experiences result in the creation of a third culture where the individual’s cultural responses to situations do not strictly reflect his/her own culture, nor do they reflect any one other culture. Instead, they tend to be a combination of cultural traits and behaviors “picked up” through exposure to other cultures. As more international negotiators develop third cultures, the clarity of cultural characteristics dims and it becomes more difficult to predict and plan behavior strategies for responding to a specific culture in a negotiation. It is for this reason that personality characteristics become so important to the international negotiator. He/she must be able to develop a trusting relationship with the other party and respective organization. Thus, this raises the question of the role of the predispositional traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and their influence on effectively persuading others in an international negotiation context regardless of the culture of origin.

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. Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiations: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 495–510. Calof, J., & Beamish, P. (1994). The right attitude for international success. Business Quarterly, 59, 105–110. Clackworthy, D. (1996). Training Germans and Americans in conflict management. In M. Berger (Ed.), Cross-cultural team building: Guidelines for more effective communication and negotiations (pp. 91–100). London: McGraw-Hill. Dolinina, I. B., & Cecchetto, V. (1998). Facework and rhetorical strategies in intercultural argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 12, 117–135. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (Eds.) (1991). Getting to yes, negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin. Graham, J. (1996). The importance of culture in international business negotiations. In J. D. Usumier & P. H. Ghauri (Eds.), International Business Communications. Oxford: Elsevier Press. Graham, J., Kim, D., Lin, C., & Robinson, M. (1988). Buyer-seller negotiations around the Pacific rim: Differences in fundamental exchange processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 48–54. Gudykunst, W. (1997). Cultural variability in communication. Communication Research. 24, 327–349. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday. Heenan, D., & Perlmutter, H. (1979). Multinational organizational development: A social architecture perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research–based theory of

136

Jill E. Rudd and Diana R. Lawson

cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 12, 46–74. Hsu, C. F. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of communication orientations between Americans and Taiwanese. Communication Quarterly, 55, 359–374. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Jenkins, G. D., Klopf, D. W., & Park, M. S. (1991). Argumentativeness in Korean and American college students: A comparison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Communication Association, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–70. Kim, M., Kim, H., Hunter, J. E., & Kim, J. (2001). The effect of culture and selfconstruals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 27, 382–408. Klopf, D. W., Thompson, C. A., & Sallimen-Kupaika, S. (1991). Argumentativeness among selected Finnish and American college students. Psychological Reports, 68, 161–162. Martin, D., Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Herbig, P. (1998). International negotiations: An entirely different animal. In R. J. Lewicki, D. M. Saunders, J. W. Minters, & B. Barry, Negotiation (4th ed., pp. 340–354). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Menger, R. (1999). Japanese and American negotiators: Overcoming cultural barriers to understanding. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 100–101. Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235–258. Perlmutter, H. (1969). The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, 4, 9–18. Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990a). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7, 75–79. Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990b). Japanese and American tendencies to argue. Psychological Reports, 66, 802. Rahoi, R., Svenkerud, P., & Love, D. (1994). Searching for subtlety: Investigating argumentativeness across low-context cultural boundaries. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio University. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reiches, N., & Harral, H. (1974). Argument in negotiation: A theoretical and empirical approach. Speech Monographs, 41, 375–387. Rudd, J., & Lawson, D. (2007). Communicating in Global Business Negotiations: A geocentric approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanders, J. A., Gass, R. H., Wiseman, R. L., & Bruschke, J. C. (1992). Ethnic comparison and measurement of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and need for cognition. Communication Reports, 5, 50–56.

Section II

Contextual Research on Argumentative, Aggressive, and Conflict Communication

Chapter 8

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom Bullying and Conflict Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

Violence in the K-12 classroom appeared to have reached its pinnacle on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado when two students, initially believed to be victims of bullying and harassment by their classmates (Cullen, 2009; Toppo, 2009), killed 13 people and wounded 23 others before killing themselves. Since then, over 25 shootings have been reported on elementary school, middle school, and high school campuses across the United States (“A Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings,” 2007). While these types of events often become well publicized, these forms of violence are relatively isolated and not at all common (Bucher & Manning, 2005). What is less publicized, less isolated, and much more common is other forms of student maltreatment. These forms, which include bullying, theft, vandalism, fighting, rejection, retaliation, name calling, teasing, ridicule, and even the formation of cliques, in-groups, and out-groups (Farmer, 2000; Hernandez & Seem, 2004; Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992), share one common theme: They are rooted in student aggressiveness. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the role student aggressive communication plays in the K-12 classroom, this chapter is organized into three sections focusing on bullying and conflict. In the first section, we review the research conducted on bullying and examine the prevalence, characteristics, and influences of bullies on their victims. In the second section, we discuss the research conducted on classroom conflict and explore the ways in which K-12 teachers can work toward resolving conflicts with their students. In the third section, we offer some recommendations teachers should heed when combating the negative effects of student aggressiveness in the K-12 classroom.

Bullying in the Classroom Sparked largely by the Columbine tragedy, society has developed a new curiosity about the old problem of bullying. Though it is difficult to pinpoint precise statistics, bullying is a common occurrence in all of the countries in which it has been studied, including Sweden, Finland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, Ireland, Japan, Spain, and Australia (for an overview, see Olweus, 1994). Some researchers suggest that American students face the greatest bullying problems,

140

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

with up to 72 percent and 80 percent of samples self-reporting as victims of bullying behavior (Atkin et al., 2002; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992). To gain a stronger grasp on the presence of bullying in the classroom, it is necessary to identify its components, examine the traits of both bullies and victims, and explore some plausible explanations for why students engage in bullying. While several definitions of bullying exist (Andreou, 2001; Bauman, 2008; Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Craig, 1998; Crozier & Dimmock, 1999; Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2006; Duncan, 2004), researchers generally agree that classroom bullying occurs when a power imbalance exists within a relationship between two students where the more powerful student intentionally inflicts harmful behavior on the less powerful student repeatedly over time (Olweus, 1994; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002; Smith, 1991; Stephenson & Smith, 1989). Bullying can emerge in the forms of physical aggressiveness (e.g., kicking, hitting), verbal aggressiveness (e.g., threatening, name-calling), or relational aggressiveness (e.g., excluding others, spreading rumors, and damaging relationships in order to hurt another person without using physical aggressiveness (Kuppens et al., 2008) as well as being enacted by individuals or groups (Osterman et al., 1998; Smith, 1991). Interestingly, when asked to define bullying, students agreed that while bullying involves aggressive behavior, they do not necessarily consider intentionality, frequency, or power imbalance as required components of bullying (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Nonetheless, bullying occurs across grade levels, with incidents of verbal aggressiveness increasing (Craig, 1998) and incidents of physical aggressiveness decreasing (Craig, 1998; Olweus, 1994) between grade school and high school, although incidents of relational aggressiveness remain stable (Kuppens et al., 2008). Although childhood aggression is a significant predictor of adolescent aggression, many children abandon their aggressive tendencies as they grow older (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001). Regardless of its form, bullying takes a strong toll on its recipients and devastates students in multiple ways because it is, at its core, an attack on an individual’s identity (Crozier & Dimmock, 1999). Negative outcomes can include declines in academic achievement (Atkin et al., 2002), social anxiety that can lead to loneliness and withdrawal (Craig, 1998; Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Storch, Brassard, & Masia-Warner, 2003), and depression (Bauman, 2008; Craig, 1998). Termed the “silent nightmare” (Smith, 1991), bullying is concealed by many students due to feelings of shame associated with being a victim or a fear of retaliation for bringing attention to the bullying behavior. Thus, it is not surprising that bullying has been identified as a cause of unnatural deaths and suicides among teenagers (Valle, Gosney, & Sinclair, 2008). The effects of school bullying extend beyond those years into adulthood, including continued shame and self-blame (Olweus, 1994) as well as fear and insecurity surrounding romantic relationships (Gilmartin, 1987). In an assessment of adolescent females’ use of aggression and face threats, Willer and Cupach (2008) found that aggressive acts were most face threatening when they came from students

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

141

who were popular. Given the harmful impact of bullying on its victims, Mooney, Creeser, and Blatchford (1991) examined the ways students respond to their aggressors. Of those interviewed, many students retaliated by namecalling or hitting, several students ignored the bullying behaviors, and a few students reported that they informed a teacher about the bullying. Working toward putting an end to these harmful aggressive behaviors, scholars have explored the characteristics of bullies and their victims. Olweus (1994) posited that students engage in bullying to meet one of three needs. The first need is retaliation, in which bullies lash out because of their feelings of hostility toward their environment. As Stephenson and Smith (1989) asserted, many bullies are prototypically strong and assertive students who enjoy being aggressive and are quick to anger. The second need, control, reflects the bullies’ desire to exhibit control as well as manipulate their environment. In some cases, bullies who are less popular or less secure than their peers may act as a “follower” or a “henchman” to a more active or powerful bully (Olweus, 1994), which then allows them to bypass their feelings of anxiety or passivity (Stephenson & Smith, 1989). The third need is an instrumental need, in which bullies engage in some form of harassment for the purpose of receiving either a tangible (e.g., money, homework) object or an intangible (e.g., attention, respect) object from their classmate. Not surprisingly, bullies engage in several other potentially harmful behaviors. These behaviors can include heightened displays of anger (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999), substance abuse (Atkin et al., 2002), and criminal behavior (Olweus, 1989). Moreover, students’ aggression follows the trend of aggression in other relational contexts such as that of romantic dyads (Infante et al., 1990; Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1993) and parent/child dyads (Higgins & McCabe, 2000; Lahey et al., 1984) in that physically aggressive behaviors are often enacted by those individuals who have a wide range of communication deficiencies including low levels of positive communication behaviors (e.g., expressing affection, listening) and an inability to effectively manage conflict. Not surprisingly, then, the positive correlation between K-12 students’ physical and verbal bullying behaviors is strong (Atkin et al., 2002). However, bullies are not always viewed negatively by their peers. For instance, less obvious forms of bullying such as spreading rumors and other forms of backstabbing do not lead to peer rejection as is the case with physical aggressiveness and verbal aggressiveness (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000). Because many bullies are popular (Kuppens et al., 2008), an aggressive act is viewed less negatively when it is enacted by someone who already has a high social standing (Dijkstra, Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2006) and this heightened social status enables them to continue bullying (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Similarly, Kaukiainen et al. (2002) found that only some bullies fit the stereotype of the oafish outcast while many bullies display high social intelligence. In fact, Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996) posited that some bullies have such high self-esteem that they bully in response to the threat of losing that status. Researchers also have assessed the qualities that make some students more

142

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

susceptible to victimization. Contrary to popular myths, students are seldom victimized because they are overweight, wear glasses, or perform well academically. In fact, bullies are no different from their victims in terms of these traits (Olweus, 1977, 1994; Stephenson & Smith, 1989). Although some students may be bullied under the pretext of these or other “outcast” qualities, these qualities do not mark someone as a target. Rather, students who communicate in a manner that suggests insecurity, anxiety, sensitivity, caution, or passivity are likely to become victims of bullying, as are students who are perceived by their peers as annoying, hyperactive, or disruptive in the classroom (Olweus, 1994). It is also possible that students may play the role of both bully and victim. Typically, students who play this dichotomous role are strong and aggressive, but are less likely to be accepted by their peers (Andreou, 2001; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). To understand the reasons why students engage in bullying, three explanations for why individuals engage in verbal aggressiveness posited by Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, and Seed (1984) are applicable. The first explanation is that bullying is the result of social learning in which aggressiveness and/or violence are perceived as rewarding. There is ample evidence that the more physical aggression people witness, the more violent they become (Singer et al., 1999), so it makes sense that a positive correlation exists between adolescents witnessing verbal aggressiveness and enacting verbal aggressiveness (Atkin et al., 2002). This learning occurs mainly at home and at school. At home, strong connections exist between aggressive parents and aggressive youth (Rossman, 1999), which include a positive relationship between parents’ use of physical discipline (e.g., spanking, slapping) and children’s use of physical aggressiveness in their own personal relationships (Olweus, 1994). At the opposite end of the spectrum, parents who refrain from disciplining their children when they slap, hit, or speak aggressively send the message that physical aggressiveness and verbal aggressiveness are acceptable means of communication that transcend the simple act of discipline (Olweus, 1994). In juxtaposition to these negative family experiences, those students who have healthy family relationships are more likely to have healthy relationships at school (Duncan, 2004). At school, norms set by teachers and students may suggest implicitly that bullying is acceptable. In elementary schools, strong links exist among students’ perceptions of others’ acceptance of aggression, their own perceptions of aggression, and their enactment of aggressive behaviors (Henry, Guerra, & Huesmann, 2000). In a study of classroom aggressiveness norms, Huesmann and Guerra (1997) found that students became more aggressive once they perceived aggression as a normal and acceptable behavior among their peer group. These findings indicate that K-12 classrooms in which teachers and students discourage aggressiveness have students who engage in less aggressiveness over time than in classrooms where aggression was not perceived as a normative behavior (Henry, Guerra, & Huesmann, 2000; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Yet, recent research suggests that norms set by teachers should not be given

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

143

too much credit. Specifically, although relational aggressiveness increases under the “aggression-acceptance” norm, multi-level modeling analyses revealed that these behaviors are more of a person-to-person phenomenon than a classroom phenomenon (Kuppens et al., 2008). This result is echoed in the finding that individual attitudes, not social norms, are predictive of actual fighting behaviors among adolescents (Roberto et al., 2003). In addition, the norms that have the greatest impact may be those norms held by the social groups to which students belong as opposed to the classroom in which they are enrolled. For instance, Nesdale et al. (2008) found that student in-groups with an “outgroup-like” norm were less aggressive than those in-groups with an “out-groupdislike” norm. As such, these findings suggest that although classroom norms are an important component to consider when examining why bullying occurs, teachers should be careful to consider the extent to which both their classroom norms and the individual differences students bring with them to the classroom contribute to bullying. By considering both normative and individual factors, more of the variance attributed to bullying behavior researchers can account for. The second explanation offered by Infante et al. (1984) is that bullying allows students to display either their direct or displaced feelings of hatred toward others. Given the positive links between children’s bullying tendencies and a maternal relationship lacking in love, attention, or warmth (Olweus, 1994; Onyskiw & Hayduk, 2001; Singer et al., 1999) as well as the positive association between an insecure attachment style and bullying behavior (Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008), it is possible that students who do not receive affection at home displace their negative feelings on to their peers at school. It also is possible that bully-victims (i.e., students who are both a bully and a recipient of bullying; Stephenson & Smith, 1989) act aggressively in an attempt to punish their environment for the aggressive behaviors they have received. Infante et al.’s (1984) third explanation is that students become frustrated because they are unable to respond to verbal attacks with appropriate argumentativeness, forcing them to resort to some form of bullying. This explanation is both supported and refuted by researchers. On one hand, students who exhibit physical aggressiveness report that they lack confidence in using nonviolent strategies (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999) and many comparison studies indicate that as individuals grow older, they become less aggressive (e.g., Delia & Clark, 1977; Delia, Kline, & Burleson, 1979), suggesting that the acquisition of more effective communication strategies discourages individuals from resorting to the use of aggressive tactics. However, bullies who may not be skilled in healthy behaviors may be quite skilled at enacting aggressive behaviors to get what they want from other people and do so while displaying many positive behaviors with their peers (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). Regardless of why students engage in bullying, this ongoing form of aggression is perceived generally in a negative light by peers and teachers alike. When students are perceived as bullies, they are less accepted by their peers (Chang

144

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

et al., 2005; Mercer & DeRosier, 2007). Teachers also communicate their disapproval of known bullies (Mercer & DeRosier, 2007), with overt bullying becoming a less popular behavior as children grow older (Olweus, 1994). Another student aggressive behavior that is perceived negatively by both students and teachers is that of classroom conflict.

Conflict in the Classroom Conflict is an inevitable part of most K-12 students’ daily routine (Longaretti & Wilson, 2006). These conflicts can include teasing, arguments over possession of property, and physical aggressiveness (Johnson & Johnson, 1995), and conflict can have a detrimental effect on students’ academic performance, students’ development of interpersonal relationships with their teachers and their peers as well as their overall sense of security within the classroom. This detrimental effect is exacerbated when conflicts are left unresolved. It is no surprise, then, that students may consider conflict to be an actively aggressive event that often leads to differing perspectives and distressing outcomes (Longaretti & Wilson, 2006). To understand this position, it is necessary to examine how conflict surfaces in the classroom, the nature of student conflict, and how students manage conflict. In the K-12 classroom, conflict can surface for many reasons. Conflict can occur when two individuals (e.g., students, teachers) possess different perspectives on the same issue (Cothran, 2001), as a result of two individuals whose actions are incompatible (Dykeman, 2003), or when two individuals have competing goals or viewpoints (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006). Nonetheless, it is essential to consider that classroom conflict is a relational variable involving two or more individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 1996) that almost always results in some form of overt behavioral opposition (Laursen & Collins, 1994). Three forms of overt behavioral opposition used by students include prosocial conflict, which occurs when students use assertive behaviors to defend themselves without inflicting injury on others; low-level conflict, which occurs when students use aggressive behaviors that are playful in nature; and hostile aggression, which occurs when students use aggressive behaviors to intentionally physically or verbally injure others (Smith, Inder, & Ratcliff, 1995). Over the course of their education, the nature of conflict is reflective of student grade level. In elementary school, disputes often center on the blocking of one student’s goal by another student (Shantz, 1987). These disputes include insulting, putting down, and teasing each other (“Ralph said I was a girl, which I am not, and it makes me mad.”); fighting over issues that arise on the playground (“Bruce keeps taking our ball at recess.”); disagreeing over access to or possession of items; arguing over classroom assignments or projects (“Nancy did not do her part of the project the right way.”); failing to engage in turntaking (“Jeremy and I both thought we should be first in line.”); and engaging in acts of physical aggression (“Max was throwing a ball at us because we wouldn’t share our pretzels with him.”) (Johnson et al., 1994, p. 809). Other

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

145

disputes include violating conventional and moral rules (e.g., cutting in line at recess, not sharing toys), play fighting, being socially intrusive (e.g., chasing a student around the playground in an intimidating manner), and denying a student access into an existing peer group (e.g., not allowing a classmate to join a basketball game already in progress) (Smith, Inder, & Ratcliff, 1995). Once students enter junior high or middle school, their disputes become more interpersonal in nature (Opotow, 1991) and the frequency with which these disputes occur may increase (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006). Farmer (2000) posited that conflict occurs among adolescent students as they try to protect or improve their social positions or roles by forming peer groups (e.g., cliques, social isolates) with students whom they consider to be similar (e.g., socioeconomic status, popularity). As such, these disputes focus on relational issues, activities (e.g., where to go, what to do), potential romantic partners, material items (e.g., how a student dresses), status and dominance (e.g., who is better at a task or activity), and school work (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006). Consequently, how students react to these disputes also is reflective of their grade level, although as with bullying, students of all grades typically react in a destructive manner instead of a constructive manner. Elementary school students typically try to impose their own solution in which they emerge as the winner; they use verbal or physical threats or tactics; they prevail upon the teacher to intervene; or they may simply do nothing (Longaretti & Wilson, 2006; Smith, Inder, & Ratcliff, 1995). Junior high and middle school students use similar strategies (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006; Opotow, 1991); however, they also may engage in forms of retaliation against their aggressor, which include gossiping about the student, ostracizing the student, using exclusion and inclusion strategies to form peer groups, and damaging the student’s property (Farmer, 2000; Scott, 2008; Stevahn et al., 2002). Interestingly, when junior high students believe that they caused the conflict, they report using integrative strategies to address the conflict; when they believe that other individuals caused the conflict, they report using distributive strategies (Scott, 2008). As such, the issue that arises is not whether conflict in the K-12 classroom will surface, but rather how conflict is addressed and eventually resolved. One agent which influences how conflict is addressed and resolved is teachers and their predispositions toward classroom conflict. In a study of elementary school teachers, Longaretti and Wilson (2006) reported that many of their respondents viewed classroom conflict in an overwhelmingly negative manner. These negative views toward classroom conflict may be shaped, in part, by the fact that teachers believe they are ill-prepared to deal with classroom conflict (Jenkins, Ritblatt, & McDonald, 2008), their belief that classroom conflict occurs as a result of student misbehavior (Hamre et al., 2007) or perceptions that some students are labeled as difficult (Silver & Harkins, 2007); the lack of confidence and self-efficacy teachers possess when confronting student misbehavior (Martin, Linfoot, & Stephenson, 1999; Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006); and the lack of both pre-service and in-service training that teachers receive on classroom conflict management and resolution (Leighfield & Trube, 2005),

146

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

although it should be noted that not all teachers welcome in-service training on conflict resolution (Jenkins, Ritblatt, & MacDonald, 2008). To resolve classroom conflict, teachers often select their response from a limited repertoire of behaviors (Chen, 2003). Teachers may manage the conflict by embracing the role of arbitrator or mediator in order to help students resolve the conflict, they may adopt the role of referee, umpire, or judge in order to resolve the conflict without any student input; they may engage in positive reinforcement (e.g., humor) by focusing on the positive aspects associated with the conflict; they may rely on the legitimate power they possess as a way to curb the conflict; they may simply adopt an avoidance stance by forcing the students to end the conflict without any resolution or by physically separating the students; or they may absolve themselves of any involvement in the conflict by referring the students involved in the conflict to an administrator (e.g., principal) or another teacher (Chen, 2003; Jenkins, 2008; Longaretti & Wilson, 2006; Martin, Linfoot, & Stephenson, 1999). Conversely, teachers also may rely on the use of integrating or compromising conflict-handling styles. In two studies conducted in elementary and secondary school teachers, Morris-Rothschild and Brassard (2006) and Cornille, Pestle, and Vanwy (1999) found that teachers report using the integrating and the compromising conflict-handling styles most frequently and using the dominating and the avoiding conflict-handling styles the least frequently. Among early childhood educators, Jenkins (2008) discovered that teachers reported using cooperative conflict-handling styles most frequently (71 percent), followed by their use of competing (21 percent) and avoiding (8 percent) conflict-handling styles. Another factor in conflict is whether students are provided with the opportunity to learn how to resolve conflict. As Opotow (1991) noted, most students lack the skills and knowledge needed to handle conflict. To combat this lack of skills and knowledge, conflict resolution education programs can be implemented into a school’s curriculum through direct skills instruction, peer mediation programs, or curriculum-based interventions (Garrard & Lipsey, 2007; Opotow, 1991). The goal of these programs is to facilitate constructive resolution of students’ interpersonal conflicts by teaching them how to mediate their own conflicts as well as the conflicts that occur among their peers (Stevahn, Munger, & Kealey, 2005). By doing so, students become empowered to resolve their own conflicts rather than relying on the intervention of other parties to resolve the conflict for them (Heydenberk & Heydenberk, 2007). Conflict resolution education programs also enable the development of student self-esteem and selfconfidence, improve the classroom climate, and reduce the amount of violence and physical aggressiveness that exists in schools (Heydenberk & Heydenberk, 2007; Heydenberk, Heydenberk, & Tzenova, 2006). More importantly, students who are not taught to manage a conflict constructively may never learn to do so (Stevahn, Munger, & Kealey, 2005). The inability to manage conflict effectively can negatively impact their relationships both in and out of the classroom. One example of a conflict resolution education program is the Teaching Students to be Peacemakers Program developed, implemented, and evaluated in

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

147

elementary and secondary classrooms across the country (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Stevahn, 2004). The purpose of the Peacemakers Program is twofold: (a) make schools a safe environment in which student learning can occur; and (b) socialize students into the behaviors they will need to resolve conflicts throughout their lives (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Typically, the Peacemakers Program is a 10 to 20-hour training program that occurs over a span of several weeks, is provided to all students (unlike some conflict resolution education programs that train a select number of students, teachers, and administrators), does not require the development of new courses or units of study, and is assessed regularly for its effectiveness and student retention of training content (Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Stevahn, 2004). According to Johnson and Johnson (2002), the Peacemakers Program is a theory- (e.g., social interdependence theory, conflict) and research-based program that trains students to manage conflict constructively. The program has six objectives: (a) create a classroom climate conducive to conflict resolution; (b) build among students and teachers a positive attitude toward conflict resolution; (c) create awareness of how relational participants can choose a resolution strategy that meets the needs of both participants; (d) ensure all students, regardless of their cultural or socio-economic backgrounds, are familiar with the conflict resolution procedures utilized by the school; (e) provide students and teachers with the opportunity to practice the suggested procedures in hopes that these procedures become internalized; and (f) create a program that empowers students to monitor their behaviors in conflict situations (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). The Peacemakers Program training occurs in five phases (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). In the first phase, students are taught how to determine a conflict situation and the potentially positive outcomes of conflict (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). In the second phase, students are taught how to negotiate a conflict through the adoption of an integrative stance (i.e., problem solving, win-win) rather than a distributive stance (i.e., forcing, win-lose) (Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Students are trained to adopt an integrative stance by following a six-step process: (a) Describe what you want by defining the conflict as a small, specific, and mutual problem; (b) Describe how you feel by communicating in an accurate and unambiguous manner; (c) Describe the reasons for your wants and feelings; (d) Take the other person’s perspective and summarize your understanding of what he or she wants, feels, and the reasons for these wants and feelings; (e) Invent three optional plans (plans A, B, and C) that maximize joint benefits; and (f) Choose the wisest course of action (i.e., students determine how they should act in the future and articulate an alternative plan of action should the first plan not work) and formalize the agreement with a handshake (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). (For an exemplar of how these six steps operate, see Stevahn, 2004.) In the third phase, students are taught how to mediate conflict as it arises among their classmates. Assuming the role of mediator, students are taught to

148

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

end the dispute, determine whether the disputants are committed to participating in the mediation process and following the rules of conflict mediation (see Johnson & Johnson, 2004), take the disputants through the six steps identified in the second phase of the Peacemakers Program, and have the disputants formalize the agreement by completing a mediation report form (for an example, see Johnson & Johnson, 2004) and shaking hands. The mediator keeps the form and checks in on the disputants one or two days later to ensure the resolution has been sustained (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). In the fourth phase, teachers implement the Peacemakers Program. For the remainder of the school term, two students (working as a team) are selected daily by the teacher. (This role is rotated daily so that all students have the opportunity to play the mediator role.) Wearing official tee shirts that identify them as mediators, the team canvasses the classroom and the playground and mediates conflict as it occurs, whether it is through intervention (i.e., they observe a conflict and then mediate it) or a request from their classmates. If the team is unable to mediate the conflict, the conflict is referred to a teacher, who then mediates the conflict. If the teacher is unsuccessful, the teacher then attempts to arbitrate the conflict. If this arbitration fails, the teacher refers the conflict to an administrator (e.g., principal) and the administrator then engages in arbitration. In the fifth phase, training occurs throughout the school term. For the Peacemakers Program to work, students require continual practice to apply the steps and teachers must commit to implementing the program (Stevahn, Munger, & Kealey, 2005). According to Johnson, Johnson, and Dudley (1992), conflict resolution education training is considered to be effective if three goals are realized. The first goal is that training reduces the number of conflicts referred to teachers and administrators. Johnson et al. (1994) reported that prior to training, 50 percent of students required teacher or principal intervention when experiencing conflict; after training, conflicts referred to teachers decreased by 80 percent and conflicts referred to principals were reduced to zero. In a meta-analysis of eight studies that examined the effectiveness of the Peacemakers Program, Johnson and Johnson (2002) found that teachers indicated that training results in student conflict that is less severe and destructive than prior to training efforts. Moreover, when students participate in conflict resolution training programs, teachers report a decrease in a host of antisocial student behaviors including bullying, harassment, physical fights, disruptive behaviors, and distrust among students (Dykeman, 2003; Garrard & Lipsey, 2007; Heydenberk & Heydenberk, 2007) and a decline in out-of-school suspensions (Cantrell, Parks-Savage, & Rehfuss, 2007). The second goal is that students master the negotiation and mediation procedures and skills taught in the conflict resolution education programs (Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992). In several studies conducted on the effectiveness of the Peacemakers Program, researchers have concluded that students who are trained in conflict resolution (a) exhibit a more positive attitude toward conflict; (b) recall and retain the negotiation and mediation procedures at a higher rate;

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

149

(c) apply the negotiation and mediation procedures, both short- and long-term, at a higher rate; (d) use constructive strategies and engage in constructive interventions at a higher rate; (e) are less likely to be referred to a principal for disciplinary reasons; (f) are more psychologically healthy in terms of their effect toward conflict resolution; and (g) score higher on content area assignments, projects, and exams in which the program content is embedded (e.g., English, civics) than students who are untrained in conflict resolution (Johnson & Johnson, 1995, 1996; Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992; Stevahn, 2004; Stevahn et al., 1997; Stevahn et al., 2000; Stevahn et al., 2002; Stevahn, Munger, & Kealey, 2005). Additionally, students who receive conflict resolution education report that they perceive gains in their self-efficacy toward conflict (Goldsworthy et al., 2007). The third goal is that students report using these procedures and skills in settings other than the classroom (Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992). Such settings include locations within and around the school such as the hallway, the cafeteria, the playground, and on the bus (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Another setting is at home and involves interactions students have with their parents, siblings, friends, and even their pets (Johnson & Johnson, 1995; Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992). Furthermore, teachers have reported that parental interest in the Peacemakers Program is both significant and positive (Johnson et al., 1994), which is supported by Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley (1992) finding that several parents requested the opportunity to partake in the training themselves. Thus, despite the negative connotations associated with the presence of conflict in the K-12 classroom, researchers have identified that the presence of conflict allows students to develop the necessary strategies and attitudes to manage their conflict in a constructive manner. For many students, the presence of conflict provides them with the opportunity to learn how to cooperate with each (Chen, 2001) and to take into account other students’ perspectives (Chen, 2003). Not only are students able to recognize that both parties approach a conflict with their own ideas, needs, desires, or interests (Chen, 2001), but they also learn how to resolve a conflict in an effective manner that will aid them in their future interactions with each other (Briggs, 1996; Jenkins, Ritblatt, & McDonald, 2008) as well as decrease their chances of becoming socially isolated (Scott, 2008).

Recommendations Bullying and conflict are two powerful and harmful forces in the lives of K-12 students that can result in negative outcomes such as loneliness, depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal. Though further research is necessary, the existent literature on bullying and conflict resolution provides a starting point for reducing the effects of these powerful and harmful forces, suggesting that teachers and administrators who receive the necessary support and knowledge will notice a difference in their classroom climates. In accordance with this optimism, we provide several recommendations teachers should heed when combating the negative effects of student aggressiveness in the K-12 classroom.

150

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

The first recommendation is that teachers must recognize that not all acts of student aggressiveness are visible or overt (Smith, Inder, & Ratcliff, 1995). Bullying may occur or conflict may arise when students are working in groups, left unsupervised on the playground, completing their individual assignments while the teacher is standing in the front of the classroom, or standing in line for recess or lunch. In fact, students engaging in bullying or conflict may do so because they recognize the unlikelihood that they will be discovered as acting as a bully or instigating conflict. Bullying and conflict also might emerge in the form of teasing; although many teasing attempts appear to be light-hearted, in actuality, these attempts can be mean-spirited, degrading, and cruel (Mills & Carwile, 2009). Although it is not possible for teachers to always be aware of all student behavior, teachers should monitor their students’ behavior, take their complaints seriously, and be prepared to sanction any aggressive act, as benign as it may appear (Conoley, 2008). By doing so, teachers can instill healthy ideals about mutual respect and refute the notion that aggressiveness is an acceptable means of classroom communication. The second recommendation is that teachers should work toward establishing a supportive classroom environment that fosters healthy student norms (Bucher & Manning, 2005). This environment not only should encourage students to identify, share, and explore their feelings, fears, and concerns, but also should facilitate the development of students and their ability to engage in active listening, empathy, and perspective taking. There is evidence that this type of environment can reduce aggressive communication in the classroom (Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008). Levin (2008) posited that classrooms should be governed by the safety rule, in which students are taught to consider that the classroom is a place where their bodies, feelings, thoughts, ideas, words, work (e.g., projects and assignments), and supplies (e.g., pencils, books) are free from criticism, rejection, embarrassment, and denigration by their classmates. Among other ways in which a supportive classroom environment can be established is the designation of a spot in the classroom such as a “peace table,” a “conflict- or bully-free zone,” or a “peace corner” (Adams & Wittmer, 2001). Another strategy is to engage in activities such as the “Web of Life,” a game in which students gather in a circle and take turns tossing a ball of yarn to each other (Heydenberk, Heydenberk, & Tzenova, 2006). The student who catches the ball receives a compliment from the student who threw it; the game ends when all students have had the chance to catch the ball. (For other activities, see Cothran, 2001; Heydenberk & Heydenberk, 2007; Amatruda, 2006; and Palmer, 2001.) For any activity to work, however, it must be both age and grade appropriate (Heydenberk & Heuydenberk, 2007). Another way in which teachers can establish a supportive classroom environment is by having their students complete training sessions on how to increase their levels of trait argumentativeness and decrease their levels of trait verbal aggressiveness. In a training session conducted with seventh graders over a seven-day period of instruction, Rancer et al. (1997) found that after such training, students reported an increase in their general tendency to argue and

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

151

the number of arguments generated during a discussion as well as an increase (albeit unexpected) in their trait verbal aggressiveness. Additionally, the majority of students reported that they perceived the training to be useful and anticipated using the training in future endeavors. In a follow-up study conducted a year later, Rancer et al. (2000) found that while students’ levels of trait argumentativeness did not change (suggesting that the training efforts were viable), students’ levels of verbal aggressiveness did increase. Coupled with Roberto and Finucane’s (1997) findings that a strong correlation exists between junior high students’ self-reports of their argumentative and verbally aggressive traits, Rancer et al. (2000) concluded that students may have a difficult time differentiating between an attack on a position (i.e., argumentativeness) and an attack on a person (i.e., verbal aggressiveness). Not only should teachers take this conclusion into account when managing their classrooms, but also they should recognize that junior high boys are more argumentative and verbally aggressive than junior high girls and eighth graders are more argumentative and verbally aggressive than seventh graders (Roberto & Finucane, 1997). The third recommendation is that teachers should assess their own aggressive traits and use of their own aggressive behaviors with their students and, if needed, modify their behaviors accordingly. Alongside family and societal forces, teachers serve as examples by which students learn how to communicate. All too often teachers fail to recognize both the presence and ramifications of their own aggressive traits and behaviors. This use of aggressive behaviors can exert a polarizing force on students and affect how students gauge the classroom environment (Myers & Rocca, 2001; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). For instance, Roach (1992) found that among K-12 teachers, male teachers rate themselves higher in argumentativeness than female teachers and high school teachers rate themselves higher in argumentativeness than elementary school teachers whereas Avtgis and Rancer (2008) discovered that teacher verbal aggressiveness is related positively with teacher burnout. In terms of conflict, Opotow (1991) posited that most teachers tend to either overreact or underreact to conflict. Given this, it is imperative that K-12 teachers examine the conflict-handling styles they use in the classroom and strive to use styles that are conducive to meeting the needs of their students (Cornille, Pestle, & Vanwy, 1999). The fourth recommendation is that teachers must distinguish between male and female students’ forms of aggressiveness. Although male and female elementary and secondary students are similar in terms of their acceptance of aggressiveness and reported levels of rumor spreading (Roberto et al., 2003), there is evidence that male students engage in higher rates of bullying, including both physical aggressiveness and verbal aggressiveness (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Chang et al., 2005; Onyskiw & Hayduk, 2001) than female students whereas female students engage in higher rates of relational aggressiveness than male students (Kuppens et al., 2008; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Girls also are teased more frequently than boys about their physical appearance (Mooney, Creeser, & Blatchford, 1991). These findings indicate that teachers need to be prepared to handle bullying concerns

152

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

differently based on student sex. At the same time, teachers need to be wary of their own stereotypes and remember that despite the popular notion that “boys will be boys,” both male and female students can and will behave in physically aggressive ways. Teachers also should consider that in light of the recent stereotype that it is only mean girls who backstab, spread rumors, and humiliate, these “gendered” aggressive behaviors occur among both sexes (Swearer, 2008). Just as it is important to recognize real and perceived sex differences, teachers also must be mindful of bullying and conflicts that are based on racial and ethnic differences. Not only are Black children, particularly girls, teased more often than Caucasian children, but this teasing frequently occurs, either directly or indirectly, through verbally aggressive attacks about their clothing and accessories, which may be different from Caucasian students (Mooney, Creeser, & Blatchford, 1991). Caucasian students attending integrated schools also receive more aggressiveness than those students who attend non-integrated schools (Hanish, 2000). These distinctions in terms of sex and race reflect a power and status component to aggressiveness, indicating that those students who lack power or status are more likely to be teased by those students who hold power or status. For instance, less powerful (i.e., unpopular) male students will bully popular female students (Rodkin & Berger, 2008), suggesting that female students are below male students in the social hierarchy. Teachers must be cognizant of these power distinctions when helping their students become empathic and competent communicators with members of all sexes, races, and other social categorizations. Furthermore, schools would be wise to introduce a curriculum that addresses these and other intergroup boundaries (e.g., class, religion, and culture) to help students learn to identify with those individuals who are different from them, particularly in light of the finding that students in suburban schools are more likely to engage in conflict over access to opportunities or over possessions, turn-taking, or preferences on which activities in which to engage whereas students in urban schools are more likely to engage in conflict that involves physical or verbal aggressiveness (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).

Conclusion As educators become increasingly more aware of the harm caused by student aggressive communication in the classroom, it is important for scholars to examine closely the characteristics and outcomes of bullying and conflict in the K-12 classroom. In this chapter, we have reviewed relevant research on bullying and classroom conflict, paying particular attention to the ways in which teachers can transform their classrooms into safe, open environments where students can empathize and relate to each other in non-aggressive ways. To provide students with the opportunity to maximize their success in the classroom, it is essential that teachers adopt an active stance that discourages students from engaging in various forms of maltreatment (e.g., bullying, theft,

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

153

vandalism, fighting, rejection, name calling, teasing, ridicule, and the formation of cliques, in-groups, and out-groups) that, unfortunately, are all too common in the K-12 classroom.

References Adams, S. K., & Wittmer, D. S. (2001). “I had it first”: Teaching young children to solve problems peacefully. Childhood Education: Infancy through Early Adolescence, 78(1), 10–16. Amatruda, M-J. (2006). Conflict resolution and social skill development with children. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama, & Society, 58(4), 168–181. Andreou, E. (2001). Bully/victim problems and their association with coping behaviour in conflictual peer interactions among school-age children. Educational Psychology, 21, 59–66. “A Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings.” (2007). Retrieved October 7, 2008 from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html. Atkin, C. K., Smith, S. W., Roberto, A. J., Fedluk, T., & Wagner, T. (2002). Correlates of verbally aggressive communication in adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 251–268. Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2008). The relationship between trait verbal aggressiveness and teacher burnout in K-12 teachers. Communication Research Reports, 25, 86–89. Bauman, S. (2008). The association between gender, age, and acculturation, and depression and overt and relational victimization among Mexican American elementary students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 528–554. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, C., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33. Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. The Journal of Adolescence, 19, 341–361. Brame, B., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of physical aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 503–512. Briggs, D. (1996). Turning conflicts into learning experiences. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 60–63. Bucher, K. T., & Manning, M. L. (2005). Creating safe schools. The Clearing House, 79(1), 55–60. Cantrell, R., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels of elementary school violence with peer mediation. Professional School Counseling, 10, 475–481. Chang, L., Li, K. K., Lei, L., Liu, H., Guo, B., Wang, Y., et al. (2005). Peer acceptance and self-perceptions of verbal and behavioural aggression and social withdrawal. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 48–57. Chen, D. W. (2001). “Oh no! They’re arguing again!;” Using peer conflicts to foster young children’s moral and social development. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 5–8. Chen, D. W. (2003). Preventing violence by promoting the development of competent conflict resolution skills: Exploring roles and responsibilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 203–208.

154

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

Conoley, J. C. (2008). Sticks and stones can break my bones and words can really hurt me. School Psychology Review, 37, 217–220. Cornille, T. A., Pestle, R. E., & Vanwy, R. W. (1999). Teachers’ conflict management styles with peers and students’ parents. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 69–79. Cothran, D. (2001). The three T’s of conflict resolution. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 12, 20–21. Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123–130. Crozier, W. R., & Dimmock, P. S. (1999). Name-calling and nicknames in a sample of primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 505–516. Cullen, D. (2009). Columbine. New York: Twelve. Delia, J. G., & Clark, R. A. (1977). Cognitive complexity, social perception, and the development of listener-adapted communication in six-, eight-, ten-, and twelve-yearold boys. Communication Monographs, 44, 326–344. Delia, J. G., Kline, S. L., & Burleson, B. R. (1979). The development of persuasive communication strategies in kindergarteners through twelfth-graders. Communication Monographs, 46, 241–256. Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2006). Beyond the class norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1289–1299. Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139–151. Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victims. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A socialecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dykeman, B. F. (2003). The effects of family conflict resolution on children’s classroom behavior. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, 41–46. Farmer, T. W. (2000). The social dynamics of aggressive and disruptive behavior in school: Implications for behavior consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 299–321. Garrard, W. M., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Conflict resolution education and antisocial behavior in U.S. schools: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 9–38. Gilmartin, B. G. (1987). Peer group antecedents of sever love-shyness in males. Journal of Personality, 55, 467–489. Goldsworthy, R., Schwartz, N., Barab, S., & Landa, A. (2007). Evaluation of a collaborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum. Education Tech Research Development, 55, 597–625. Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. E. (2002). Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anxiety in middle school children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 59–68. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Mashburn, A. J. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social Development, 17, 115–136. Hanish, L. D. (2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting children’s victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201–223.

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

155

Henry, D., Guerra, N., & Huesmann, R. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59–81. Hernandez, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school counselor. Professional School Counseling, 7, 256–262. Heydenberk, R. A., & Heydenberk, W. R. (2007). The conflict resolution connection: Increasing school attachment in cooperative classroom communities. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 16(3), 18–22. Heydenberk, R. A., Heydenberk, W. R., & Tzenova, V. (2006). Conflict resolution and bully prevention: Skills for school success. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 55–69. Heydenberk, W., & Heydenberk, R. (2007). More than manners: Conflict resolution in primary level classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 119–126. Higgins, D. J. & McCabe, M. P. (2000). Multi-type maltreatment and the long-term adjustment of adults. Child Abuse Review, 9, 6–18. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., & Seed, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67–77. Jenkins, S., Ritblatt, S., & McDonald, J. S. (2008). Conflict resolution among early childhood educators. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 429–450. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Teaching students to be peacemakers: Results of five years of research. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 417–438. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 459–506. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Implementing the “Teaching Students to be Peacemakers Program.” Theory into Practice, 43, 68–79. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Dudley, B. (1992). Effects of peer mediation training on elementary school students. Mediation Quarterly, 10, 89–99. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., & Acikgoz, K. (1994). Effects of conflict resolution training on elementary school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 803–817. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (2002). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A metaanalysis. Journal of Research in Education, 12, 25–39. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269–278. Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with relational aggression in elementary-school-aged children: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639–660. Lahey, B. B., Conger, R. D., Atkeson, B. M., & Treiber, F. A. (1984). Parenting behavior and emotional status of physically abusive mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 1062–1071.

156

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197–209. Leighfield, K., & Trube, M. B. (2005). Teaching education programs in Ohio and conflict management: Do they walk the walk? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 409–413. Levin, D. E. (2008). Building peaceable classroom communities: Counteracting the impact of violence on young children. Exchange, 183, 57–60. Longaretti, L., & Wilson, J. (2006). The impact of perceptions on conflict resolution. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 3–15. Martin, A. J., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (1999). How teachers respond to concerns about misbehavior in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 347–358. Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2007). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 661–685. Mills, C. B., & Carwile, A. M. (2009). The good, the bad, and the borderline: Separating teasing from bullying. Communication Education, 58, 276–301. Mooney, A., Creeser, R., & Blatchford, P. (1991). Children’s views on teasing and fighting in junior schools. Educational Research, 33, 103–112. Morris-Rothschild, B. K., & Brassard, M. R. (2006). Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role of attachment styles and classroom management efficacy. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 105–121. Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137. Nesdale, D., Durkin, K., Maass, A., Kiesner, J., & Griffiths, J. A. (2008). Effects of group norms on children’s intentions to bully. Social Development, 17, 889–907. Nickerson, A. B., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 687–703. Noakes, M. A., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2006). Age and gender differences in peer conflict. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 35, 881–891. Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development, 48, 1301–1313. Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behaviour: Definitions and measurements. In M. W. Klein (Ed.), Cross national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187–201). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer. Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190. Onyskiw, J. E., & Hayduk, L. A. (2001). Processes underlying children’s adjustment in families characterized by physical aggression. Family Relations, 50, 376–385. Opotow, S. (1991). Adolescent peer conflicts. Education & Urban Society, 91, 116–136. Osterman, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., et al. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 1–8. Palmer, J. (2001). Conflict resolution: Strategies for the elementary classroom. The Social Studies, 92, 65–68. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom

157

Rancer, A. S., Avtgis, T. A., Kosberg, R. L., & Whitecap, V. G. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness between seventh and eighth grades. Communication Education, 49, 114–119. Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V., Kosberg, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Training in argumentativeness: Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior. Communication Education, 46, 273–286. Roach, K. D. (1992). Teacher demographic characteristics and levels of teacher argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 9, 65–71. Roberto, A. J., & Finucane, M. E. (1997). The assessment of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in adolescent populations. Communication Quarterly, 45, 21–36. Roberto, A. J., Meyer, G., Boster, F. J., & Roberto, H. L. (2003). Adolescents’ decisions about verbal and physical aggression: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Human Communication Research, 29, 135–147. Rodkin, P. C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom?: Social status asymmetries by victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473–485. Rossman, B. B. R. (1999). Multiple risks for children exposed to parental violence: Family factors, psychological maltreatment, and trauma. Journal of Aggressions, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 2, 207–237. Sabourin, T., Infante, D. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1993). Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and non-distressed couples. Human Communication Research, 20, 245–267. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 17–24. Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully–victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44. Scott, W. (2008). Communication strategies in early adolescent conflict: An attributional approach. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 375–400. Shantz, C. U. (1987). Conflicts between children. Child Development, 58, 283–305. Silver, C., & Harkins, D. (2007). Labeling, affect, and teachers’ hypothetical approaches to conflict resolution: An exploratory study. Early Education and Development, 18, 625–645. Singer, M. I., Miller, D. B., Guo, S., Flannery, D. J., Frierson, T., & Slovak, K. (1999). Contributors to violent behavior among elementary and middle school children. Pediatrics, 104, 878–884. Smith, A. B., Inder, P. M., & Ratcliff, B. (1995). The nature and context of children’s conflicts. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 30, 103–117. Smith, P. K. (1991). The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimization in school peer groups. The Psychologist, 4, 243–248. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in the Junior School. In D. P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 45–57). London: Trentham Books. Stevahn, L. (2004). Integrating conflict resolution training into the curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 43, 50–58. Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Green, K., & Laginski, A. M. (1997). Effects on high school students of conflict resolution training integrated into English literature. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 302–315. Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Oberle, K., & Wahl, L. (2000). Effects of

158

Scott A. Myers and Christine E. Rittenour

conflict resolution training integrated into a kindergarten curriculum. Child Development, 71, 772–784. Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Schultz, R. (2002). Effects of conflict resolution training integrated into a high school social studies curriculum. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 305–331. Stevahn, L., Munger, L., & Kealey, K. (2005). Conflict resolution in a French immersion elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 3–18. Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–18. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435–450. Swearer, S. M. (2008). Relational aggression: Not just a female issue. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 611–616. Toppo, G. (2009, April 14). 10 years later, the real story behind Columbine. USA Today, p. 10A. Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486–495. Valle, V., Gosney, H., & Sinclair, J. (2008). Qualitative analysis of coroners’ data into the unnatural deaths of children and adolescents. Child Care Health and Development, 34, 721–731. Willer, E. K., & Cupach, W. R. (2008). When “sugar and spice” turn to “fire and ice”: Factors affecting the adverse consequences of relational aggression among adolescent girls. Communication Studies, 59, 415–429.

Chapter 9

Reconsidering the Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

College instructors are often faced with the pedagogical responsibility of challenging students’ opinions and beliefs. Typically, this process of challenging students is intended to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills as well as skills in argumentation and debate. There are moments, however, when instructors may “cross the line” and become overly aggressive with their students, thus hindering the learning process and creating an environment less conducive to mutual respect and productive instructional communication (Schrodt, 2003a). In an effort to further understand this fundamental challenge to effective teaching, instructional communication scholars have devoted the better part of two decades to documenting the nature and prevalence of aggressive communication in the college classroom (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b; Infante, 1995; Infante & Rancer, 1996; Myers et al., 2007; Myers & Knox, 1999; Myers & Rocca, 2000; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006; Roach, 1995a, 1995b; Rocca & McCroskey, 1999; Schrodt, 2003a, 2003b). With one notable exception (Roach, 1995a), the most fundamental conclusion drawn from this body of research, and from the literature on aggressive communication more generally (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006), is that the outcomes of instructor argumentativeness are positive and the outcomes of instructor verbal aggressiveness are negative. Although instructional scholars have developed a theoretical tradition examining aggressive communication in higher education, the bulk of this research has focused almost exclusively on students’ perceptions of instructors’ argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors. We believe this provides only a partial understanding of aggressive communication in college classroom environments, in part, because what constitutes an argumentative or verbally aggressive message depends upon both the relational and situational context in question (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). In the college classroom, the nature of the teacher–student relationship and the classroom environment provides the relational and situational backgrounds against which the foreground of argumentative or verbally aggressive behavior is processed and evaluated. Add to this the fact that the majority of investigations examining aggressive communication in the college classroom (a) are cross-sectional in nature, and (b) rely on modified versions of trait measures originally designed for use as

160

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

self-reports, there emerges fruitful ground for extending extant research on the role of aggressive communication in higher education. Consider, for example, each of the following anecdotes that colleagues of ours shared when asked about some of their more recent experiences with aggressive communication in the classroom (their names have been changed, of course, to protect their identity): Dr. Johnson shared the story of Deena, a student who had decided at some point earlier in the semester that she was dissatisfied with Dr. Johnson’s teaching style and course policies and began derogating her to other students outside of class. As rumors spread of Deena’s discontent and eventually made their way back to the instructor, Dr. Johnson was faced with the dilemma of responding (or not) to a student who acted like a model citizen in class and who had previously expressed no concerns with the class or with her teaching style. Dr. Sanchez relayed the story of Tim, a non-traditional student who was ten years his senior and with whom he had engaged in an ongoing argument concerning two evaluations Tim had received on classroom presentations. Over the course of six weeks, Dr. Sanchez and Tim engaged in a series of arguments over the grades he had received on the presentations, with each episode “heating up” and “simmering down” in similar fashion and with no apparent resolution in sight (at least from Tim’s perspective). Several of the episodes involved face-to-face discussions, and several of the episodes occurred via email. Olivia recalled her most memorable moment as a second-year graduate teaching assistant in the basic speech course. She had a female student who gave a persuasive presentation opposing some of the cultural traditions of countries in the Middle East, traditions that the student believed were sexist in nature. At the end of her presentation, a male student who was a native of one of the countries mentioned in the speech stood up and began verbally attacking the female student’s presentation. In response, the female student defended her position on the issue and began attacking the male student’s culture. Olivia spent the remainder of the class period attempting to mediate the ensuing arguments that erupted in class, and she recalled how that one classroom experience drastically altered the classroom environment for the remainder of the semester. In each of these accounts, argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors fundamentally altered the teacher–student relationship in question as well as the classroom environment, and yet, instructors looking for empirical research on these kinds of issues are left with very few answers. Whether an instructor is responding to indirect (or passive) aggression from students, attempting to reconcile a serial argument over course policies and/or grading procedures, or managing argumentative and/or verbally aggressive behaviors between students in the classroom, further research is needed to provide college

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

161

instructors with theories and empirical answers to the everyday experience of aggressive communication in the teacher–student relationship. Thus, our primary goal in this chapter is to reconsider the role of aggressive communication in higher education. Most of the extant research on aggressive communication in instructional settings focuses primarily on students’ perceptions of overt instances of instructor argumentation or verbally aggression. Only a handful of studies have considered the role that students themselves play in the aggressive communication process (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b; Schrodt, 2003b), and to our knowledge, none have examined actual message exchanges or aggressive communication as a relational process that unfolds over time. Challenging students’ opinions and beliefs with empirical theory and research remains one of the fundamental tasks facing all college instructors, and thus, continued research examining the competent use of argumentation in the classroom is needed. At some point during a college education, however, we believe that most instructors and students will experience other, more indirect and/or relational forms of aggressive communication, forms that require further exploration. Consequently, in this chapter, we re-examine current research on aggressive communication in the college classroom and proffer two relatively new directions that future scholars can take to further our understanding of aggressive communication in the college classroom. First, we briefly review extant research on aggressive communication in college classrooms and discuss Infante’s (1988) inventional system for training young adults in argumentation skills. Second, we re-introduce what we contend is a much more frequently occurring form of aggressive behavior in the college classroom, namely, indirect (or passive) aggression. Finally, we advance serial arguments as a form of argumentation that is receiving increased attention in interpersonal communication scholarship and that we believe holds tremendous promise for extending our understanding of aggressive communication in college teacher–student relationships. We conclude our chapter by briefly considering how the use of computer-mediated communication may alter the various ways in which indirect (or passive) aggression and/or serial arguments are expressed and received.

Aggressive Communication in College Classroom Environments In their most recent treatise, Rancer and Avtgis (2006) provided a comprehensive review of argumentation and aggressive communication in college classroom environments. Following the general classification scheme proffered by Myers (2003), Rancer and Avtgis summarized four distinct bodies of aggressive communication research in instructional contexts, including studies that explored: (1) perceived instructor argumentativeness; (2) perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness; (3) perceptions of both instructor traits (i.e., argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness); and (4) instructors’ use of verbally aggressive messages. Rather than risk redundancy by reviewing each of these areas in detail

162

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

(for a detailed review, see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006), in this section, we provide a brief overview of the conclusions drawn from this body of work about argumentation and verbal aggression in the college classroom context. First, instructional scholars have examined students’ perceptions of instructors’ trait argumentativeness. Building from the belief that teacher argumentativeness is likely to have a positive influence on teacher–student interactions, and ultimately, student learning, Roach (1992, 1995a, 1995b) conducted a series of investigations exploring both the antecedents and outcomes of teacher argumentativeness. In one study, Roach (1995a) examined teaching assistants’ (TAs) argumentativeness, in part, because TAs constitute a major portion of instructional personnel at colleges and universities, and because they often lack the experience and pedagogical knowledge of regular faculty staff. Interestingly, Roach found that TA argumentativeness was inversely associated with both student affective learning and TA prosocial power use. That is, students with low-argumentative TAs reported more favorable attitudes toward the instructor, toward the course content, and toward the behaviors recommended in the course than students with moderate or high-argumentative TAs. Low-argumentative TAs were also seen as using more referent power (i.e., likeable) and expert power (i.e., knowledgeable) than moderate or high argumentative TAs (Roach, 1995a). One possible explanation for these counter-intuitive findings, however, may stem from the idea that students may confuse TA argumentativeness with verbal aggressiveness (VA) (Roach, 1995a). For instance, in a follow-up study, Roach (1995b) found that TAs who reported higher levels of argumentativeness were more likely to view themselves as using more referent and expert power in the classroom, providing preliminary evidence of a discrepancy between TAs’ perceptions of their argumentative behavior and students’ perceptions of the effects of that behavior in the classroom. Schrodt (2003b) later demonstrated that students with moderate to high levels of trait VA are more likely to perceive their instructors as being more verbally aggressive than students with low levels of trait VA, further supporting the idea that students may not always accurately process instructors’ aggressive (or argumentative) behaviors. Of course, it could also be that Roach’s (1995a) earlier findings with TAs were merely a function of the target instructors used in his report. Using college professors as the target instructors, for example, Myers and Knox (2000) reported that perceived instructor argumentativeness was positively associated with students’ affective learning, while Schrodt (2003a) found that perceived instructor argumentativeness was positively associated with students’ reports of both instructor credibility and course evaluations. At a minimum, then, most of the empirical research supports the idea that teacher argumentativeness has small, but positive effects on student outcomes in the college classroom, though Roach’s (1995a) results do raise the possibility that instructor status and teaching experience may moderate those effects. The second focus of inquiry on aggressive communication in instructional contexts has examined students’ perceptions of instructor trait VA (Myers,

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

163

2003; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Here, instructional scholars have confirmed what other interpersonal and organizational scholars have found, namely, that the negative effects of verbally aggressive behavior transcend different relational contexts, including the teacher–student relationship. For example, Rocca and McCroskey (1999) reported that teachers who were seen as more verbally aggressive were also seen as less immediate, less similar, and less task, socially, and physically attractive by their students. Students who perceive their instructors as being highly verbally aggressive are also less likely to attend class (Rocca, 2004). It is important to note, however, that students’ perceptions of instructors’ VA are influenced, to some extent, by their own predispositions. As Schrodt (2003b) noted, students with moderate to high levels of trait VA or low to moderate levels of self-esteem are more likely to view their instructors as being more verbally aggressive than students with either low levels of trait VA or high levels of self-esteem. That being said, the general conclusion to emerge from instructional research on VA is that verbally aggressive behavior typically produces deleterious consequences for teachers and students in the college classroom. The third, and perhaps most notable, body of research on aggressive communication in college classrooms has focused on the effects that both instructor traits have on the teacher–student relationship. According to Infante and Rancer (1996), argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors do not occur in isolation from each other. As both Myers (2002) and Schrodt (2003a) have argued, students’ perceptions of both aggressive communication behaviors may co-exist within the same interaction, and may ultimately combine to influence a variety of teacher-student outcomes. For example, Myers (1998) found that competent and aggressive instructors are perceived to be more argumentative than incompetent or submissive instructors, whereas incompetent and aggressive instructors are perceived to be more verbally aggressive than competent or submissive instructors. Put simply, competent instructors are typically perceived as being argumentative, whereas incompetent instructors are typically perceived as being verbally aggressive (Myers, 1998). This conclusion is further supported by Myers and Knox’s (2000) research, which revealed that instructors who challenged their students’ ideas and beliefs with argumentative forms of communication promoted higher levels of student satisfaction and student affect toward the course and themselves. Conversely, instructors who challenged their students’ ideas and opinions with verbally aggressive communication engendered less student satisfaction and lower ratings of student affect for the course and the instructor. In a similar vein, Myers and Rocca (2001) predicted that instructor argumentativeness would be positively associated with students’ perceptions of a supportive classroom climate, whereas instructor VA would be negatively associated with a supportive climate. Their results revealed, however, that only instructors who were seen as being verbally aggressive were seen as promoting a less supportive classroom climate. Evidently, perceived instructor argumentativeness was unrelated to perceptions of classroom climate, which

164

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

Myers and Rocca (2001) interpreted by suggesting that college students may view instructor argumentativeness as an appropriate, normative, and expected instructor communication behavior. Perceived instructor VA, however, constitutes a violation of students’ expectations for appropriate instructor behavior, one that ultimately undermines supportive classroom interactions and student learning. Having confirmed the negative impact that perceived instructor VA has on supportive classroom environments, Myers (2002) then tested the speculation that the ideal instructor would be one who is high in argumentativeness and low in VA. He found that instructors who were perceived as having this combination of traits have students who are highly motivated, report higher cognitive learning, are more satisfied with their classroom experience, and provide higher teaching evaluations. Such positive student outcomes may result from enhanced credibility, as Edwards and Myers (2007) recently discovered that instructors who are viewed as being high in argumentativeness and low in VA are more likely to engender attributions of competence, character, and care from their students. Not only are students likely to attribute higher levels of credibility to instructors who evidence this combination of aggressive communication traits (i.e., high argumentativeness, low VA), but students themselves are likely to feel better understood when they attempt to communicate with these kinds of instructors (Schrodt, 2003a). As Schrodt (2003a) noted, however, perceived instructor VA is much more likely to inhibit students’ feelings of being understood by their instructors than perceived argumentativeness is to enhance such feelings of understanding. Likewise, Myers et al. (2007) found that perceived instructor VA was negatively associated with students’ motivations to communicate with their instructors, as well as with their question asking, classroom involvement, and out-of-class communication. Taken as a whole, then, the results from each of these lines of research provide two general conclusions worth noting: (1) instructors who are perceived as being argumentative without being verbally aggressive typically produce the most supportive classroom environments, environments where students feel better understood by instructors whom they perceive as being credible sources of information; and (2) the consequences of an instructor’s verbally aggressive behavior are, to some extent, more memorable and more impactful than are the benefits of his/her argumentative behavior. The fourth and final area of extant research on aggressive communication in instructional contexts focuses on the nature and prevalence of instructors’ verbally aggressive messages. According to Infante (1995) and his colleagues (Infante et al., 1992), several types of verbally aggressive messages exist, including competence and character attacks, profanity, teasing, ridicule, maledictions, threats, personality attacks, and physical appearance attacks, to name but a few. In an effort to address the frequency of instructors’ VA in the college classroom, Myers and Knox (1999) asked college students to report the frequency with which college instructors used one or more of ten verbally

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

165

aggressive message types: character, competence, background, and physical appearance attacks, as well as maledictions, teasing, ridicule, threats, swearing, and nonverbal emblems. They found that instructors were perceived as rarely using any of the ten verbally aggressive messages, though when they did use such messages, character attacks were reported as being used most often, while nonverbal emblems were reported as being used least often. In addition, male instructors were perceived to use more profanity, teasing, and ridicule than female instructors, and although instructors rarely used verbally aggressive messages at all, when they did use such messages, students reported lower levels of affective learning (Myers & Knox, 1999). In fact, Myers and Knox’s (1999) results mirror those found in other studies examining the use of verbally aggressive messages in the college classroom, namely, that students are less motivated (Myers & Rocca, 2000), report lower affect (Martin, Weber, & Burant, 1997), and perceive their instructors as being less credible (Myers, 2001) and less appropriate (Martin, Weber, & Burant, 1997) when using verbally aggressive messages. Collectively, then, instructional communication scholars have generated a substantial body of research examining both the unique and combined effects of instructors’ trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on a host of teacher, student, and classroom outcomes. Overall, the results support the fundamental conclusion drawn more generally from the literature on aggressive communication, namely, that the outcomes of instructor argumentativeness are positive and the outcomes of instructor VA are negative (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Although instructor VA occurs with less frequency than instructor argumentativeness, when it does occur, students are more likely to remember and recall such acts of aggression and to report less affect, motivation, and classroom involvement, as well as lower ratings of instructor credibility and teaching evaluations (Myers & Knox, 1999; Myers & Rocca, 2000; Schrodt, 2003a). One explanation for the greater impact that instructor VA has on the classroom environment relative to the impact of instructor argumentativeness may stem from differences in students’ expectations for what constitutes effective and appropriate teaching (Myers & Rocca, 2001), though future research is needed to more carefully examine this line of reasoning. Nevertheless, the use of argumentation to clarify and defend one’s position is a skill that teachers and students alike can learn and use to enhance learning in the college classroom. The use of verbal aggression, however, represents an incompetent communication behavior that inhibits classroom learning and undermines productive and satisfying teacher-student relationships. Building from this premise, Dominic Infante (1988) developed the inventional system for generating arguments in an effort to help train college students and young adults in the use of competent argumentation skills. In the next section, we briefly summarize Infante’s inventional system before addressing some of the limitations associated with extant research on argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in instructional contexts. We then conclude our chapter by proffering two, relatively new directions instructional scholars can take to

166

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

further enhance our understanding of the everyday experience of aggressive communication in higher education.

The Inventional System and Education on Aggressive Communication As noted earlier in this volume and elsewhere (e.g., Infante & Rancer, 1996; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006), scholars have identified five theoretical explanations for the development of verbal aggressiveness (ranging from social learning models to genetics), as well as trait, state, and interactional approaches to studying argumentative and aggressive communication. Although detailed explanations of each theoretical approach lie well beyond the scope of our chapter, we believe the argumentative skills deficiency model (ASDM) holds the most promise for college educators, training professionals, and counselors alike. In essence, the ASDM contends that people who lack the knowledge, skill, and motivation to invent arguments have a greater tendency to resort to verbal aggression. Training people to argue in ways that are competent, problem-focused, and solution-oriented, in turn, is posited to help reduce the tendency to resort to verbal aggression. Building from these general tenets of the ASDM, Infante (1988) developed the inventional system for generating arguments as a framework for teaching adults and adolescents proper argumentation skills. According to Infante (1988), the inventional system is composed of four interrelated topics: problem, blame, solution, and consequence. Each topic contains several questions that provide a methodical and structured framework for generating arguments across propositions of policy, fact, or value (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). For example, the problem and blame components reflect the need for the proposal and address such questions as “What are the signs of the problem?” “What is the specific harm?” and “How widespread is it?” as well as “What causes the problem?” “Is the present system at fault?” and “Should the present system be changed?” The solution and consequence components, on the other hand, reflect how the proposal will satisfy the need. Included within these topics are questions such as “What are the possible solutions?” and “Which solution best solves the problem?” as well as “What good outcomes will result from the solution?” and “What bad outcomes will result from the solution?” Collectively, the series of questions advanced by the inventional system, when committed to memory and used appropriately, can have lasting effects on an individual’s ability to process, evaluate, and communicate arguments. In addition to the inventional system, Infante (1995) also advanced a teaching unit designed specifically toward understanding and controlling verbal aggression in undergraduate students. Briefly, Infante’s unit seeks to accomplish three fundamental goals: (1) to help students understand the nature of verbal aggression; (2) to develop students’ strategies for controlling verbal aggression; and (3) to engage in activities designed to help students internalize both the knowledge and the behaviors learned in the training. As summarized by Rancer and

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

167

Avtgis (2006), the first goal of Infante’s unit is primarily a theoretical goal that focuses on understanding (a) distinctions between constructive and destructive communication; (b) the potency and types of verbally aggressive messages; (c) the origins of verbal aggressiveness; and (d) the effects of verbal aggression. The second goal is more behavioral in nature and is accomplished by helping students use prosocial communication behaviors during interpersonal conflict, including argumentation skills enhanced by training. The final goal of internalizing the knowledge and behaviors acquired in the unit is accomplished via a series of classroom activities. Although few, if any, attempts have been made at integrating the entire curriculum into the undergraduate classroom, Rancer and Avtgis (2006) concluded that Infante’s (1995) curriculum “holds exciting possibilities in teaching the knowledge and skills necessary to control verbal aggression” (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, p. 207). In sum, instructional communication scholars have produced a rather substantial body of research examining argumentation and verbal aggression in college classroom environments, culminating in the development of specific teaching units and curricula useful for enhancing students’ argumentation skills and controlling verbally aggressive behaviors. Despite the value of this research and the future promise of such curriculum development efforts, we believe that extant research has provided only a partial understanding of the everyday experience of aggressive communication in higher education contexts. As we noted in our introduction, the vast majority of studies on aggressive communication in college classroom environments have focused almost exclusively on students’ perceptions of instructors’ trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. In other words, researchers have focused primarily on overt acts of aggression in the classroom; much less is known concerning covert acts of aggressive communication, as well as the use of argumentative and verbally aggressive messages over time within the context of a teacherstudent relationship. In effect, this focus has carried with it an implicit assumption that aggressive communication occurs (un)knowingly as a function of an instructor’s personality and disposition. Although this may certainly be the case for some teachers and students, we believe that more subtle, nuanced forms of aggressive communication may occur with greater frequency and often shape teacher-student relationships in ways that are just as consequential. Consequently, we turn our attention to two, relatively new areas of research that we believe hold tremendous promise for extending our understanding of aggressive communication in higher education: indirect (or passive) aggression and serial argumentation.

Indirect (or Passive) Aggression in College Classroom Environments Instructional communication scholars have only recently begun to examine the use of indirect and/or passive aggression in the college classroom environment (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b). As Kantor (2002) noted, there are

168

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

conflicting ideas of what constitutes passive aggression in both the communication and psychology literatures; some scholars classify it as a type of personality disorder, whereas others describe it as a trait or defense mechanism. Across both sides of the debate, however, scholars have identified a number of behaviors considered to be “passive aggressive,” including passively resisting the fulfillment of routine social and occupational tasks, complaining of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others, being sullen and overly argumentative, unreasonably criticizing and scorning authority, and alternating between hostile defiance and contrition. In their most recent integrated review, Archer and Coyne (2005) conceptualized indirect aggression as covert, “behind-the-back” acts of aggression. Among adolescents and young adults, such forms of aggression often include: (a) gossip, spreading rumors, or breaking confidences; (b) ignoring individuals; and (c) using dirty looks, eye rolls, anonymous notes, or vandalism, among other tactics. Adult forms of indirect aggression often involve: (a) saying something hurtful that appears rational when questioned; (b) putting undue pressure on someone; (c) judging others’ work in an unjust manner; (d) influencing others by making them feel guilty; (e) withdrawing attention; and (f) pretending to be hurt to make someone feel bad, to name a few. Collectively, indirect (or passive) aggressive behaviors are enacted primarily with the goal of inflicting harm indirectly by manipulating or damaging the reputation of another, excluding them from the group, and/or costing them lost professional opportunities (Archer & Coyne, 2005). A decade ago, Beatty et al. (1999) identified four primary forms of indirect interpersonal aggressiveness, forms we contend hold potential implications for teacher-student relationships: spreading rumors, withholding information, facilitating others’ failure through networks, and destruction of property. Although the destruction of property is perhaps less likely to occur in college classroom environments, the spreading of rumors, withholding information, and facilitating another person’s failure through social networks represent very plausible forms of indirect aggression that, for the most part, have been largely ignored by instructional communication scholars. One notable exception, however, is Chory-Assad and Paulsel’s (2004a, 2004b) research on classroom justice and antisocial classroom communication. In their first investigation, Chory-Assad and Paulsel (2004a) examined the unique and combined effects of instructors’ antisocial behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and interactional justice on students’ indirect aggressiveness. Relying on a modified version of Beatty et al.’s (1999) Indirect Interpersonal Aggressiveness (IIA) scale, they found that instructors’ use of seven different antisocial BATs (e.g., punishment, guilt, indebtedness, and legitimate authority, among others) were positively associated with students’ use of indirect aggressiveness (e.g., withholding important information, spreading rumors about the instructor, and working “behind the scenes” to keep the instructor from getting what he or she wants). Likewise, instructors’ interactional justice was a strong, inverse predictor of students’ indirect aggressiveness. When combined with antisocial

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

169

BATs, interactional justice (i.e., the fairness and quality of interpersonal treatment students received from their teachers) emerged as a stronger predictor of students’ indirect aggressiveness than the use of antisocial BATs. Consequently, while an instructor’s use of antisocial communication behaviors may beget antisocial and indirect responses from their students, such forms of indirect aggression are perhaps more likely to emerge as a function of perceived unfairness or inequity in the classroom. In fact, this conclusion is further supported by Chory-Assad and Paulsel’s (2004b) second investigation in which they discovered that procedural justice is inversely associated with student responses of aggression, hostility, revenge, and deception. According to Chory-Assad and Paulsel (2004b), procedural justice in the college classroom refers to the process an instructor uses to evaluate student performance in the classroom and to determine final grades. When students perceive that their instructors are being relatively unfair in how they are determining grades, such perceptions are likely to engender both direct and indirect forms of aggression in the classroom. When coupled with the findings from their first report, the results of Chory-Assad and Paulsel’s (2004b) research clearly underscore the importance of both interactional and procedural justice, as perceived injustices are relatively strong predictors of students’ indirect aggression in the college classroom. Although Chory-Assad and Paulsel’s (2004a, 2004b) investigations are noteworthy for examining students’ indirect aggression as a response to instructors’ antisocial communication behaviors and (mis)use of classroom justice, so many more questions regarding the day-to-day experience of indirect aggression in teacher–student relationships remain. As Beatty et al. (1999) noted, contrary to overt or direct acts of aggressiveness, “we are defenseless against undiscovered indirect assaults” (p. 104). Consider once again the first anecdote provided in the introduction to this chapter. Although other students brought Deena’s indirect aggression to Dr. Johnson’s attention, Dr. Johnson is still faced with the dilemma of knowing how best to respond (if at all) to a student who acts like a model citizen in the classroom, but who is simultaneously undermining and attacking her teaching style and character outside of class to other students. Clearly, Dr. Johnson’s reputation may be in jeopardy as a result of Deena’s indirect aggressiveness, and instructional scholars have yet to fully consider how the use of indirect aggressiveness can undermine successful teacher–student relationships and classroom interactions. Indeed, instructors faced with this particular dilemma have only third-party sources to rely on, and thus, any attempt at confronting the difficult student may only be met with complete denial on the part of the student. Instructors may also face similar dilemmas and frustrations when responding to students who are passively aggressive in the classroom. How often do instructors experience students who glare at them, roll their eyes, or ignore their requests or questions in class? When these types of behaviors occur, how do instructors typically respond? How should they respond, and what types of effects occur as a result of different responses to indirect (or passive) aggression

170

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

in the classroom? Future research is needed to address these types of questions, as well as to carefully examine the antecedents and outcomes of indirect aggression both in and outside of the college classroom. Of course, students themselves may also be the recipients of indirect or passively aggressive messages from their instructors. In their investigation of college teacher misbehaviors, for example, Kearney et al. (1991) identified sarcasm and teasing (or putdowns) as one of the most frequent teacher misbehaviors observed in the college classroom. In what ways, then, do college instructors act indirectly (or passively) aggressively toward their students, both in and outside of the classroom? What motivates college instructors to use indirect aggression toward their students, and what kinds of effects do such acts of aggression have on the students targeted and the classroom as a whole? More importantly, how does a passively aggressive relationship evolve over time between a college instructor and his or her students? Can learning still take place in the presence of such a relationship? Clearly, continued research on the nature, prevalence, and outcomes of indirect aggression in college teacher-student relationships is warranted, as is the extent to which both direct and indirect aggressive communication episodes emerge in teacherstudent relationships over time. Thus, the final section of this chapter examines a new area of research in interpersonal communication scholarship that may inform our understanding of such episodes in college teacher-student relationships.

Serial Argumentation in the College Classroom Environment Defined as “a set of argumentative episodes that focus on a particular issue” (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, p. 329) and that occur over time without complete resolution (Bevan et al., 2007), serial arguments have received increased attention from interpersonal communication scholars, in part because they offer great insight into relational communication (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). When appropriated to the instructional communication context, several features of serial arguments hold tremendous promise for extending our understanding of argumentation in the college classroom environment, including the cyclical and episodic nature of some teacher-student arguments, the perceived resolvability of the issue(s) in question, and the valence or tone of the argument episodes. Taken together, serial arguments that involve multiple, negatively-valenced episodes over an issue that relational partners (e.g., teachers and their students) perceive as being unresolvable are much more likely to negatively impact the stress, well-being, and satisfaction of the partners involved in the arguments (cf. Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b). On the other hand, serial arguments that occur less frequently over relatively benign issues, or issues perceived as being resolvable by both partners, are less likely to produce deleterious consequences and may, in fact, provide a source of private enjoyment that endears relational partners to each other.

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

171

According to Bevan, Finan, and Kaminsky (2008), only a handful of studies have examined serial argument processes from a theoretical perspective, the most notable of which is Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) model of serial arguments. In an initial attempt to describe the progression of serial arguments, Trapp and Hoff (1985) provided a preliminary description of (a) the antecedent conditions necessary for arguing; (b) the primary and secondary processes involved in the actual argument; and (c) the consequences of the serial argument process. First, their model begins with the antecedent condition of a perceived incompatibility, one which includes disagreement about a specific issue and/or the nature of the relationship in question. Here, instructional scholars may find that some serial arguments emerge between instructors and students as a result of discrepancies in perceptions of distributive and procedural justice and/or fairness in grading (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b), whereas others emerge as a function of the learning process (e.g., ongoing discussions of competing theories or ideologies). Although discordant goals are often influential in producing interpersonal conflict, Trapp and Hoff (1985) argued that the existence of incompatibility alone does not necessarily result in a serial argument. Consequently, the decision to confront the other and the physical act of argumentation constitute two primary processes necessary for the enactment of a serial argument. After deciding to confront one’s partner, the physical act of arguing involves disagreeing and reason-giving, the goal of which is to “change disagreement into agreement” (Trapp & Hoff, 1985, p. 6). Relational partners (or in the college classroom, teachers and their students) communicate their perceptions of the incompatibility and engage in a process of reason-giving, one designed to discover and compare shared views with incompatible beliefs in the hope of finding commonalities. If the individuals are able to communicate and fully unite shared views to their incompatible positions, reason-giving is successful and the argument is often resolved (e.g., when a student learns to appreciate a new theory or position on a given topic). If reason-giving strategies are unsuccessful, Trapp and Hoff (1985) posited that the argument moves into the secondary processes of heating up and simmering down. Secondary processes are not essential to the argument, but they are integral to our understanding of the cyclical nature of serial arguments. According to Trapp and Hoff (1985), secondary processes include the acts of “heating up,” where frustrations grow because the arguers are unable to convince each other to accept their points of view, and “simmering down,” where the arguers realize that the issue in question and/or their relationship is more important than the frustrations of the dispute (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008). Not only can these secondary processes occur multiple times over the “life course” of a serial argument (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008), but the process of heating up and simmering down takes an emotional toll that can, and often does, compromise partners’ abilities to engage in healthy argumentation. Finally, Trapp and Hoff (1985) argued that the consequences of a serial argument include avoidance and/or the resolution of the serial argument, which can take weeks, months, or

172

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

even years and may never provide a level of satisfaction that is agreeable to both partners. Although Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) model of serial arguments was generated using qualitative interviews, it has provided a heuristic framework for more recent investigations of serial arguments in both romantic and familial relationships. We now know, for example, that there is tremendous variability in the amount of time that transpires between the perception of an incompatibility and the actual enactment of a serial argument (Bevan et al., 2007; Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008), that different kinds of relational goals are pursued during specific serial argument episodes (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008), and that a greater degree of perceived resolvability is negatively related to stress levels (Malis & Roloff, 2006a), thought avoidance, intrusiveness, and hyperarousal (Malis & Roloff, 2006b). When appropriated to the college classroom environment, then, we believe that Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) model of serial arguments, as well as other more recent models of serial argument episodes (e.g., Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008), hold tremendous promise for examining the nature, prevalence, and effects of serial arguments in teacher-student relationships. Returning to our second anecdote in the introduction to this chapter, Dr. Sanchez finds himself locked in a serial argument with Tim, a nontraditional student who questions Dr. Sanchez’s ability and legitimate authority to evaluate his work in the classroom. In this account, both the instructor and the student engaged in a series of arguments that involved the secondary processes of “heating up” and “simmering down” described by Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) model. More importantly, the issue in question (i.e., grading decisions and authority) is one that is perceived to be relatively unresolvable, at least from Tim’s perspective. Although Dr. Sanchez might be willing to reconsider his evaluations of Tim’s work, if Tim remains dissatisfied with the re-evaluated grades assigned to both presentations, continued episodes in this particular serial argument are likely to build frustrations and undermine a satisfying and productive classroom experience for both Tim and Dr. Sanchez. Using Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) model, instructional communication scholars could investigate these types of situations and advance our understanding of serial arguments in teacher-student relationships. How often do these types of arguments occur, and what issues are typically at stake? How do college instructors and students respond to serial arguments? What role does the perceived resolvability of a serial argument play in facilitating student understanding, satisfaction, and learning? More importantly, to what extent does the valence of the argument in question influence the instructional communication process? We speculate that serial arguments involving the juxtaposition of competing theories, ideologies, or discourses may serve a very useful purpose in the college classroom, in effect providing the very ground where college instructors and students can challenge each others’ opinions and beliefs in ways that are healthy and conducive to classroom learning. Serial arguments focused more on classroom guidelines, grading procedures, and/or very personal matters, however, may lead to more frustrating and/or aggressive communication

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

173

episodes that ultimately undermine successful college teaching. Of course, future research is needed to test this line of reasoning, but at a minimum, we believe that examining serial arguments in the context of teacher-student relationships provides a second avenue for expanding our understanding of aggressive communication in college classrooms.

Conclusion Over the last two decades, instructional communication scholars have produced a substantial body of research signifying the prevalence and importance of aggressive communication in the college classroom environment. Most notably, researchers have demonstrated that the effects of perceived instructor argumentativeness are positive and that the effects of perceived instructor verbal aggressiveness are negative (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). In addition, the effects of perceived instructor verbal aggression tend to be more robust, and thus, more impactful on teacher–student relationships. Although some scholars have advanced training systems and teaching units to combat the harmful consequences of verbally aggressive behavior in students (e.g., Infante, 1995), by-and-large, instructional communication researchers have generally neglected other forms of aggressive communication that capture, in many ways, the everyday experiences of college teachers and students over the course of a semester. Rather than continuing our investigations of overt acts of argumentation or verbal aggression that occur as a function of a teacher’s personality and/ or trait dispositions, we encourage future scholars to reconsider the role of aggressive communication in higher education by examining other, more subtle, indirect, and/or cyclical forms of aggression and argumentation in the college classroom environment. To that end, in this chapter, we have reviewed extant research on aggressive communication in the instructional communication literature and identified a number of limitations to this body of work. The most notable limitation includes an over-reliance on students’ perceptions of instructors’ behaviors using modified scales that were originally designed to be used as trait, selfreport measures. We then briefly reviewed Infante’s (1988) inventional system for generating arguments and his teaching unit on verbal aggression (Infante, 1995). We believe that both of these programs hold tremendous promise for training college students in the skill of argumentation, though continued research is needed to document the efficacy of both programs in modifying students’ communication behaviors. Having reviewed what we currently know, we then proffered two, relatively new directions future researchers can take so as to expand our understanding of the role that aggressive communication plays in the instructional communication process. Some scholars have already begun examining indirect aggression in the college classroom environment (e.g., Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004a, 2004b), but several questions remain. Likewise, serial arguments represent a fruitful area of research that may add to our understanding of argumentation

174

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

as a cyclical, (un)resolvable, and meaningful process that holds tremendous implications for classroom communication. Not only are college students likely to experience some form of indirect aggression or serial argumentation at some point during their college education, but instructors themselves are often faced with mediating arguments and disputes between and among students in their very own classrooms, as noted in the third and final anecdote offered in our introduction. Again, college instructors would be hard-pressed to find empirical research that provides answers to these kinds of aggressive communication episodes, and thus, continued research is needed to address these voids. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the growing proliferation and use of instructional and computer-mediated technologies has expanded the mediums teachers and students may use as they enact aggressive communication behaviors. Consider, for example, the ability of students to text-message their displeasure with a given instructor’s lecture or assignments to other students during class, as well as the increased popularity of instructor evaluation websites such as www.ratemyprofessor.com. Using these online forums while remaining relatively anonymous, students can actively or passively attack their instructors with little to no accountability. Of course, instructors often do the same when they exchange informal opinions of their “problem” students with other colleagues, colleagues who may someday have the very same student in their own classroom. Serial arguments may also alternate between episodes that occur via face-to-face interaction and episodes that occur online, as depicted in our introduction to this chapter. Thus, how do all of these aggressive communication phenomena change as a function of the use of instructional or computer-mediated technology? Only through continued investigations of the issues raised in this chapter can instructional communication scholars begin to answer questions such as this one, thereby expanding extant theory and providing a more complete and detailed explanation of the role that aggressive communication plays in higher education.

References Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230. Beatty, M. J., Valencic, K. M., Rudd, J. E., & Dobos, J. A. (1999). A “dark side” of communication avoidance: Indirect interpersonal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 16, 103–109. Bevan, J. L., Finan, A., & Kaminsky, A. (2008). Modeling serial arguments in close relationships: The serial argument process model. Human Communication Research, 34, 600–624. Bevan, J. L., Tidgewell, K. D., Bagley, K. C., Cusanelli, L., Hartstern, M., Holbeck, D., & Hale, J. L. (2007). Serial argumentation goals and their relationships to perceived resolvability and choice of conflict tactics. Communication Quarterly, 55, 61–77. Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004a). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly, 52, 98–114.

The Role of Aggressive Communication in Higher Education

175

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004b). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53, 253–273. Edwards, C., & Myers, S. A. (2007). Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports, 24, 47–53. Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126. Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–344. Kantor, M. (2002). Passive-aggression: A guide for the therapist, the patient and the victim. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say or do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309–324. Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006a). Features of serial arguments and coping strategies: Links with stress and well-being. Communication Research, 25, 327–343. Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006b). Demand/withdraw patterns in serial arguments: Implications for well being. Human Communication Research, 32, 198–206. Martin, M. M., Weber, K., & Burant, P. A. (1997, April). Students’ perceptions of a teacher’s use of slang and verbal aggressiveness in a lecture: An experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD. Myers, S. A. (1998). Instructor socio-communicative style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 141–150. Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 354–364. Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113–122. Myers, S. A. (2003, April). Argumentativeness and aggressiveness research in instructional communication contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Washington, DC. Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 495–508. Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1999). Verbal aggression in the college classroom: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47, 33–45. Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299–309. Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000). Students’ state motivation and instructors’ use of verbally aggressive messages. Psychological Reports, 87, 291–294.

176

Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn

Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects of students perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roach, K. D. (1992). Teacher demographic characteristics and level of teacher argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 9, 65–71. Roach, K. D. (1995a). Teaching assistant argumentativeness: Effects on affective learning and students perceptions of power use. Communication Education, 44, 15–29. Roach, K. D. (1995b). Teaching assistant argumentativeness and perceptions of power use in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 12, 94–103. Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185–195. Rocca, K. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1999). The interrelationship of student ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Communication Education, 48, 308–316. Schrodt, P. (2003a). Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106–121. Schrodt, P. (2003b). Student perceptions of instructor verbal aggressiveness: The influence of student verbal aggressiveness and self-esteem. Communication Research Reports, 20, 240–250. Trapp, R., & Hoff, N. (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 1–11.

Chapter 10

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression Content, Effects, and Correlates Rebecca M. Chory

Traditionally, media entertainment research on antisocial behavior and media violence has focused on portrayals and effects of exposure to physical aggression, to the neglect of verbal aggression. Similarly, the public has been more troubled by graphic, physically violent media depictions as opposed to media verbal aggression, in part, because imitation of physically violent acts learned via the media may result in serious physical harm or criminal activity. In contrast, the effects of verbal aggression are not as readily observable (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Media industry executives have been more concerned with physical media violence than verbal aggression because physical violence affects the ratings assigned to media offerings, advertisers’ willingness to “sponsor” them, and the public’s response to media content and advertisers. Although the public, advertisers, and the media entertainment industry continue to focus primarily on physical violence in the media, media entertainment scholars have begun to broaden their conceptions of the antisocial behaviors that are worthy of study. Over the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a steady progression toward a more balanced examination of various types of media aggression, including verbal aggression. This discussion, however, raises the question, “Why should we study portrayals and effects of verbal aggression in the media?” In advocating the inclusion of verbal aggression in research on media violence and antisocial behavior, scholars (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1980; Potter, 1999; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Potter & Warren, 1998) point to the following: 1 2 3 4 5

Verbal aggression is easier to imitate than physical aggression. There are fewer legal and social sanctions against verbal aggression than there are against physical aggression. Given points 1 and 2, it is more likely that media consumers will imitate verbal aggression than physical aggression. Verbal aggression has the potential to cause psychological and emotional harm. The psychological and emotional harm caused by verbal aggression may endure longer than the harm caused by physical aggression.

178

Rebecca M. Chory

This chapter reviews research on the depictions of verbal aggression in media entertainment and the effects of exposure to media entertainment’s verbal aggression. The remainder of the chapter is organized into six main sections. The first four sections address verbal aggression in the context of a different media form: film, television, music/audio recordings, and video games. When possible, each section begins with a discussion of how verbal aggression is portrayed in the media, followed by a review of the effects and correlates of exposure to media verbal aggression, and finally, the role played by trait verbal aggressiveness in the media effects process. The fifth section offers directions for future research on verbal aggression and media entertainment. The sixth section provides a summary and conclusion.

Verbal Aggression and Film Verbal aggression and film/movies seems an appropriate place to begin, as systematic scholarly study of entertainment media began with the Payne Fund studies in the early part of the twentieth century (Lowery & DeFleur, 1995). Likewise, some of the earliest investigations of entertainment media verbal aggression were conducted with film content and audiences. This section begins with a review of the verbal aggression found in movies. Content Analyses of Film Verbal Aggression Leyens et al. (1975) content analyzed the ten commercial films they used as experimental treatments in their Belgian study of media violence. The five films they deemed aggressive contained classical movie violence with the heroes portrayed in various ways (e.g., Bonnie and Clyde, The Dirty Dozen). They found that although the aggressive and neutral (e.g., Daddy’s Fiancée) films differed in the frequency of physical threats and interpersonal physical aggression they featured, they did not differ in the amount of verbal aggression. More recently, Koehn and Martin’s (1997) analysis of the top ten films of 1995 revealed that character attacks were the most common type of verbal aggression found in the films, male-to-male verbal aggression accounted for 75 percent of the verbal aggression, and more than half the time characters passively responded to verbal aggression. The most verbally aggressive films were the R-rated Die Hard: With a Vengeance, the PG-13-rated Batman Forever, and the PG-rated Casper. Behm-Morawitz and Mastro (2008) examined the socially aggressive behaviors (e.g., gossiping, humiliating) in the top 20 grossing G-, PG-, and PG-13-rated U.S. teen movies between 1995 and 2005. Their results showed that female characters engaged in more socially aggressive behaviors and were more frequently rewarded for such behaviors compared to male characters. Furthermore, both male and female characters were more likely to be rewarded than punished for behaving in a socially aggressive manner. In a similar study,

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

179

Coyne and Whitehead (2008) analyzed children’s animated Walt Disney films and found that malicious humor (e.g., mocking, embarrassing, making fun of others) was more frequently communicated by male than female characters as well as by good and average characters than bad ones. Effects of Film Exposure on Verbal Aggression Although there does not appear to be any study that has manipulated the verbal aggression in films and investigated the subsequent effects of exposure, effects of exposure to physically aggressive film content on verbal aggression has been studied. In the first such study, Wotring and Greenberg (1973) found that lower socio-economic status junior high boys who watched a film clip containing violence with no consequences reported they would engage in more verbal aggression than did lower socio-economic status junior high boys who saw the clip containing consequences. Likewise, Leyens et al. (1975) studied the impact that exposure to physically aggressive films would have on the verbal aggression communicated by male adolescents living in a Belgian institution for “problem” boys. Results indicated that verbal aggression (e.g., name calling, teasing, taunting, humiliating, and cursing) increased during daily observation periods and during the week after exposure among boys who were initially aggressive and saw the violent movies. In a similar study conducted with male juvenile offenders living in American institutions, Parke et al. (1977) found that boys who watched physically aggressive versus non-physically aggressive films over five days communicated more interpersonal and non-interpersonal (e.g., angry outbursts) verbal aggression during the course of their everyday interactions. Results of a separate study showed that these boys also engaged in more intense verbal aggression in a lab setting after watching the violent versus non-violent movies. These effects were observed even days after exposure to the films. In a study of female juvenile offenders, Parke et al. (1977) found that a single exposure to a physically violent film clip was associated with more intense verbal aggression than was exposure to a non-violent media clip. Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and Film Exposure Regarding trait verbal aggressiveness, Greene and Krcmar (2005) found that among junior high, senior high, and college students, higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness predicted more frequent violent and horror movie exposure, but less horror movie liking, even after controlling for age and TV exposure. Controlling for the same variables, they also observed that higher levels of trait argumentativeness predicted more violent movie viewing and liking. In sum, the studies on films and verbal aggression demonstrate that: 1) people tend to categorize movies based on the amount of physical aggression featured and discount verbal aggression; 2) watching physically violent films can increase the amount and intensity of verbal aggression communicated by

180

Rebecca M. Chory

young people; 3) these effects are observed immediately and days following exposure; and 4) individuals with higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness tend to gravitate toward violent films.

Verbal Aggression and Television Of all the entertainment media, TV has received the most attention with regard to verbal aggression. Therefore, this section begins with a detailed review of TV’s portrayals of verbal aggression. This review includes research on TV verbal aggression’s rate of occurrence in general, and relative to the occurrence of physical aggression, its portrayal by genre, its sources and receivers, and the context in which it appears. Effects and correlates of exposure to TV verbal aggression are then described, followed by a review of research on trait verbal aggressiveness and TV verbal aggression. Content Analyses of Television Verbal Aggression Verbal Aggression Rates In 1976, fictional and non-fictional Canadian TV (76 percent of which was produced in the USA) featured 7.8 acts of verbal aggression per program hour (3.4 verbal threats, 2.8 instances of verbal abuse, and 1.6 uses of sarcasm) (Williams, Zabrack, & Joy, 1982). In 2005, fictional and non-fictional primetime U.S. TV featured 38 acts of verbal aggression (insults, yelling or arguing, threats, sarcasm, name calling, etc.) per hour (Glascock, 2008). Content analyses focusing solely on fictional TV have revealed an increase in frequency of verbal aggression over time. In the mid 1970s, an average of 22.8 acts of verbal aggression (insults, criticism, swearing, negative affective reactions, threats, hostile yelling) occurred per hour on prime-time fiction (Greenberg et al., 1980). By 1994 the occurrence of this type of verbal aggression had risen to 27 acts per hour (Potter & Vaughan, 1997). Other scholars have concentrated on the rate of verbal aggression that occurs in specific types of TV programs. For example, Tamborini et al. (2008) examined the verbal aggression depicted in professional wrestling featured on WWE SmackDown and WWE Raw in 2002. They observed 23 verbally aggressive interactions per hour (30 when accounting for commercial time), with swearing (27 percent of all verbal aggression), competence attacks (21 percent), and character attacks (16 percent) occurring most frequently. Glascock and Ruggiero (2004) found 10.32 threats, commands, and/or insults per hour on 2002 prime-time Spanish language telenovelas and drama. They noted that compared to prime-time U.S. programming, the rate of verbal aggression on these Spanish language programs was not as high, but it was more serious and confrontational. Coyne and Archer (2004) observed that although over 86 percent of British adolescents’ favorite fictional TV programs (48 percent from the USA) contained verbal aggression, it occurred at a rate of only 5.84 acts per hour.

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

181

Specifically, the hourly rate of yelling or arguing was 2.08, followed by name calling at 1.55, insults at 1.53, teasing at 0.34, sarcasm with the intent to insult at .24, and mocking at 0.09. Finally, in a content analysis of national commercials airing on prime-time network TV in 2004, Scharrer et al. (2006) found that verbal aggression occurred at a rate of 0.35 instances per commercial. Verbal Aggression Versus Physical Aggression In addition to discerning the rate of verbal aggression, researchers have also examined the amount of TV verbal aggression relative to the amount of physical aggression. With the exception of commercials, verbal aggression has been portrayed far more frequently than physical aggression has across genres and program types. In content analyses in which the samples were composed of fictional and non-fictional TV programming, verbal aggression accounted for the majority of aggressive acts (Glascock, 2008; Potter & Warren, 1998; Williams, Zabrack, & Joy, 1982). The ratios of verbal aggression to physical aggression in these shows ranged from approximately 1.1 to 1 (Williams, Zabrack, & Joy, 1982), through 2 to 1 (Potter & Warren, 1998), to 3 to 1 (Glascock, 2008). Studies of fictional TV content yield similar results. In a comprehensive investigation of fictional shows broadcast during the 1976, 1977, and 1978 seasons, Greenberg et al. (1980) found that verbal aggression occurred an average of 22 times per hour, whereas physical aggression took place an average of 14 times per hour, a ratio of almost 1.5 to 1. Likewise, on popular prime-time fictional series in 1980, 75 percent of the aggression assessed was verbal (87 percent insults, 13 percent threats) compared to the 25 percent that was physical, a ratio of 3 to 1 (Kaplan & Baxter, 1982). Five years later, verbal aggression occurred at a rate of 8.6 acts per hour (4.9 insults/hour, 3.7 threats/hour), while physical aggression occurred at a rate of 5.8 acts per hour, a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (Potter & Ware, 1987a). Almost a decade after that, in 1994, verbal aggression occurred at a rate of 19.2 acts per hour on fictional programs airing from 6pm to midnight, while physical aggression (physical assaults on others) occurred at a rate of 7.2 acts per hour on such programs, yielding a ratio of almost 3 to 1 (Potter et al., 1995). Harsh criticism, insults, and putdowns were the most frequently communicated types of verbal aggression (10.4 acts per hour), followed by rejections (4.3 acts per hour), threats (2.5 acts per hour), general yelling and screaming (1.9 acts per hour) and hate speech (0.1 act per hour). Prime-time fiction’s portrayal of aggression during this same time period was comparable, as verbal aggression (threats, rejection, resentment, malicious remarks) was communicated at a rate of 27 acts per hour compared to physical aggression, which occurred at a rate of 12.3 acts per hour, a ratio of more than 2 to 1 (Potter & Vaughan, 1997). In terms of specific genres or program types, TV’s professional wrestling had a verbal aggression to physical aggression ratio of approximately 1.7 to 1 (Tamborini et al., 2008); Spanish language telenovelas and drama had a

182

Rebecca M. Chory

corresponding ratio of 3.5 to 1 (Glascock & Ruggiero, 2004); and British adolescents’ favorite fictional programs maintained a ratio of almost 2 to 1 (Coyne & Archer, 2004). In contrast, children’s TV commercials exhibited a verbal aggression to physical aggression ratio of 1 to 4.25 (Larson, 2001), and primetime national commercials had a ratio of 1 to 8 (Scharrer et al., 2006). Verbal Aggression by Genre Among TV genres, verbal aggression tends to occur most frequently in comedies/ sitcoms (Glascock, 2008; Greenberg et al., 1980; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Potter & Ware, 1987a), followed by action-adventures (Greenberg et al., 1980; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Potter & Ware, 1987a), fictional dramas (Glascock, 1998; Greenberg et al., 1980; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Potter & Ware, 1987a), and then non-fictional programming, such as reality shows and newsmagazines (Glascock, 1998). For instance, Greenberg et al. (1980) found that the mean yearly rate of verbal aggression on sitcoms was 33.2 acts per hour, on actionadventure and crime shows it was 21.9 acts per hour, and on family dramas it was 13.3 acts per hour. Potter and Ware (1987a) recorded 11.3 acts of verbal aggression per hour on sitcoms, 8.0 acts per hour on action-adventures, and 7.3 acts per hour on dramas. Potter and Vaughan (1997) observed verbal aggression (threats, rejection, resentment, malicious remarks) occur 41.9 times per hour on sitcoms, 28.6 times per hour on action-adventures, and 19.1 times per hour on dramas and movies. Glascock (2008) found verbal aggression to occur at a rate of 52.7 acts per hour on sitcoms, 38.5 acts per hour on dramas, 18.8 acts per hour on reality shows, and 1.3 acts per hour on news magazines. According to Zillmann and Bryant (1991), verbal aggression as a source of humor on TV sitcoms increased considerably in the 1970s when Norman Lear’s All in the Family firmly established itself as the most popular prime-time show. All in the Family contained insults, racial slurs, and other kinds of hostile remarks. The trend of tendentious humor continued into the 1980s, though it waned a bit due to the popularity of family sitcoms such as The Cosby Show and Family Ties. By the end of the decade, however, verbally aggressive humor returned with Roseanne. Sitcom verbal aggression continued into the 1990s and early 2000s with shows such as Will & Grace and Everybody Loves Raymond (Chory-Assad, 2004). Quantitative analyses indicate that verbal aggression on sitcoms increased from 33.5 acts per hour during the mid 1970s (Greenberg et al., 1980) to 41.9 acts per hour in 1994 (Potter & Vaughan, 1997). Prime-time family sitcoms have been the focus of at least two content analyses. Martin et al. (1997) found approximately 30 acts of verbal aggression per hour on 1996 family comedies. Married with Children and The Nanny were the most verbally aggressive sitcoms; Coach and Grace under Fire were the least verbally aggressive. Scharrer (2001) also studied family sitcoms, but focused on aggressive humor that involved the father character. Her results

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

183

indicated that from the 1950s to 2000 the father character told 69 percent of the jokes (putdowns) and was the “butt” of 45 percent of the jokes told. Almost 12 percent of the putdowns involved the mother character targeting the father, whereas 9 percent of the jokes involved the reverse. Over time, the ratio of the father character telling jokes with the mother as the “butt” went from 3 to 1 in favor of the father character, to 1 to 2 in favor of the mother character. Scharrer’s (2001) results suggest that in the last 50 years or so, TV’s female characters have gained power relative to male characters, at least in terms of aggressive humor. Other studies, however, show that such patterns do not hold across contexts. Fouts and colleagues (2000; 2002) investigated the physical appearance attacks communicated between male and female sitcom characters. They found that as female characters’ weight increased, so did the number of physical appearance attacks they received from men (Fouts & Burggraf, 2000). In contrast, male characters’ weight was not related to the physical appearance attacks they received from women (Fouts & Vaughan, 2002). The frequency with which various types of verbal aggression are communicated on TV has also been examined. Williams, Zabrack, and Joy (1982) found that sarcasm comprised 39 percent of the verbal aggression on sitcoms, followed by verbal abuse (34 percent), and threats (27 percent). In contrast, threats made up 49 percent of the verbal aggression on crime dramas, verbal abuse accounted for 32 percent, and sarcasm for the remaining 19 percent. Verbal abuse comprised 72 percent of the verbal aggression on action-adventures, followed by threats at 28 percent. Potter and Ware (1987a) found that insults were far more common than threats on sitcoms, whereas the rates of threats and insults were more similar on action-adventure shows and dramas. Using categories primarily based on earlier research (Infante et al., 1990, and Infante & Wigley, 1986). Martin, Anderson, & Cos (1997) and Chory (2000) observed similar patterns of sitcom verbal aggression. Martin et al. (1997) found that, on family sitcoms, character attacks made up the majority of the verbal aggression (43 percent), followed by competence attacks (20 percent), teasing (17 percent) threats (10 percent), physical appearance attacks (9 percent), and nonverbal emblems (1 percent). Likewise, Chory’s analysis of four non-family sitcoms in 2000 (e.g., Friends, Just Shoot Me) revealed that character attacks (18 percent) and competence attacks (14 percent) were the most frequently communicated types of verbal aggression. These types were followed by sarcasm (12 percent), demands (12 percent), swearing (8 percent), physical appearance attacks (8 percent), dislike (7 percent), mocking (7 percent), background attacks (5 percent), rejection (5 percent), and threats (5 percent). No maledictions were recorded. Potter and Warren (1998) reported that hostile remarks (oral communication intended to psychologically or emotionally harm another) occurred on comedies approximately three times as frequently as intimidations (threats meant to coerce) did. On non-comedies, hostile remarks occurred about twice as frequently as intimidations.

184

Rebecca M. Chory

Verbal Aggression Sources and Receivers Research on the demographic profile of TV characters involved in verbal aggression yields results consistent with those observed for physical aggression (see Potter, 1999). Research indicates that sources and receivers of verbal aggression were primarily White (Glascock, 2008; Potter et al., 1995, 1997; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Tamborini et al., 2008), male (Glascock & Ruggiero, 2004; Greenberg et al., 1980; Larson, 2001; Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997; Potter & Vaughan, 1997; Scharrer, 2001; Tamborini et al., 2008), middle-aged (Potter et al., 1995, 1997; Potter & Vaughan, 1997), regularly appearing, and major characters (Greenberg et al., 1980). Content analyses also demonstrate that verbal aggression was most likely to occur between family and friends (close relationships), followed by acquaintances, and then strangers (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Potter et al., 1995). The exception to this was observed on news, talk, and reality programs in which almost half (47.1 percent) of the verbally aggressive interactions occurred between strangers, followed by acquaintances (20.5 percent) and close relations (14.8 percent) (Potter et al., 1997). Women were more likely to communicate than to receive hostile remarks (Potter et al., 1995). When women were targets of verbal aggression, they tended to receive more insults than threats, whereas the reverse was true for men (Potter & Ware, 1987b). In prime-time fictional and non-fictional shows, White and Black characters/individuals who appeared as representatives of the criminal justice and court systems were more verbally aggressive than were corresponding Latino characters/individuals (Tamborini et al., 2000). Verbal Aggression Context Characteristics According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2002), the context in which behaviors occur affects the likelihood with which they are learned and imitated by observers. Based on this theory and a wealth of empirical support, Potter and colleagues (e.g., Potter, 1999; Potter et al., 1995, 1997) assert that media aggression is more likely to be learned and enacted from exposure to portrayals in which the aggression is 1) perpetrated by characters in the “hero” role; 2) not punished (or produces no discernible consequences); 3) rewarded; and 4) occurs in a humorous context. As previously discussed, verbal aggression tends to occur most frequently and at high rates in TV sitcoms. Thus, it tends to occur in a humorous context on TV. The other context characteristics are examined here. Analyses of verbal aggression according to TV characters’ dispositions show that characters with no identifiable disposition (they are neither heroes nor villains) and villains tend to communicate the majority of verbal aggression (Greenberg et al., 1980; Potter & Ware, 1987a; Potter & Warren, 1998; Tamborini et al., 2008). Characters with unidentifiable dispositions communicated 58 percent of the verbal aggression on prime-time fiction, while villains and heroes engaged in 23 percent and 19 percent of the verbal aggression,

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

185

respectively (Potter & Ware, 1987a). The majority of the verbal aggression on TV’s professional wrestling was also communicated and received by characters with unknown dispositions; these characters were neither “faces” (heroes) nor “heels” (villains) (Tamborini et al., 2008). Similar to the pattern noted by Potter and Ware, when the characters’ dispositions were identifiable, “faces” and “heels” were similar to each other in the extent to which they perpetrated (15 percent heels, 12 percent faces) and received (27 percent heels, 28 percent faces) verbal aggression. Villains and other non-heroes were sources of approximately one-third of the verbal aggression depicted in prime-time fictional and nonfictional TV shows (Potter & Warren, 1998), and villains communicated and received approximately seven times more verbal aggression than heroes did on fictional programs (Greenberg et al., 1980). Turning to TV’s portrayals of the consequences of engaging in verbal aggression, research reveals that the overwhelming majority of TV verbal aggression goes unpunished (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Fouts & Burggraf, 2000; Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997; Potter et al., 1997; Potter & Ware, 1987b; Potter & Warren, 1998). For instance, Potter and Warren (1998) found that less than 20 percent of the verbal aggression on fictional and non-fictional programs was punished, over half of the verbal aggression had no negative consequences, and fewer than 5 percent of the individuals who communicated verbal aggression showed remorse. Not only does TV verbal aggression go unpunished, it is often rewarded (Fouts & Burggraf, 2000; Martin, 1997; Potter & Ware, 1987a). For example, on prime-time fiction, characters engaging in threats and insults were rewarded over 90 percent of the time (Potter & Ware, 1987a). Similarly, on prime-time sitcoms, 80 percent of men’s physical appearance attacks directed at women were followed by audience reactions (e.g., laughter) (Fouts & Burggraf, 2000). Finally, Martin et al. (1997) asserted that the verbally aggressive characters on family sitcoms are portrayed as more clever and articulate than their targets. Finally, TV characters are usually motivated to engage in verbal aggression for antisocial internal reasons. Over 75 percent of the insults communicated on prime-time fiction were internally motivated (Potter & Ware, 1987a), and characters on family sitcoms appeared to engage in verbal aggression for amusement (Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997). Likewise, verbal aggression on professional wrestling programs was primarily motivated by the perpetrator’s desire for amusement (60 percent) (Tamborini et al., 2008). The majority (53.5 percent) of the verbal aggression communicated in reality/news/talk programs was motivated by maliciousness (verbal aggression was premeditated and hateful), followed by inconsideration (44.1 percent; source knows verbal aggression is harmful but does not care) (Potter et al., 1997). Per social cognitive theory, the research on the context in which verbal aggression is portrayed on TV indicates that verbal aggression is likely to be learned and imitated by viewers. Outcomes like these are discussed in the following section.

186

Rebecca M. Chory

Effects of TV Exposure on Verbal Aggression Early investigations of the effects of TV exposure on viewers’ verbal aggression generally involved assessing or manipulating participants’ exposure to TV content selected for its physically aggressive nature. The levels of verbal aggression featured in such programming usually were not controlled or considered. In one of the earliest such studies 3- to 5-year old children watched aggressive, prosocial, or neutral programs over the course of four weeks, and their verbal aggression was observed during free play times two weeks later (Friedrich & Stein, 1973). Results indicated that children who were initially high in interpersonal aggressiveness and watched the aggressive programs engaged in more verbal aggression (e.g., name calling, derogation, threats, commands, tattling) than did similar children who viewed the prosocial and neutral programs. Likewise, an early study of adolescent boys in London showed that more frequent exposure to TV violence and TV with high levels of swearing and verbal abuse was associated with the boys swearing and using bad language more often (Belson, 1978). The results of a natural experiment in which a Canadian community went from having no TV programming to having one channel provide additional evidence of the effects of TV on children’s verbal aggression. Results of this study demonstrated that children’s verbal aggression (e.g., disparages, threats, commands, rejections, arguments) during free play time increased after their community acquired TV. The effects of TV on children’s verbal aggression occurred even when considering their age, sex, prior aggressiveness, and potential maturation (Joy, Kimball, & Zabrack, 1986). A meta-analysis of the research conducted during this time showed that from 1929 to 1977 the average effect size of exposure to TV antisocial behavior on general aggression (verbal aggression and physical aggression) was .31 (90 effects, 18 percent of the dependent variables), and the average effect size on verbal aggression alone was .05 (17 effects, 3 percent of the dependent variables) (Hearold, 1986). Paik and Comstock’s (1994) meta-analysis of studies from 1957 to 1990 demonstrated that the effect size for viewing TV violence on all observations of verbally aggressive behavior was r2 = .07. The effect sizes for experimental designs and surveys were r2 = .07 and r2 = .08, respectively. Research conducted in the last decade yields results consistent with those noted above. For example, parental reports of their preschoolers’ violent TV exposure positively predicted the preschoolers’ level of verbal aggression (mean names or insults) during free play at school, especially among boys (Ostrov, Gentile, & Crick, 2006). Concerning 13- to 15-year old children, analyses of the National Family Opinion Research organization’s data revealed that total TV viewing time and watching aggressive talk shows (Jenny Jones, Ricki Lake, and Geraldo Rivera) were positively related to adolescents swearing/insulting and making cruel/mean/nasty comments (Atkin et al., 2002). Among college students, more frequent TV consumption in general and for the purpose of acquiring social information, as well as stronger TV affinity, predicted a greater

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

187

willingness to use verbal aggression in attempts to engage in sexual contact with romantic partners (Cvancara & Kinney, 2008). Chory-Assad and Tamborini (2001) investigated the effects of exposure to verbally aggressive sitcoms on the verbal aggression communicated by university students during a subsequent discussion with a confederate. Although participants who watched sitcoms high in verbal aggression were more verbally aggressive afterwards than those who watched sitcoms low in verbal aggression, this difference was not statistically significant. A reverse pattern of results was observed when university students’ self-reported sitcom exposure was considered the predictor variable. In this study, Chory-Assad and Tamborini (2004) assessed university students’ self-reported exposure to TV sitcoms and their trait verbal aggressiveness four weeks before observing their verbal aggression in the lab. In the lab, participants read bogus negative reviews of popular sitcoms that were designed to be at odds with the participants’ opinions in order to provoke them. Participants were then asked what they would say to the critics if they had the opportunity to respond to them. These responses were coded for verbal aggression. Contrary to predictions, results indicate that when controlling for sex, trait verbal aggressiveness, and positive affect for the reviewed sitcoms, regular sitcom exposure predicted a lower rate of verbal aggression. The authors suggested that participants may have consciously selfregulated their communication because they were talking to the researcher or that heavy sitcom viewers may have been more motivated to respond to the reviews than light sitcom viewers. Given the conflicting results of her prior studies, Chory-Assad (2004) conducted a more basic study of responses to sitcom verbal aggression. Participants watched an episode of the verbally aggressive sitcom Titus or coherent segments from an episode of the crime drama NYPD Blue. Their cognitive responses were then assessed via a thought-listing task and coded for verbal aggression. Results demonstrated that 16 percent of the cognitive responses to the sitcom were verbally aggressive and this rate occurred at a statistically significant level. Consistent with the frequency of their occurrence in sitcoms, the most frequently reported aggressive cognitive responses were character attacks (61 percent) and competence attacks (24.3 percent). Results also indicated that when controlling for affect, arousal, and trait verbal aggressiveness, exposure to the sitcom predicted more verbally aggressive cognitive responses than did exposure to the crime drama at a level of marginal statistical significance (p = .09). Furthermore, the TV exposure condition and trait verbal aggressiveness interacted, suggesting that trait verbal aggressiveness predicted verbally aggressive responses among individuals who watched the sitcom, but not among those who viewed the crime drama. In light of her earlier work, Chory-Assad suggested that perhaps there are differences in the short- and long-term effects of sitcom exposure. More recently, Banerjee et al. (2009) assessed the amount of verbal aggression in 33 TV programs popular among university students and then created a verbal aggression TV consumption index (VATCI) based on students’

188

Rebecca M. Chory

self-reported exposure to the programs. They found that after controlling for overall TV viewing, sensation seeking, and trait aggressiveness, VATCI positively correlated with the students’ levels of delinquency, alcohol consumption, and illicit drug use. These results provide strong evidence for the potentially harmful consequences of watching TV verbal aggression. Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and TV Exposure Trait verbal aggressiveness, or the tendency to engage in verbal aggression, and exposure to aggressive TV content tends to be positively related (Banerjee et al., 2009; Haridakis, 2002; Martin et al., 1998). For instance, Haridakis (2002) found that when controlling for demographics, real crime experience, total TV exposure, and viewing motives, more frequent exposure to violent TV predicted a stronger tendency to engage in verbal aggression. Likewise, Banerjee and colleagues (2009) observed that after controlling for demographics, overall TV viewing, and sensation seeking, trait verbal aggressiveness predicted more frequent viewing of verbally aggressive crime and action dramas, evening soap operas, and sitcoms. Along the same lines, Martin et al. (1998) found that university students high in trait verbal aggressiveness reported viewing sitcoms that had previously been identified as verbally aggressive (e.g., The Simpsons, Married With Children, Martin) more regularly than students low in trait verbal aggressiveness. In addition to being associated with more frequent aggressive TV exposure, college students’ trait verbal aggressiveness is also linked to certain perceptions of TV verbal aggression (Krcmar & Sohn, 2004; Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997; Martin et al., 1998). For example, individuals high in trait verbal aggressiveness who regularly watched more TV and tended to experience less hurt in response to receiving verbal aggression reported feeling more affinity for a verbally aggressive TV character and sitcom (Daddy Dearest), and perceiving the verbally aggressive sitcom as more realistic (Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997). Consistent with these results, Martin et al. (1998) found that people high in trait verbal aggressiveness rated verbally aggressive sitcoms as more entertaining than people low in trait verbal aggressiveness. Finally, college students high in trait verbal aggressiveness perceived the verbally aggressive ESPN film Season on the Brink about basketball coach Bobby Knight as more realistic and less offensive than did students low in trait verbal aggressiveness, whether the curse words were present or “bleeped” (Krcmar & Sohn, 2004). The research on TV verbal aggression and its effects demonstrates that verbal aggression is common on TV, especially in sitcoms, and it occurs more frequently than physical aggression. Verbal aggression sources and receivers are generally white, middle-aged men who are regular major characters. The context in which verbal aggression is depicted is one that is likely to encourage viewers to learn and to imitate it. In terms of effects, exposure to physically and verbally aggressive media content in concert, and individually, is associated with increases in verbally aggressive behavior. Finally, higher trait verbal

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

189

aggressiveness is related to consuming more aggressive TV programming, liking verbally aggressive TV content more, and perceiving it as more realistic than is lower levels of trait verbal aggressiveness. An area of media entertainment that has received less scholarly attention than TV is audio-only media content. Two examples of such content, music and comedy recordings, are discussed in the following section.

Verbal Aggression and Music/Audio Recordings One of the earliest studies to investigate effects of exposure to verbally aggressive media content that was not confounded with physically aggressive content was conducted by Berkowitz (1970). At a time when stand-up comedians’ routines were readily available and enjoyed in the form of vinyl record albums, female college students listened to an audio performance of a comedian performing aggressive humor (Don Rickles) or a comedian performing nonaggressive humor (George Carlin). The participants then evaluated a female job candidate. Results indicated that participants who heard the verbally aggressive humor clip rated the job applicant as less friendly and more hostile, even when controlling for the comedians’ perceived humorousness. Another audio media form that has been studied with regard to aggression is music. The research on the relationship between verbally aggressive music/lyrics and aggressive responses demonstrates that liking and listening to certain types of music is associated with higher levels of aggression. For example, Atkin et al. (2002) found that adolescents who tended to prefer/like violence-oriented heavy metal and gangsta rap music reported that they swore, insulted others, and made cruel/mean/nasty comments more frequently. Similarly, in a highly controlled study of the effects of exposure to violent music lyrics, Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks (2003) demonstrated that listening to rock songs with violent lyrics, non-humorous songs with violent lyrics, and humorous songs with violent lyrics increased university students’ state hostility and the accessibility of their aggressive thoughts. Compared to participants who listened to songs with no (or minimal) violent content, those who heard violent songs reported more state hostility, interpreted ambiguous words as more aggressive, read aggressive words faster, and completed more ambiguous word stems to form aggressive words. Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks (2003) pointed out that these results were not artifacts of music type, artist, or arousal. They reasoned that these primed aggressive thoughts and feelings could influence interpretations of social interactions that could elicit more aggressive responses than would be elicited otherwise. In this way, the violent music lyrics could lead to more verbal aggression. The research on music and audio recordings of comedy demonstrate that simply hearing verbal aggression presented in an entertaining format is enough to increase aggression in listeners. Furthermore, the effects of audio-mediated verbal aggression on aggressive responses occur even when it appears in a humorous context. Video games are another form of media entertainment that

190

Rebecca M. Chory

presents aggression primarily through one channel. With video games, however, that main channel is visual as opposed to auditory. The following section describes the research on video game play and verbally aggressive responses.

Verbal Aggression and Video Games Consistent with the trend across much of the media effects field, the most recent work on verbal aggression and entertainment media has been done in the realm of video games, particularly violent video games. In line with the research on more traditional media, video game play tends to be associated with more verbally aggressive behavior and higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness. Effects of Video Game Exposure on Verbal Aggression Although there does not appear to be any published research on the effects of video game play on observed verbal aggression conducted in tightly controlled experimental settings, there are correlational data to support such a relationship. For example, parents’ reports of their preschoolers’ violent media exposure, which included recently consumed TV, movies, and video games, was positively related to the frequency of verbal aggression (using insults, mean names) communicated by the children in subsequent months. In contrast, parental monitoring of female preschoolers’ media use was negatively related to the girls’ teacher-reported verbal aggression in the subsequent months and year (Ostrov, Gentile, & Cricks, 2006). Similarly, eighth and ninth graders’ self-reported frequency of violent video game play and their preference for violence in video games were positively correlated with how often they reported getting into arguments with their teachers (Gentile et al., 2004). Further analyses revealed that the relationship between video game play and verbal aggression was mediated by the teens’ trait hostility. Violent video game play and the amount of video game play in general predicted higher levels of trait hostility, which predicted more frequent arguments with teachers. Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and Video Game Exposure In addition to research showing a positive relationship between reports of video game play and verbally aggressive behavior, there is also research demonstrating a positive association between video game play and the tendency to engage in verbal aggression. This tendency has been assessed by the Buss and Perry (1992) verbal aggression subscale of their Aggression Questionnaire and Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale. When studied in the context of video games, researchers have considered responses to the Buss and Perry instrument as indicators of trait verbal aggressiveness (e.g., Lachlan & Maloney, 2008) and verbally aggressive behavior (e.g., Bartholow, Sestir,

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

191

& Davis, 2005). Researchers have viewed responses to the Infante and Wigley scale solely as indicators of trait verbal aggressiveness. Furthermore, though both scales have been used to measure verbal aggression/aggressiveness, Chory and Cicchirillo (2007) asserted that Buss and Perry’s verbal aggression subscale measures a construct conceptually located between attacking the self-concept of others (verbal aggressiveness as defined by Infante and Wigley, 1986) and verbally attacking others’ positions on controversial topics (argumentativeness per Infante and Rancer, 1982). For simplicity, all studies using the Buss and Perry verbal aggression subscale in the context of video games are included here. Anderson et al. (2004) found that university students’ self-reported violent video game play was positively correlated with verbal aggression/aggressiveness as measured by the Buss and Perry (1992) subscale. This positive relationship held, though it weakened somewhat, when player sex, basic personality, narcissism, and emotional susceptibility were controlled. Based on these results, Anderson et al. (2004) asserted that the violent video game play-verbal aggression/aggressiveness relationship was not due to basic personality. Furthermore, their analysis indicated that long-term effects of violent video game play on verbal aggression/aggressiveness is due to game play’s effect on attitudes toward violence. Violent video game play led to more positive attitudes toward violence, which led to more verbal aggression/aggressiveness. Along the same lines, Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis (2005) observed that male college students’ selfreported violent video game exposure was positively correlated with Buss and Perry’s verbal aggression/aggressiveness. Like Gentile et al. (2004), their mediation analyses showed that violent video game play increased verbal aggression/ aggressiveness by increasing trait hostility. Chory and Cicchirillo (2007) investigated the relationship between video game play and trait verbal aggressiveness as the predisposition to attack the self-concept of others. Their results indicated that university students’ selfreported frequency of video game play (violent and non-violent) was positively correlated with trait verbal aggressiveness as assessed by Infante and Wigley’s (1986) scale. In addition, player sex and frequency of game play interacted such that men who played video games more frequently had higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness than did men who played less frequently and women regardless of playing time. Taking a novel approach to the study of violent video games and aggression, Lachlan and Maloney (2008) examined the potential for personality to drive game players to perform specific violent acts in playing a video game, thus affecting the nature of the video game content they actually produced. Using the Buss and Perry (1992) verbal aggression subscale, Lachlan and Maloney found that university students with higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness engaged in specific types of video game violence. Specifically, with demographics, perceived realism, basic personality, trait hostility, trait anger, trait physical aggressiveness, and other traits controlled, trait verbal aggressiveness predicted more frequently engaging in violence that showed no harm to the intended

192

Rebecca M. Chory

victim in Rainbow 6, and more frequently engaging in violent interactions using natural means in GTA 3. In short, individuals’ trait verbal aggressiveness predicted how they played a violent video game. Verbal Aggression During Video Game Exposure The effects of exposure to different types of video games on the verbal aggression that is expressed during play and the effects of such verbal aggression on the subsequent interactions among game players is an area that requires investigation. Peña and Hancock (2006) and Eastin (2007) provide starting points for conducting this type of research. They examined, to a limited extent, the verbal aggression that occurs during video game play. Over two weeks in 2002, Peña and Hancock (2006) analyzed the online text messages individuals sent to other players while playing the video game Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast online. They coded the messages as positive socioemotional (e.g., messages expressing agreement or solidarity), negative socioemotional (e.g., messages expressing disagreement and passive rejection, tension, and antagonism), or as some other type. Their results indicated that players communicated more positive than negative socioemotional messages during play. The negative communication that did occur tended to be expressions of disagreement and antagonism, followed by tension messages. Peña and Hancock stated that disagreement messages tended to occur due to other players being impolite or breaking a social rule, whereas tension messages were sent when participants’ expectations about the game were not realized. Antagonistic messages tended to include profanity and blunt expressions. They also found that very experienced online video game players sent fewer negative messages than did less experienced players. Although Peña and Hancock’s work concerns aggressive communication that occurs during video game play, it focuses on text-based messages versus oral ones. Eastin (2007) examined the verbal aggression (e.g., character and competence attacks, profanity, negative affect) orally communicated by participants while playing the multiuser online violent video game Unreal Tournament. Using voice chat software, participants could hear and talk to members of their own group or to their opponents, depending on the condition. Results showed that the amount of verbal aggression participants communicated while they played the game was positively related to the hostility they reported feeling immediately after play. Although Eastin did not analyze the verbal aggression communicated by the players, he suggested that it may have been composed of teasing or humor accepted by other players. In summary, research shows that playing video games, especially violent video games, is associated with more frequent verbally aggressive behavior and higher levels of trait verbal aggressiveness. This relationship is evidenced in studies of preschoolers, young teens, and college students. Furthermore, violent video game play appears to affect verbal aggression/aggressiveness through its impact on trait hostility and pro-violence attitudes. Finally, verbal aggression

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

193

between online video game players does occur during play and is related to hostile reactions immediately after play.

Future Research Directions Researchers are encouraged to continue studying the relationships among verbal aggression and media consumption and effects across media types and genres. This includes examining effects of exposure to different levels (e.g., high versus low) and types (e.g., character attacks versus competence attacks) of media verbal aggression on a wider range of outcomes. Furthermore, verbal aggression, particularly observed verbally aggressive behavior, needs to be further examined as an effect of media exposure. Although such research is generally more time-consuming and difficult than is research using self-report measures, the insight it provides into the behavioral effects of media exposure is more valuable. Finally, the theoretical process explaining how exposure to media verbal aggression affects individuals is also recommended. Consideration of variables such as media consumers’ traits and interpretations of media content and the context in which the media verbal aggression occurs is likely to provide direction in this area, and thus, should be included in future research designs.

Summary and Conclusion Although there is not an extensive amount of empirical research on verbal aggression and entertainment media, the existing research provides some consistent results. These results are summarized in Table 10.1. Table 10.1 Summary of Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression Research Portrayals of Entertainment Media Verbal Aggression

• • • • • • •

The rate of verbal aggression has increased over time Verbal aggression occurs more frequently than physical aggression Character and competence attacks are the most common types of verbal aggression Verbal aggression occurs most frequently in a humorous context Verbal aggression sources and receivers are generally white, middle-aged men who are regular major characters playing non-heroes Verbal aggression seldom has consequences; when it does, it tends to be rewarded Verbal aggression is usually driven by selfish antisocial motives

Effects of Exposure to Entertainment Media Aggression

• •

Exposure to media physical aggression is related to self-reported and observed verbal aggression in lab and natural settings, among individuals from pre-school to college age, immediately after exposure to weeks after exposure Exposure to media verbal aggression is related to self-reported delinquency, alcohol consumption, and illicit drug use, state hostility, and aggressive thoughts

Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and Entertainment Media Aggression

• •

Trait verbal aggressiveness is related to more violent media exposure Trait verbal aggressiveness is related to perceiving media verbal aggression as more realistic and entertaining

194

Rebecca M. Chory

The systematic study of verbal aggression and entertainment media is a relatively new area of inquiry. Even so, the frequency and context within which verbal aggression is depicted in the media, and the existing evidence showing the antisocial effects of exposure to these portrayals, suggest that it is a subject of both theoretical and practical importance. Mass communication/media and interpersonal communication scholars, as well as scholars concerned with the harmful effects of verbally aggressive communication, are encouraged to continue investigating the relationship between entertainment media and verbal aggression.

References Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971. Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Jr., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199–249. Atkin, C. K., Smith, S. W., Roberto, A. J., Fediuk, T., & Wagner, T. (2002). Correlates of verbally aggressive communication in adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 251–268. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 121–153). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Banerjee, S. C., Greene, K., Krcmar, M., & Bagdasarov, Z. (2009). Who watches verbally aggressive shows? An examination of personality and other individual difference factors in predicting viewership. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21, 1–14. Bartholow, B. D., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1573–1586. Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D. E. (2008). Mean girls? The influence of gender portrayals in teen movies on emerging adults’ gender-based attitudes and beliefs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 131–146. Belson, W. A. (1978). Television violence and the adolescent boy. Westmead, England: Saxon House. Berkowitz, L. (1970). Aggressive humor as a stimulus to aggressive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 710–717. Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Chory, R. M. (2000). Effects of exposure to verbally aggressive television on aggressive behavior and beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Chory, R. M., & Cicchirillo, V. (2007). The relationship between video game play and trait verbal aggressiveness: An application of the general aggression model. Communication Research Reports, 24, 113–119. Chory-Assad, R. M. (2004). Effects of television sitcom exposure on the accessibility of verbally aggressive thoughts. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 431–453.

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

195

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Tamborini, R. (2001, May). Effects of exposure to verbally aggressive television on aggressive behavior and beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, D.C. Chory-Assad, R. M., & Tamborini, R. (2004). Television sitcom exposure and aggressive communication: A priming perspective. North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 415–422. Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: A content analysis of British television programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254–271. Coyne, S. M., & Whitehead, E. (2008). Indirect aggression in animated Disney films Journal of Communication, 58, 382–395. Cvancara, K. E., & Kinney, T. (2008, May). Televised social models of verbal aggression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal. Eastin, M. S. (2007). The influence of competitive and cooperative group game play on state hostility. Human Communication Research, 33, 450–466. Fouts, G., & Burggraf, K. (2000). Television situation comedies: Female weight, male negative comments, and audience reactions. Sex Roles, 42, 925–932. Fouts, G., & Vaughan, K. (2002). Television situation comedies: Male weight, negative references, and audience reactions. Sex Roles, 46, 439–442. Friedrich, L. K., & Stein, A. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, 1–64. Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5–22. Glascock, J. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression on prime-time network television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 268–281. Glascock, J., & Ruggiero, T. E. (2004). Representations of class and gender on primetime Spanish-language television in the United States. Communication Quarterly, 52, 390–402. Greenberg, B. S., Edison, N., Korzenny, F., Fernandez-Collado, C, & Atkin, C. K. (1980). In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analysis of U.S. TV drama (pp. 99–128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Greene, K., & Krcmar, M. (2005). Predicting exposure to and liking of media violence: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Studies, 56, 71–93. Haridakis, P. M. (2002). Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 4, 325–354. Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior, volume 1 (pp. 65–133). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C, Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Joy, L. A., Kimball, M. M., & Zabrack, M. L. (1986). Television and children’s aggressive behavior. In T. M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities (pp. 303–603). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.

196

Rebecca M. Chory

Kaplan, S. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1982). Antisocial and prosocial behavior on prime-time TV. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 478–482. Koehn, S. C., & Martin, M. M. (1997, April). Million dollar sellers: A content analysis of verbal aggression in the top 1995 Hollywood motion pictures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore. Krcmar, M., & Sohn, S. (2004). The role of bleeps and warnings in viewers’ perceptions of on-air cursing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 570–583. Lachlan, K. A., & Maloney, E. K. (2008). Game player characteristics and interactive content: Exploring the role of personality and telepresence in video game violence. Communication Quarterly, 56, 284–302. Larson, M. S. (2001). Interactions, activities and gender in children’s television commercials: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 41–56. Leyens, J., Camino, L., Parke, R. D., & Berkowitz, L. (1975). Effects of movie violence on aggression in a field setting as a function of group dominance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 346–360. Lowery, S. A. & DeFleur, M. L. (1995). Research as a basis for understanding mass communication. In Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects (pp. 1–19). White Plains, NY: Longman. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Cos, G. C. (1997). Verbal aggression: A study of the relationship between communication traits and feelings about a verbally aggressive television show. Communication Research Reports, 14, 195–202. Martin, M. M., Koehn, S. C., Weber, K., & Mottet, T. P. (1997, May). Verbal aggression in family sitcoms: Who said what to whom with what response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal. Martin, M. M., Weber, K., Maffeo, V. P., Mottet, T. P., & Koehn, S. C. (1998). The relationships of trait verbal aggressiveness and frequency of viewing and enjoyment of television sitcoms. Communication Research Reports, 15, 406–412. Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Media exposure, aggression and prosocial behavior during early childhood: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 15, 612–627. Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. Parke, R. D., Berkowitz, L., Leyens, J. P., & Sebastian R. (1977). The effects of repeated exposure to movie violence on aggressive behavior in juvenile delinquent boys: Field experimental studies. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press. Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92–109. Potter, W. J. (1999). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Potter, W. J., & Vaughan, M. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in television entertainment: Trends and profiles. Communication Research Reports, 14, 116–124. Potter, W. J., Vaughan, M. W., Warren, R., Howley, K., Land, A., & Hagemeyer, J. C. (1995). How real is the portrayal of aggression in television entertainment programming? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39, 496–516. Potter, W. J., & Ware, W. (1987a). An analysis of the contexts of antisocial acts on prime-time television. Communication Research, 14, 664–686. Potter, W. J., & Ware, W. (1987b). Traits of perpetrators and receivers of antisocial and prosocial acts on TV. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 382–391.

Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression

197

Potter, W. J., & Warren, R. (1998). Humor as camouflage of televised violence. Journal of Communication, 48, 40–57. Potter, W. J., Warren, R. W., Vaughan, M., Howley, K., Land, A., & Hagemeyer, J. (1997). Antisocial acts in reality programming on television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 69–89. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scharrer, E. (2001). From wise to foolish: The portrayal of the sitcom father, 1950s– 1990s. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 23–40. Scharrer, E., Bergstrom, A., Paradise, A., & Ren, Q. (2006). Laughing to keep from crying: Humor and aggression in television commercial content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 615–634. Tamborini, R., Chory, R. M., Lachlan, K., Westerman, D., & Skalski, P. (2008). Talking smack: Verbal aggression in professional wrestling. Communication Studies, 59, 242–258. Tamborini, R., Mastro, D. E., Chory-Assad, R. M., & Huang, R. H. (2000). The color of crime and the court: A content analysis of minority representation on television. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 639–653. Williams, T. M., Zabrack, M. L., & Joy, L. A. (1982). The portrayal of aggression on North American television. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 360–380. Wotring, C. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1973). Experiments in televised violence and verbal aggression: Two exploratory studies. Journal of Communication, 23, 446–460. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1991). Responding to comedy: The sense and nonsense in humor. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 261–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chapter 11

Cyberbullying Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

Recent data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Rainie, 2008) indicates that teens’ use of communication technology has significantly increased in recent years. For example, their data indicates that 94 percent of teens use the internet (including 62 percent who use the internet on a daily basis), 58 percent have a profile on a social networking site such as Facebook.com or MySpace.com, 26 percent keep their own personal web page, and 71 percent own a cell phone. These and other new communication technologies have the potential to positively impact many aspects of human communication by providing easy access to valuable information and increasing connectivity. However, like many other forms of communication, such communication technologies also have a dark side (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007) as they can very easily be exploited to intimidate or hurt others. This chapter focuses on one destructive use of communication technology that has drawn increasing attention from both the popular press and social science scholars: cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is the deliberate and repeated misuse of communication technology by an individual or group to threaten or harm others. Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston (2008) note that there is some “confusion surrounding the ages at which cyber bullying may take place” (p. 43). For example, they note that, in the opinion of at least one legal expert, cyberbullying must occur between minors, and when adults become involved, the behavior should be labeled cyberharassment or cyberstalking. However, recent data indicates that 74 percent of adults use the internet (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009), 33 percent have a profile on a social networking site, 14 percent keep their own personal web page (Rainie, 2008), and 89 percent have their own cell phone (Harris Interactive, 2008). Further, we believe there is ample scientific and anecdotal evidence indicating that adults can and do engage in behaviors that can be considered cyberbullying. We therefore agree with Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston’s (2008) response to this argument, and consider cyberharassment and cyberstalking to be two very serious types of cyberbullying. This position is consistent with previous research that indicates that traditional bullying (and related behaviors such as verbal aggression) can and does occur between adults in a variety of settings, including at work (Infante & Gorden, 1985;

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

199

Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006), in college (Werner & Crick, 1999), and between intimate partners (Carlyle, Roberto, & Gallagher, 2009; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990). It is also consistent with the plethora of recent news stories where minors cyberbully adults (Pytel, 2007), adults cyberbully minors (Steinhauer, 2008), or where adults cyberbully other adults (Currier, 2008; Daniloff, 2009; Krim, 2005). Fortunately, the communication discipline is well poised to help understand and respond to cyberbullying. However, nearly all published research over the past decade was conducted by scholars outside the field of communication, and unfortunately, we found only two published pieces that explicitly looked at cyberbullying or related behaviors from a communication perspective (Ramirez et al., 2008; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002). Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the current cyberbullying literature for communication scholars interested in bringing their considerable skills to bear on this important communication phenomenon. Toward this end, this chapter will begin by providing a definition and very brief review of research regarding traditional bullying. This will be followed by detailed discussions of the five key components of our definition of cyberbullying, the key differences between cyberbullying and traditional bullying, and the most common types of cyberbullying. Next, we will review existing research on cyberbullying, as well as two research-based traditional bullying prevention interventions and a recently developed cyberbullying prevention intervention. Finally, we will identify several insights that previous communication (and related) theory and research might shed on understanding and preventing this destructive form of communication, then offer some suggestions for future research in this area.

Traditional Bullying Although a thorough review of the traditional bullying literature is beyond the scope of the current chapter, a brief review of the definition of traditional bullying will provide a useful context in which our discussion of cyberbullying can be couched. Thus, this section will provide a definition of traditional bullying as well as the two primary means by which traditional bullying typically manifests itself; via direct verbal and physical aggression and indirect relational aggression. According to the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus, 2007): We say a student is being bullied when another student, or several other students:

• •

say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or her, or call him or her mean and hurtful names completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose

200

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

• • •

hit, kick, push, shove around, or lock him or her inside a room tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes and try to make other students dislike him or her and other hurtful things like that

When we talk about bullying, these things happen more than just once, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or herself. We also call it bullying, when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we do not call it bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also it is not bullying when two students of about equal strength or power argue or fight. (p. 2, emphasis original)1 As the above definition illustrates, bullying can manifest directly or indirectly. Direct bullying consists of actual or intended physical or psychological harm. For example, the first and third bullets in the definition are designed to capture direct forms of bullying including verbal aggression (a.k.a. emotional bullying) meant to harm another person’s self-concept (e.g., saying mean or hurtful things, making fun of, name calling, etc.) and physical aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, etc.) respectively. Indirect or relational bullying is defined as “harm to another through damage (or the threat of damage) to relationships or to feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion” (McGrath, 2006, p. 6). For example, the second and fourth bullets in the definition are designed to capture common types of indirect aggression such as exclusion and spreading false rumors. As we will discuss in the next section, most of these types of traditional bullying are also relevant to our discussion of cyberbullying. Nansel et al. (2001) measured the prevalence of traditional bullying behaviors in U.S. youth using a representative sample of 15,686 students in grades 6 through 10. Results indicate that “during the current term” a total of 19.4 percent of students admitted to bullying, and 16.9 percent reported being bullied. Nationally, this translates to over 3.7 million students bullying others and 3.2 million students being bullied by others. Their results also indicate that boys are more likely than females to be both perpetrators and targets of bullying. However, Nansel et al. also report an interesting gender difference in that boys were more likely to report being bullied via direct aggression while girls were more likely to report being bullied via indirect or relational aggression. Finally, bullying was more prevalent in sixth through eighth graders than among ninth and tenth graders. Unfortunately, we were not able to find similar estimates for adult populations, but as noted in the chapter introduction, communication scholars have identified and studied traditional bullying and related behaviors between adults in a variety of settings including at work, college, and between intimate partners.

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

201

Cyberbullying In the introduction to this chapter, we noted that cyberbullying is the deliberate and repeated use of communication technology by an individual or group to threaten or harm others. We developed this definition after reviewing previous definitions of cyberbullying presented by numerous other researchers, scholars, and practitioners in this area (e.g., Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Beran & Li, 2005; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Li, 2006, 2008; Mason, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Strom & Strom, 2005; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Willard, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), and noticing some inconsistencies in the type of information included in these definitions. We also reviewed numerous anecdotal stories to make sure our definition fully captured the range of behaviors that were being experienced by both the bully and the bullied (e.g., Addley, 2000; Brady & Conn, 2006; Currier, 2008; Krim, 2005; Struglinski, 2006). Based on these reviews and on the definition of traditional bullying provided in the previous section, we believe a complete definition of cyberbullying should include at least five key components. First, cyberbullying involves the use of communication technology (i.e., communication across one or more electronic or digital media). Though it would be impossible to develop (or predict) an exhaustive and mutually exclusive list of the ways cyberbullying can manifest itself, the primary means of cyberbullying include voice, text, picture, or video messages disseminated via cellular phones (or similar devices like personal digital assistants) and the internet (including email, instant messaging services, websites, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and newsgroups). For example, in one of the most well known cases of cyberbullying, Megan Meier committed suicide after being harassed on the social networking site, MySpace.com, by a schoolmate’s parent, Lori Drew (Steinhauer, 2008). Second, cyberbullying involves the use of communication technology to threaten or harm others. Examples of cyberbullying messages include threats of physical harm or messages intended to cause psychological harm (e.g., messages that attack, insult, spread rumors about, embarrass, or harm the relationships of the cyberbullying victim). It is noteworthy that all of these examples represent common types of verbally aggressive messages that have been identified and studied in the communication discipline for decades. Specifically, Infante and Wigley (1986) define verbal aggression as messages designed to damage the self-concept of another person. Common types of verbally aggressive messages include insults (i.e., character, competence, physical appearance, or personality attacks), threats, profanity, and yelling. For example, in Megan Meier’s case, Ms. Drew pretended to be a boy named Josh and while “Josh” initially was interested in Megan, “Josh” eventually told Megan he did not want to be friends anymore because he heard that Megan was mean to her friends and that the world would be better without her (Steinhauer, 2008). Third, cyberbullying is deliberate. This component of the definition is designed to distinguish cyberbullying from playful teasing and from arguments

202

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

between individuals who advocate their own positions on controversial issues or refute the positions which other people take on these issues. However, if someone uses communication technology to tease a person in a mean or hurtful way, such teasing could still be considered cyberbullying. Further, if an online discussion or argument becomes heated and leads to personal attacks, the personal attacks would be considered cyberbullying. In other words, the locus of attack distinguishes argument from verbal aggression (and by extension, cyberbullying). In an argument, an individual’s position on an issue is the locus of attack. On the other hand, verbal aggression and cyberbullying focus on the person’s self-concept as the locus of attack (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986). As is the case with traditional bullying, this would be particularly true when the cyberbully has more power than the victim, or when it would be difficult for the person being cyberbullied to defend himself or herself. Cyberbullying can be direct or indirect just like traditional bullying, but at its heart, cyberbullying represents an intentional attempt to use communication technology to threaten or harm others. In the Megan Meier case, Lori Drew intentionally set up a false MySpace account in order to hurt and harass Megan Meier (Steinhauer, 2008). Fourth, though it is possible that a single message sent from a single source to a single receiver via communication technology might qualify as cyberbullying in extreme instances (e.g., a death threat sent over the web via email or to a cellular phone via a text message), cyberbullying typically consists of a repeated behavior. In its purest and most traditional form, examples of “repeated” would include a cyberbully sending numerous emails or text messages to (or about) his or her victim, or a group of cyberbullies ostracizing a victim by “de-friending” them on a social networking website. However, in the context of cyberbullying the term “repeated” often takes on much broader meaning. To illustrate, a cyberbully might create a single defamatory website; a website that can then be viewed repeatedly by hundreds or thousands of visitors. Similarly, a cyberbully might send or post a single text, picture, or video message; a message that is received or viewed by thousands or even millions of recipients or visitors. For example, a single defamatory website was created called “Kill Kylie, Incorporated” in an effort to threaten and harass a student named Kylie (Struglinski, 2006). On the other hand, the Megan Meier incident is a good example of repeated harassment through cyberbullying insofar as Megan received several messages from Lori Drew that hurt and harassed her (Steinhauer, 2008). Finally, cyberbullying can be undertaken by an individual or group. As should be apparent from the examples used to illustrate the previous components of our definition, cyberbullying can include a single individual working alone, or multiple individuals working together, to threaten or harm another individual. In the Megan Meier incident, perpetration of cyberbullying occurred from just one person (Steinhauer, 2008), whereas a woman in South Korea who failed to pick up after her dog was subsequently labeled “dog poop girl” and harassed by thousands of people online (Krim, 2005).

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

203

Differences between Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying Though traditional bullying and cyberbullying clearly share a number of important characteristics, scholars have identified at least five key differences between these two forms of aggressive communication. First, traditional bullying typically occurs at a particular time and place (e.g., school or on the way to and from school) (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). However, cyberbullying can happen any time and anywhere, and research indicates that cyberbullying typically occurs outside of school or after school hours (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007). Second, a traditional bully is typically visible and known to the victim whereas a cyberbully is often anonymous. For example, results across multiple studies indicate that approximately half of cyberbully victims did not know the perpetrator’s identity (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Third, traditional bullying is typically observed by a finite number of witnesses whereas cyberbullying can spread much more quickly and broadly. For example, multiple studies indicate that the most common methods of cyberbullying are email, instant messaging, and chat rooms (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007), and it is very easy to send numerous messages to numerous individuals via any of these channels with just a few keystrokes. Fourth, traditional bullies are typically physically bigger, stronger, or more popular, whereas cyberbullies need not be. For example, Kowalski and Limber (2007) note that a cyberbully may have power simply because they are able to instantly share negative comments or photographs with multiple people. Further, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) note that the internet is a place where someone can assert dominance or seek retribution in a way that he or she may not be able to in other situations. In other words, less powerful people may be less disadvantaged when online (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Finally, evidence of traditional bullying is difficult to collect and preserve whereas evidence of cyberbullying is relatively easy to collect and preserve. For example, most cyberbullying takes place in public forums or using email or text messages that can easily be printed and saved (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007). Such evidence can then be used when investigating or intervening in cyberbullying incidences. Common Types of Cyberbullying As is illustrated by the anecdotal examples included at the beginning of this chapter, the ways communication technology can be used to threaten, harm, and embarrass others are limited only by the cyberbully’s imagination. Though cyberbullying can take place using voice, text, picture, or video messages disseminated via cellular phones and the internet, Willard (2007) and Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston (2008) suggest that many types of cyberbullying can be placed into one or more of the following categories: flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing and trickery, exclusion/ostracism,

204

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

cyberstalking, and cyberthreats. Definitions and examples for several of these common types of cyberbullying are presented in Table 11.1.

Research on Cyberbullying Prevalence and Frequency of Cyberbullying Early research on cyberbullying victims indicates that somewhere around 10 percent of middle school youth had been cyberbullied (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). However, more recent research suggests that the prevalence of middleschool youth experiencing cyberbullying is closer to 25 to 30 percent (Beran & Li, 2005; Li, 2006, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Whether these discrepancies are due to the fact that more middle-school students have access to the internet or cellular phones than they did in the past, or because of methodological differences in how samples were selected or cyberbullying measured remains unknown. For example, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) used a representative sample, collecting participants from a national telephone survey. Patchin and Hinduja (2006), on the other hand, recruited a convenience sample by posting a link to their online survey on websites of musicians that they deemed most applicable to middle-school students. Similarly, Li’s (2007) sample included students from two middle schools with an “enthusiasm [for] technology” (p. 163). The Patchin and Hinduja (2006) and the Li (2007) sampling techniques likely resulted in a sample of youth who are more internet savvy and who are therefore more likely to have experience with some sort of cyberbullying than youth who have more limited access to the internet. With regard to being the perpetrator of cyberbullying, approximately 15 percent of the middle-school youth surveyed reported bullying others electronically (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2006, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Further evidence for the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration is indicated by the fact that approximately 50 percent of participants had witnessed cyberbullying or could think of someone who had been cyberbullied (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Li, 2006, 2007). For example, individuals who watched their friends write harassing messages to another person online would fall into this category. Likewise, a person would also fit into this category if they knew an individual in their class who had been cyberbullied. Of the 25 to 30 percent of middle-school youth who reported being cyberbully victims, approximately 60 percent report being cyberbullied less than three times while 40 percent indicate they had been cyberbullied more than three times. On the other hand, of the 15 percent of middle-school youth who reported cyberbullying others, approximately 50 percent indicated they had bullied other people electronically one to three times with 50 percent reporting bullying other people electronically more than three times (Li, 2006, 2007, 2008).

Publicly sending or posting untrue or cruel statements about a person.

Posing as someone else and sending or posting material that makes that person look bad or places them in danger.

Sharing embarrassing, private, or sensitive information with others with whom it was never meant to be shared; or, engaging in tricks to solicit such information that is then made public.

Intentionally excluding a person from an online group. (Or, we would add, using communication technology to exclude a person from a traditional group.)

Repeatedly sending threatening or intimidating messages.

Denigration

Impersonation

Outing and Trickery

Exclusion/ Ostracism

Cyberstalking

* List and definitions adapted from Willard (2007).

Repeatedly sending offensive messages; 15-year-old Gail Jones committed suicide after being bombarded with anonymous harassing calls on harassment is more long term and more one- her cell phone—sometimes receiving more than 20 in a half hour. The perpetrator has not been sided than flaming. identified (Addley, 2000).

Harassment

Nicole Williams is the first person in the state of Missouri to be charged with misdemeanor harassment after repeatedly sending threatening messages to another woman involved in a dispute over a man. Besides the repeated text messages, Williams and her friends are accused of leaving several graphic voicemails on her cell phone including a rape threat (Currier, 2008)

A woman in South Korea did not pick up after her dog on the subway, so angry citizens took pictures of her with their cell phones and posted them online, nicknaming her “Dog Poop Girl”. Her personal information was soon posted online, leading to people in real life calling her by the nickname. Shamed, she eventually dropped out of University (Krim, 2005).

After a 17-year-old man revealed secrets about his friend, the friend exacted revenge by creating a fake profile on a social networking site and luring the man into revealing intimate details about himself. The friend then disseminated those details to people at school, revealed himself to the victim and told the victim that students and teachers alike were laughing at him. Eventually the stress led the man to attempt suicide (Rhys, 2008).

A high-school student was told about a website called “Kill Kylie Incorporated,” where people left rude messages about her and made allegations about her sexual orientation. Kylie also discovered that someone had used her screen name to send instant messages to members of the girl’s field hockey team, asking them out on dates. Kylie changed schools twice and spent a semester being home schooled before the harassment stopped (Struglinski, 2006).

After high-school student Casey was overheard saying she could beat up another student, several schoolmates sought revenge by claiming Casey was a lesbian and posting a joke picture taken of Casey kissing another girl. Casey eventually opted for home schooling (Brady & Conn, 2006).

Brief, heated exchanges involving angry, rude, After a sexually charged ad depicting Gilligan’s Island characters Mary Anne and Ginger involved in a vulgar, or threatening messages, often in a pie-fight ran on a Gilligan’s Island fan website, several hundred people posted responses to the website public setting. indicating, very explicitly, their extremely negative reaction (Gupta, 2005).

Flaming

Examples

Definition

Name

Table 11.1 Common Types of Cyberbullying*

206

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

Cyberbullying Channels Kowalski and Limber (2007) studied adolescents in middle school and found that for both victims and bullies, instant messaging was the primary medium of harassment, followed by chat rooms and then email. Li (2008) found similar results but also reported that over half the sample were cyberbullying or being cyberbullied via multiple communication channels. Interestingly, Kowalski and Limber (2007) found that grade in school moderated the use of instant messaging and text messaging such that sixth graders reported the least victimization by these methods while eighth graders were more likely than sixth graders to use instant messaging and text messaging to cyberbully others. The authors attribute this to the fact that as people age, they become increasingly adept at using technology, have more access to technology, and therefore have more opportunity to use that technology to cyberbully or be cyberbullied by others. Several other researchers have tried to determine which types of technology are used most often by cyberbullies. Given the different definitions of technology, it is difficult to compare across studies. For example, Beran and Li (2005) defined different types of technologies generally with two main categories: computers (53 percent used email, 46 percent used the internet, 11 percent used chat rooms, and 7 percent used webpages) and other (25 percent used cell phones, 6 percent used answering machines and 4 percent used video cameras). Kowalski and Limber (2007) broke technology into several smaller categories and reported that 58 percent used instant messaging, 21 percent used chat rooms, 15 percent used websites, 19 percent sent emails, 17 percent sent text messages, and 12 percent used some other communication technology. Relationship between Victim and Perpetrator As previously stated, one of the most problematic aspects of cyberbullying is that it can be done with relative anonymity. The research on cyberbullying indicates that while victims often do not know the identity of their perpetrators, cyberbullies often do know the identity of their victims. For example, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found that “84 percent of youth who reported they had harassed or embarrassed someone online knew their target in person. In contrast, only 31 percent of the youth who reported being a target of Internet aggression reported knowing their harasser in person” (p. 1311). Hinduja and Patchin (2008) found that one of the reasons victims rarely know the perpetrators of their cyberbullying is that the perpetrators often attempt to remain anonymous. Further, Kowalski and Limber (2007) found that nearly half of cyberbully victims did not know who had cyberbullied them. Specifically, of the 7 percent of youth who reported being a bully/victim, more than half indicated that they had been cyberbullied by their friends, approximately 60 percent indicated they had been bullied by another student at school, 16 percent reported being cyberbullied by a sibling, 55 percent reported being cyberbullied by a stranger and 16 percent reported they had been cyberbullied by someone

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

207

else. Of the 11 percent who reported being just victims of cyberbullying, 12 percent reported being cyberbullied by a sibling, 25 percent reported they had been cyberbullied by friends, and approximately 50 percent reported being cyberbullied by a stranger. Relationship between Bullying and Cyberbullying Research on cyberbullying has drawn numerous links between traditional bullying and cyberbullying. More specifically, “youth who are bullied at or near school are significantly more likely to be a victim of cyberbullying; those who bully off-line also appear to bully on-line” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008, p. 148). Further, Li (2007) found several significant correlations between traditional bullies and cyberbullies such that “bullies compared to non-bullies tended to be cyberbullies; while bully/victims in the physical world were also likely to be bully/victims in cyberspace” (p. 1786). Although some youth bully other individuals both online and offline, there is a growing body of research that indicates that some individuals may exclusively bully online. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) argue that for some individuals, the internet is a place to assert dominance over others in a way that they may not be able to in other situations. They argue that cyberbullying can serve as a way to achieve retribution for traditional bullying or aggression such that individuals can take on a persona online that is more aggressive than they are in person. Cyberbullying is made even more salient by the fact that it can often be done anonymously. Hinduja and Patchin (2008) argue that less powerful people may be less disadvantaged when online; “minority groups (irrespective of race or ethnicity), although potentially unpopular on the schoolyard, may not be exposed as marginal on the Internet” (p. 148). Variables Related to Cyberbullying Researchers have identified several variables that appear to be related to cyberbullying. Hinduja and Patchin (2008) and Li (2007) found that the more time individuals spent online and the more technological knowledge people have, the more likely they were to have experience of cyberbullying in some capacity. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found that bullies/victims were more likely than cyberbullies or cyberbully victims to engage in drinking and smoking, had the most depressive tendencies, and were more likely to have psychosocial issues such that they required intervention. Similarly, Hinduja and Patchin (2008) found that several maladaptive behaviors were related to both victims of cyberbullying and cyberbullies themselves. These behaviors included “school problems, assaultive behaviors or substance abuse” (p. 144). Research on cyberbullying has also attempted to understand how sex influences this phenomenon. However, there have been mixed results, prompting a need for more research in this area. For example, Hinduja and Patchin (2008) found that no particular sex was more likely than another to be either victim or perpetrator of cyberbullying.

208

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

This is an interesting finding as many researchers assert that traditional bullying is both perpetrated and experienced by boys more than girls (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). On the other hand, Kowalski and Limber (2007) did find a sex difference in frequency of cyberbullying with girls outnumbering boys. The researchers assert that this is consistent with prior research on traditional bullying, whose findings indicate that girls use more indirect forms of verbal aggression than do boys. Given the potential for anonymity and reduced chances of overt face-to-face encounters between the bully and the victim, cyberbullying may constitute an indirect form of aggressive expression particularly suited to females. Negative Consequences of Cyberbullying on Victims Interestingly, although cyberbullying is prevalent, there is little research regarding the physical or mental effects on the victim. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) indicate that cyberbullying can spark mental health issues such as depression. Beran and Li (2005) found that 83 percent of cyberbully victims reported feelings of anger, 70 percent felt sadness or hurt, 44 percent felt embarrassed, and 40 percent felt anxious. Fifty-six percent of cyberbully victims also reported poor concentration, 21 reported low school achievement, and 13 percent reported increased absenteeism. The negative impacts of traditional bullying are well documented and include negative impacts to one’s social, cognitive, emotional and physical development (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008), low selfesteem (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006), and bulimic symptoms in women (Werner & Crick, 1999). Furthermore, Carney (2000) argues that traditional bullying is an additional risk for adolescent suicidal behavior. It seems reasonable to assume that cyberbullying would have similar effects. To illustrate, there are numerous anecdotal instances of cyberbully victims committing or attempting to commit suicide. The most famous of these examples, as discussed earlier in this chapter, is the suicide of Megan Meier, who killed herself after being cyberbullied by a schoolmate’s mother, Lori Drew (Steinhauer, 2008). Similarly, Abraham Biggs committed suicide while online after being egged on by other internet users to do so (Smiley & Beasley, 2008). Reporting of Cyberbullying Incidents to Adults Adding to this problem is the fact that the majority of cyberbullying incidents are not reported to teachers or administrators (Li, 2006, 2008; Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007). One explanation is that students do not report incidents of cyberbullying because they do not feel that the administrators are willing or able to adequately address the issue on their behalf (Li, 2008). Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber (2007) argue that middle-school students are often unlikely to report cyberbullying that occurred at school because they fear the consequences of breaking school policy which states that cell phones are not allowed to be used during the school day. Instead, Agatston, Kowalski, and Limber (2007)

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

209

note that students were more likely to tell parents rather than teachers about cyberbullying because they felt that teachers would be ineffective in resolving the situation. For example, Hinduja and Patchin (2008) comment that 24 percent and 14 percent of cyberbullying victims told parents or teachers, respectively. It is also interesting to note that while participants indicated that they were more likely to report incidents of cyberbullying to parents, they also indicated that they often did not report incidents of cyberbullying to parents because of myriad reasons including fear of loss of internet privileges, fear that telling someone would not resolve or exacerbate the problem, they did not think it was a problem, or they did not know where to go for help (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Knowledge of Cyberbullying Safety Strategies One of the ways both parents and teachers attempt to control cyberbullying is by teaching internet safety strategies such as blocking a user, learning to respond to cyberbullying in a way that minimizes retaliation, and requesting removal of an objectionable website (Agatston, 2007). In one study, over three-quarters of both cyberbullies and victims believed they knew internet safety strategies (Li, 2007). Students in another study were able to adequately describe effective ways to deal with cyberbullying. These ways include blocking a user or ignoring the bullying messages. However, these same students were less likely to know how to be a helpful bystander when witnessing others being cyberbullied (Agatston, 2007). In short, although students know some measures for staying safe while online, many students are wholly lacking knowledge about internet safety, or about safe use of other communication technologies.

Cyberbullying Prevention Traditional Bullying Prevention Programs The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus et al., 2007a, 2007b) is designed for elementary and junior high-school students between the ages of five and fifteen years old. Though this program is designed to be implemented by schools, it is not a classroom curriculum. Instead, it is a comprehensive program designed to address bullying in the community, in the school, in the classroom, and at the individual levels. This program has been evaluated in six large-scale evaluations involving more than 40,000 students. Results across these studies indicate reductions in student bullying behavior (based on selfreport, peer, and teacher ratings) as well as more positive attitudes towards schoolwork and school (Olweus et al., 2007a, 2007b). Get Real About Violence (Comprehensive Health Education Foundation, 1994) is a youth violence prevention curriculum intended for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. This program was designed to influence an individual’s attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors, related to fighting,

210

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

direct and indirect bullying and verbal aggression, as well as other behaviors that might encourage physical or verbal aggression in others. Meyer et al. (2004) evaluated the 12-lesson grade 6 to 9 version of this program using a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design in two urban junior high schools (total N = 293 seventh graders). The curriculum had its greatest impact on verbal aggression, with students in the experimental group reporting less verbally aggressive behavior in the past 30 days, lower intentions to be verbally aggressive in the next 30 days, and also reporting having a more negative attitude toward verbal aggression than students in the control group. Students in the experimental group also reported lower intentions to watch a fight in the future, and also reported more negative beliefs about both violence in general and fighting in particular. Cyberbullying Prevention Programs At the time this chapter was written there were no known research-based cyberbullying prevention programs. However, we were able to identify one schoolbased cyberbullying prevention program that has not been evaluated. Cyber Bullying: A Prevention Curriculum for Grades 6–12 (Limber, Kowalski, & Agatston, 2008b) and its counterpart for grades 3 to 6 (Limber, Kowalski, & Agatston, 2008a) are cyberbullying prevention programs designed for elementary or junior high and high-school students. The grade 6–12 curriculum includes eight 50-minute sessions. Sessions 1 and 2 define and identify examples of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Session 3 describes how cyberbullying affects victims, bystanders, and perpetrators. Session 4 discusses why people cyberbully others and why cyberbullying is unacceptable. Session 5 reviews steps students can take if they or someone they know is being cyberbullied. Finally, Sessions 6 through 8 focus on how students can create a positive social networking site as well as on the ways students can prevent cyberbullying on social networking sites. The Grade 3–5 curriculum includes five 50-minute sessions. Sessions 1 through 3 include age-appropriate versions of the first three sessions discussed above. Session 4 focuses on identifying basic rules and etiquette (a.k.a. “netiquette”) for online behavior, and Session 5 focuses on ways students might respond if they find themselves in a situation where they are being cyberbullied. Though based on research, this intervention has not been formally evaluated, making this an important area for future research.

Communication and Cyberbullying As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the communication discipline is in a unique position to help understand and respond to this important communication phenomenon (Ramirez et al., 2008). This section will identify three additional areas of communication and related research that are also relevant to understanding and preventing cyberbullying: computer tailored messages, the skills deficiency model, and the Theory of Reasoned Action.

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

211

Computer Tailored Messages Interestingly, resent research on computer tailored messages suggests that the very communication technologies that are used to cyberbully others can also be an important tool in preventing this harmful behavior. Computer tailored messages are intended to reach one specific person based on characteristics that are unique to that person (Kreuter et al., 2000). Tailored messages are typically created by asking individuals to answer a series of questions (e.g., about their current beliefs, attitudes, norms, or behavior) and then using a computer algorithm (i.e., a series of instructions or decision-making rules) to generate messages that are highly customized to each individual. Several recent metaanalyses and literature reviews highlight the great promise of using computer tailored messages to disseminate prevention messages to a wide variety of topics and target audiences (e.g., Noar, Black, & Pierce, 2009; Noar, Harrington, & Aldrich, in press; Roberto, in press; Sohl & Moyer, 2007). Computer tailored messages (especially those delivered over the internet) benefit from a number of important strengths: they are available on demand; provide a costeffective means to provide individualized messages to a large number of users; can be regularly updated; and provide a high level of control over implementation and monitoring. In the area of traditional bullying prevention, Evers et al. (2007) developed a tailored intervention designed to be delivered over the internet to reduce participation in each of three roles related to traditional bullying (bully, victim, and passive bystander). Utilizing an experimental design, the program was implemented in 12 middle schools and 13 high schools. Results indicated that the tailored intervention delivered over the internet “produced significant reductions in the percentage of students in middle schools and high schools who participated in bullying. The same pattern occurred for the roles of bully, victim and passive bystander” (p. 409). Skills Deficiency Model Infante and his colleagues (Infante & Wigley, 1986; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990) argue that a skills deficiency model can be used to explain why some individuals resort to verbal and physical aggression (and by extension traditional bullying or cyberbullying). The skill deficiency model suggests that aggressive communication is used when more constructive communication skills for dealing with a conflict are lacking. The relationship between verbal aggressiveness and physical aggression has been demonstrated in several studies in both adult (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990; Roberto, Carlyle, & Goodall, 2007) and adolescent (Roberto, 1999) populations. Infante (1995) outlines numerous classroom strategies for reducing verbal aggression, including the understanding of verbal aggression, distinguishing between constructive and destructive aggression, identifying the types and effects of verbal aggression, and helping people develop strategies for controlling

212

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

verbal aggression. Many of these and similar strategies have been incorporated as parts of traditional violence, bullying, and cyberbullying prevention interventions. The results from such efforts, as discussed earlier, indicate that it is possible to reduce such behaviors in junior high and high-school students. Theory of Reasoned Action According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the best predictor of a person’s behavior is behavioral intention, and the best predictors of a person’s behavioral intention are his or her attitude and subjective norms. Several meta-analyses offer consistent support for the TRA’s ability to predict behavior on a wide variety of topics (e.g., Albarracin et al., 2001; Downs & Hausenblas, 2005). Further, Roberto et al. (2003) assessed the ability of the TRA to predict and explain junior high-school students’ verbal aggression and physical aggression as well as two other behaviors that might encourage physical aggression (i.e., watching a fight and spreading rumors about a fight that is going to happen). Consistent with the TRA, “analysis revealed that attitudes and subjective norms predicted behavioral intent, and intent predicted behavior, for watching a fight, spreading rumors about a fight, and insulting. For fighting, however, attitudes, but not subjective norms predicted behavioral intent, and intent predicted behavior” (p. 135). Implications from the results of this study indicate that cyberbullying prevention efforts could increase their chance of success if they targeted attitudes and subjective norms.

Conclusion There is a clear need for much more research on cyberbullying in at least three important areas. First, since research in this area is still relatively new, much of the descriptive information that has been collected is inconsistent at best, likely due to the different conceptual and operational definitions that have guided various studies. Thus, there is a need for better estimates regarding the frequency, types, and channels of cyberbullying in general, as well as a need for estimates in a greater number of contexts including junior high and high school, college, at work, in families, and in intimate relationships. On a related note, there is also a need for a clearer picture of the risk factors and consequences of cyberbullying in each of these contexts. Second, although we discussed or reviewed several relevant communication perspectives more communication research is needed in the realm of cyberbullying. Outside of the communication perspectives covered in this chapter, numerous other links between communication theory and research and cyberbullying clearly exist and should be pursued by researchers. Third, research is needed to help design and evaluate effective cyberbullying prevention interventions. For example, topics such as conflict resolution and peer mediation have been studied by communication scholars for years and might have considerable promise in this

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

213

area. Further, there is a clear need to evaluate existing cyberbullying prevention programs and materials (including materials presented on the internet), and perhaps to develop or adapt new prevention programs guided by the computer tailored messages literature that can be delivered over the internet. In conclusion, the purposes of this chapter were to provide a thorough review of the cyberbullying literature and to identify ways communication scholars might contribute to this literature. Thus, in order to provide a more focused report, we were unable to address every aspect of cyberbullying. One omission that comes readily to mind, because it was often raised in the popular press and sometimes in the social science literature, concerns first amendment and other legal issues related to cyberbullying. While we acknowledge that this is a complex and important subject, space constraints prevented us from providing an in-depth discussion of this topic here. Instead, we refer readers who may be interested in this issue to other resources by scholars whose areas of interest and expertise lie in this area (e.g., Gillespie, 2006; McGrath, 2006). That being said, we would like to conclude by noting that cyberbullying is clearly a destructive behavior that can have a severe and long-lasting impact on all involved. In addition, as we have argued throughout this chapter, the communication discipline is particularly well suited to help understand and respond to this important problem.

Note 1 From the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus Bullying Prevention Program) by Dan Olweus. Copyright 2007 by Hazelden Foundation. Reprinted by permission of Hazelden Foundation, Center City, MN.

References Addley, E. (2000, October 13). Mobile phone bullies drove teenager to suicide. Guardian. co.uk. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ 2000/oct/13/internetnews.education Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S59–S60. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265–277. Brady, K. P. & Conn, K. (2006). Bullying without borders: The rise of cyberbullying in America’s schools. School Business Affairs. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http:// asbointl.org/asbo/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000001674/ASBO_Oct06_SBA_ Article_Cyberbullying.pdf Carlyle, K. E., Roberto, A. J., & Gallagher, E. B. (February, 2009). The relationship between parents’ verbal aggression and responsiveness and young adult children’s intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration. Paper presented to the

214

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

Health Communication Interest Group of the Western States Communication Association. Phoenix, AZ. Carney, J. V. (2000). Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behavior during adolescence. School Psychology International, 21, 213–223. Comprehensive Health Education Foundation. (1994). Get real about violence C.H.E.F. kit. Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Education. Currier, J. (2008, December 17) Experts say new laws aimed at cyber-bullying probably do little to deter destructive behavior. Cleveland.com. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/12/experts_say_laws_aimed_ at_cybe.html Daniloff, C. (2009). Cyberbullying on the rise, on campus. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.bu.edu/today/world/2008/12/19/cyberbullying-rise-campus Downs, D. S, & Hausenblas, H. A. (2005). The theories of reasoned action and planned behavior applied to exercise: A meta-analytic update. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2, 76–97. Evers, K. E., Prochaska, J. O., Van Marter, D. F., Johnson, J. L., & Prochaska, J. M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Educational Research, 49, 397–414. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I., (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gillespie, A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and the harassment of teenagers: The legal response. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28, 123–136. Gupta, S. (2005). When Ginger, Mary Ann get blogged, “Gilligan” site gets heavily logged. Media Daily News. Retreived March 2, 2009, from http:// www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=31001 Harris Interactive (2008). Cell phone usage continues to increase. Retreived March 6, 2009, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=890 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superior’s argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates’ satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117–125. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22–S30. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., & Brennan, L. (2000). Tailoring health messages: Customizing communication with computer technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age

215

Krim, J. (2005, July 7). Subway fracas escalates into test of the internet’s power to shame. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601953.html Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157–170. Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50, 223–234. Limber, S. P., Kowalski, R. M., & Agatston, P. W. (2008a) Cyber bullying: A prevention curriculum for grades 3–5. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Limber, S. P., Kowalski, R. M., & Agatston, P. W. (2008b) Cyber bullying: A prevention curriculum for grades 6–12. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 837–862. Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 323–348. McGrath, M. Z. (2006). School bullying: Tools for avoiding harm and liability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Meyer, G., Roberto, A. J., Boster, F. J., & Roberto, H. L. (2004). Assessing the Get Real about Violencefi curriculum: Process and outcome evaluation results and implications. Health Communication, 16, 451–474. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. Noar, S. M., Black, H. G., & Pierce, L. B. (2009). Efficacy of computer technologybased HIV prevention interventions: A meta-analysis. AIDS, 23, 107–115. Noar, S. M., Harrington, N. G., & Aldrich, R. S. (in press). The role of message tailoring in the development of persuasive health communication messages. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 33. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (2007). Olweus bullying questionnaire. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Olweus, D., Limber, S., Flerx, V. C., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007a). Olweus bullying prevention program schoolwide guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Olweus, D., Limber, S., Flerx, V. C., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007b). Olweus bullying prevention program teacher guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148–169. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009). Demographics of internet users. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_Jan_2009.htm Pytel, B. (2007). Cyber-bullying: Students and teachers are now both becoming targets. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/ cyberbullying Rainie, L. (2008). Teenagers’ online safety and literacy [PowerPoint slides]. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/244/presentation_display.asp Ramirez, A., Eastin, M. S., Chakroff, J., & Cicchirillo, V. (2008). Towards a communication based approach to cyber-bullying. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication (p. 339–352). Hersey, PA: Information Science Reference.

216

Anthony J. Roberto and Jen Eden

Rhys, P. (2008). Teenage boy attempts suicide after Bebo bully plays “gay lover” prank. Mirror.co.uk.com Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/19/teenage-boy-attempts-suicide-after-bebo-bully-plays-gay-loverprank-115875–20324093/ Roberto, A. J. (1999). Applying the argumentative skill deficiency model of interpersonal violence to adolescent boys. Communication Research Reports, 16, 325–332. Roberto, A. J. (in press). Computer tailored messages. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Roberto, A. J., Carlyle, K. E., & Goodall, C. E. (2007). Communication and corporal punishment: The relationship between self-report parent verbal and physical aggression. Communication Research Reports, 24, 103–111. Roberto, A. J., Meyer, G., Boster, F. J., & Roberto, H. L. (2003). Adolescents’ decisions about verbal and physical aggression: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Human Communication Research, 29, 135–147. Smiley, D. & Beasley, A. H. (2008). Man, 19, broadcasts suicide live as some Web viewers urge him on. PalmBeachPost.com. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http:// www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/local_news/epaper/2008/11/21/a1a_ suicide_1122.html Sohl, S. J., & Moyer, A. (2007). Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: A meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine, 45, 252–261. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.), (2007). The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media and Society, 4, 71–92. Steinhauer, J. (2008). Verdict in MySpace suicide case. NewYorkTimes.com. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27myspace.html?_ r=1 Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2005). Cyberbullying by adolescents: A preliminary assessment. The Educational Forum, 70, 21–36. Struglinski, S. (2006, August 18). Schoolyard bullying has gone high-tech. Deseret News. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from, http://deseretnews.com/article/ 1,5143,645194065,00.html Tracy, S. J., Lutgen–Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148–185. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, V. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 499–503. Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and social–psychological adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615–623. Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.

Chapter 12

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

One of the delightfully niggling snags you encounter when writing a chapter about politically aggressive communication, especially close to an election, is that new examples of antagonistic political ploys keep flooding in, demanding to unseat those that have already found their way into introductory paragraphs. To be sure, there is no shortage of political aggression. In 2008, for example, potential voters saw the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, ribbed on account of his age, his lack of computer literacy, his temper, his erratic behavior, and for the number of houses he owned (or did not know he owned). Meanwhile, his opponent, Barack Obama, was compared to celebrity tarts (Paris Hilton and Britney Spears), rumored to be a Muslim, accused of advocating sex education for kindergartners, palling around with domestic terrorists, attending a church with a radical anti-American minister, and insinuating that Sarah Palin, Alaska’s governor and McCain’s running mate, was “a pig with lipstick.” Depending on one’s point of view, this last incident suggests that when mud cannot be found, it can be manufactured. Indeed, in point of fact, Obama never called Palin a pig. While speaking at a campaign rally, he compared McCain’s policies to George W. Bush’s by saying, “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig” (Slevin & Shear, 2008). The comment came on the heels of a speech by Palin, a self-proclaimed “hockey mom,” who poked fun at herself by joking, “. . . you know, they say, ‘What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.’ ” Despite Obama’s defense that “lipstick on a pig” is a common expression—so common, in fact, that McCain himself used it when discussing Hilary Clinton’s health care plan a year earlier (Slevin & Shear, 2008), the negative inference was made and broadcast by Obama’s foes. This is not to say that such antics are new. Contrary to some scholars who argue that political attacks have become increasingly negative (e.g., Lau & Pomper, 2004), history suggests otherwise. Given space limitations, we merely highlight some of the low points. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson was described by foes as “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father . . . raised wholly on hoe-cake made of coarse-ground Southern corn, bacon, and hominy, with the occasional change of fricasseed bullfrog” (quoted in Swint, 2008, p. 183). Twenty-eight years later,

218

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

John Quincy Adams was labeled a tyrant, gambler, and pimp, while Andrew Jackson was accused of murdering his own soldiers and of being a drunkard, an adulterer, and the son of a prostitute (Swint, 2008). In 1860, Abraham Lincoln had to endure descriptions such as thief, monster, perjurer, robber, swindler, tyrant, ape, ignoramus, despot, fiend, buffoon, and butcher (Jamieson, 1992; Mark, 2006), while in 1876, the Democratic presidential nominee, Samuel Tilden, was portrayed in some newspapers as a drunken coward with syphilis. In both 1964 and 1984, Democrats aired television spots juxtaposing children with nuclear weapons, thereby portraying their Republican opponents, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, as trigger-happy warmongers. Finally, in 2004, independent political organizations such as MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran ads implicitly comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler and accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his heroism in Vietnam. The main point to be taken from these examples, we suggest, is not that political communication is more or less nasty than ever, but rather that political communication, as evidenced by its perseverance and prevalence, is inherently aggressive. An election is, after all, a political contest. There is a winner and a loser. Thus, although previous literature suggests that voters claim they dislike negativity in politics (Lau & Sigelman, 2000; Mark, 2006; Swint, 2008), to ignore it invites a misunderstanding of “the nature of the beast.” Indeed, in the same way that Mitchell (1992) suggested that “Picking up the political rock and examining its slimy, crawly underside . . . is essential to an understanding of the crazy quilt that makes up the American electoral process” (p. xiv), we argue that understanding political communication requires a consideration of its dark side, warts and all. With that in mind, although not comprehensive, the purpose of this chapter is to identify various forms and functions of politically aggressive communication. In addition to providing examples from past political incidents, we review previous literature, examining the nature and effects of aggressive communication. In addition, we examine the special role of gender in this communication context. Before that, however, we turn to a discussion of the unique features of aggressive communication in political contexts and offer a model for judging the appropriateness of such communication.

The Nature of Politically Aggressive Communication When one stops to consider the colorful collection of terms that have found their way into the common vernacular through politics (e.g., character attacks, fearmongering, muckraking, mudslinging, playing the race or gender card, push polling, red-baiting, smear tactics, and swiftboating) it leaves the impression that aggression in politics is not only negative but “sleazy” as well. This impression, it seems, is quite common. Jamieson, Waldman, and Sherr (2000), for example, noted that the media and many scholars assume that political communication that attacks an opponent is both negative and dirty. Moreover, one review found that, in seven of ten studies, participants perceived political

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

219

ads that attacked an opponent as less ethical, less fair, and less liked than ads that simply advocated a candidate without attacking the opponent (Lau & Sigelman, 2000). Despite the prevalence of such views, we, like others who have written on this topic (e.g., Felknor, 1992; Geer, 2006; Jamieson, 1992), argue that aggressive communication can be desirable, depending on the nature of the attack. Our perspective is similar to that of scholars in interpersonal communication who have distinguished between two forms of communication: argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (see Infante, 1987; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Such work argues that being assertive or argumentative or being willing to advance one’s own position and refute the position of an opponent, is not the same thing as being hostile or verbally aggressive, where the focus of the attack is on the person rather than the issue. One common notion in such literature is that focusing attacks on positions is constructive and desirable, while focusing attacks on people is destructive and undesirable. We suggest that similar distinctions can be generalized to political contexts. Unlike interpersonal contexts, however, the unique nature of politics suggests that, although attacking issues is preferable, attacks on personal characteristics are sometimes fair game. We base this claim, in part, on the premise that context not only transforms the conceptual nature of verbal aggression, it has consequences for different audiences as well. First, from a conceptual perspective, although verbal aggression is targeted at damaging a person’s self-concept in interpersonal contexts (Infante, 1987), in political contexts, it is aimed at damaging the image of an opponent in the eyes of an audience. Indeed, because controlling the image of an opponent is so important to successful campaigns, Seiter (1999) has argued that politics is an especially rich context for expanding impression management theory (see Goffman, 1959; Leathers, 1997; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981) beyond its traditional focus on how people manage impressions of themselves to how they manage impressions of others as well. Second, political contests are high-stakes events not just for candidates, but also for voters. Consequently, such contests can be thought of as an avenue for providing voters with the information they need to make good choices, even if providing that information comes at a cost to candidates. Geer’s (2006) research supports this notion by demonstrating that, because they demand more support, negative campaign ads provide more information than positive ones. This is not to say that we advocate a “no holds barred” approach to political campaigns. Instead, we offer a preliminary framework for judging and predicting when aggressive communication in political contexts is appropriate and persuasive.

When is Aggression Appropriate and Persuasive? Different writers have suggested various scenarios for what constitutes appropriate and desirable communication in political campaigns. Due to space

220

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

limitations, our review is representative, rather than comprehensive. The “purist” approach finds little room for negative attacks, suggesting that negative campaigns shrink and polarize the electorate (see Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995). A more pragmatic or functional approach (e.g., Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008) maintains that it is desirable for candidates to challenge policies, philosophies, and problems, but frowns on attacks that focus on the shortcomings of an opponent. This approach promotes civility and sees little utility in character and competence attacks. Yet another approach is less concerned about civility and argues that campaigns are not “feel-good exercises,” but rather fierce, “rough and tumble” battles for control of government that should expose candidates’ worrisome characteristics and records (Geer, 2006. pp. 2–3). To us, the key issue is not about how much aggression is tolerable or whether the focus is on an opponent’s character or policies. Instead, we suggest that there are specific characteristics of aggressive communication that make it more or less desirable. Various attributes listed in previous literature include considerations about whether a message is polite, contextual, comparative, valid, positive, truthful, relevant, civil, fair, accurate, and supported by advocacy (e.g., Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008; Felknor, 1992; Geer, 2006; Jamieson, 1992; Lau & Pomper, 2004). In addition to taking these into account, we argue that because a primary purpose of political disputes, especially campaigns, is to provide information to a decision-making audience, a consideration of audience expectations about desirable communication becomes paramount. Given that, we consider work in linguistics and the philosophy of language that describes assumptions audiences typically have about how speakers cooperate and maintain harmony during communication. First, Paul Grice’s (1989) cooperative principle describes four maxims that participants in an interaction are expected to follow and that enable effective communication. These include the maxims of quality (i.e., participants are expected to provide information that is not false or that lacks adequate evidence), quantity (i.e., participants are expected to provide no more or less information than is required), relation (i.e., participants are expected to make their message relevant to the topic), and manner (i.e., the participants are not expected to be obscure or ambiguous). Similarly, Geoffrey Leech’s (1983) politeness principle describes six maxims that establish and maintain harmony in conversations. These include the maxims of tact and generosity (i.e., talk should minimize costs to others and benefits to yourself, and maximize costs to yourself and benefits to others), approbation and modesty (talk should minimize criticism of others and approval of yourself, and maximize criticisms of yourself and approval of others), and agreement and sympathy (talk should minimize disagreement and antipathy between yourself and others, and maximize agreement and sympathy between yourself and others). Because notions about politeness might vary across cultures, the application of the politeness maxims also depends on culture. Based on a synthesis of these maxims, we have derived three features that can be used as a framework for critically examining the desirability of politically

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

221

aggressive messages. The first feature, veracity, based on the maxims of quality, quantity, and manner, suggests that it is desirable for speakers to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, while providing evidence for the truth. As such, messages that are true, supported, and verifiable are generally preferred over those that are not. Given the emergence of fact-checking sites on the internet (FactCheck.Org, PolitiFact.com, and FactChecker.com, for example), getting at the truth of some of the candidates’ claims has become faster and easier than ever. The second feature, relevancy, based on the maxim of relation, suggests that it is desirable for speakers to share pertinent information. Thus, attacks on an opponent’s personal characteristics may be fair as long as they are relevant to the issue. For example, in 1972 anti-war Democrat, George McGovern, picked Thomas Eagleton as his presidential running mate. Soon after, it was revealed that Eagleton had been hospitalized repeatedly for depression and had even undergone shock treatment. Voters saw the candidate’s mental health as more than a personal matter. They questioned Eagleton’s ability to withstand the stresses and strains of the office were he to succeed McGovern as president. Eighteen days later, under a barrage of pressure, Eagleton bowed out of the contest. In contrast, it is difficult to see how jeers aimed at Hillary Clinton’s fondness for pantsuits, or gibes focusing on the unusual names of Sarah Palin’s children, are relevant to either candidate’s qualifications for office. In some cases, relevancy is a close call. In the 2004 debates, both John Kerry and John Edwards publicly remarked that Dick Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian and that the Cheneys loved their daughter nonetheless. On its face value, such a comment would seem out of bounds. If sexuality is a private, personal matter, as both Democratic candidates maintained, why bring it up? On the other hand, Kerry and Edwards were pointing out an inconsistency in Cheney’s value system. If homosexuality is merely a “choice” and not a matter of birth, as some Republicans maintain, how could Cheney explain his own daughter’s “choice”? Moreover, in 2004, the Republican Party backed state propositions against gay marriage while Mary Cheney appeared at campaign rallies with her father. Was Mary Cheney, then, fair game? Our third feature, decorum, includes the maxims of the politeness principle but also acknowledges the situational nature of appropriateness. This is consistent with both classical and contemporary rhetorical notions of decorum as appropriateness with respect to subject matter, audience, and occasion (Aristotle, 1954), as well as decorum as the “adjustment of thought and style to context and circumstance” (Fantham, 1984, p. 124). Thus, politicians should adapt to their audience but not necessarily stoop to the audience’s level. They must recognize that both the competitive nature of political contexts as well as the pursuit of veracity, our first feature, may infringe on some of the maxims of the politeness principle. Decorum demands that a balance be sought. For example, in political campaigns, providing voters with truthful and relevant information is the ideal and should take priority over politeness. Even so, it is one thing to say your opponent “lacks experience” and quite another to label

222

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

one’s opponent as a “moron” or an “imbecile.” For example, George H. W. Bush, during the 1992 presidential campaign, said of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, “My dog Millie knows more about foreign policy than these two Bozos” (Stryker, 1996, p. 1). In contrast, some situations may require that more weight be placed on politeness. For example, when communicating with a dictator who values indirectness and poses a threat to national security, offering the “whole truth” may be less desirable. Thus far, we have suggested that our “veracity-relevancy-decorum” framework should be useful for critically examining the desirability of politically aggressive communication. We realize, of course, that in the “real world,” politics are not so idealistic and that voters often make decisions in less rational ways. We envision political consultants intent on winning, praying that their opponents’ campaigns follow such an idealistic model. Indeed, Lee Atwater, George H. W. Bush’s campaign czar—who once remarked, “I’m going to scrape the bark off of Michael Dukakis” (quoted in Swint, 2008, p. 153)—illustrates that decorum is not always a priority. Even so, we suspect that our preliminary framework has functional value. Specifically, while acknowledging that a number of other more peripheral factors can influence elections, we suppose that candidates will be more persuasive when they and their messages are perceived to be characterized by veracity, relevance, and decorum. With this understanding, we now turn to a discussion of political aggression across a variety of contexts and media.

Political Debates Verbal Attacks During the third presidential debate of 2008, the moderator noted that the campaign had “turned very nasty” and then asked the candidates, “Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other’s face what your campaigns and people in your campaigns have said about each other?” From one angle, we imagine, this question can be seen as challenging the negative tone of the campaign. From another, it could be seen as a way of prodding candidates into fulfilling audience expectations for a tussle. Indeed, Tony Schwartz (1974), a Democratic consultant, once noted, “The presidency is the only job interview in the world for which all the applicants show up at the interview and attack each other” (quoted in Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988, p. 218). Finally, however, the moderator’s question might be seen as an attempt to provoke something newsworthy. Indeed, the media likes a good brawl. Previous research, for example, indicated that news coverage over-represents attacks made by candidates during debates. This over-reporting can distort viewers’ perceptions of what actually happens (Benoit & Currie, 2001; Benoit & Hansen, 2004). To say that the media exaggerates conflict, however, is not to say that political debates have always been characterized by respectfulness. One of the most

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

223

memorable campaign moments, for example, occurred in the 1988 vice presidential debate, when Dan Quayle, after comparing himself to John F. Kennedy, was told by his opponent, Lloyd Bentsen, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” (Schroeder, 2000, pp. 114–115). Of course, this quip seems tame alongside other historical moments. Debates in the U.S. Congress, for example, have not only triggered ridicule and name-calling, as when Senator Charles Sumner called Stephen Douglas a “noisome, squat, and nameless animal,” they have sometimes sparked physical attack, as when Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives, beat Sumner bloody and unconscious with a cane (Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988, pp. 72–73). Boorishness was also more common throughout the 1800s, when U.S. presidents, considered above campaigning for themselves, were represented by surrogate debaters, who were less constrained by decorum (Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988). However, the advent of televised presidential debates in 1960 created an expectation that candidates would debate for themselves, which, in turn, created a tricky spot; now, candidates had to find a balance between attacking their opponents while demonstrating enough respect to be perceived as a leader with decorum. As Democratic adviser, Tom Donilon, stated, whoever emerges the “appropriate aggressor” wins the match (Schroeder, 2000, p 50). Thus, while Ross Perot won laughs in the 1992 presidential debates by addressing his lack of government experience with lines such as “I don’t have experience in running up a four trillion dollar debt” (quoted in Schroeder, 2000, p. 55), in 1980, Ronald Reagan won hearts by using phrases like “There you go again” to call Jimmy Carter, in the nicest way possible, an exaggerator and liar. Four years later, Reagan, questioned about being too old for office, once again killed them with kindness by joking, “I want you to know that I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience” (Schroeder, 2000, p. 41). The notion that politicians are successful when they are appropriately aggressive is supported by communication research and theory. Here, we discuss two perspectives: politeness theory and functional theory. First, consistent with Leech’s (1983) tact maxim discussed earlier, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory argues that people desire approval, known as positive face, and to be free of imposition, known as negative face. When face is threatened, polite communication can be used to attenuate the threat. When politeness is not used, it can affect the images of communicators. Various scholars (e.g., Beck, 1996; Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008; Harris, 2001) have applied politeness theory to political discourse. For example, Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck (2008) argued that the nature of debates challenges positive face by requiring disagreement among communicators. Likewise, negative face is threatened when debaters violate rules by talking too long or by not waiting for their turn to talk. Based on an analysis of presidential and vice presidential debates from 1960 to 2004, these researchers observed several trends. First, challengers tend to rely on threats to the face of an opponent more than do

224

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

incumbents. Second, threats to face have become more serious and personal over the 45 years analyzed. Third, contrary to the somewhat common notion that vice presidential candidates are more aggressive in campaigns (see Carlin & Bicak, 1993; Schroeder, 2000), vice presidential debates have been less vicious, contentious, and face-threatening than presidential debates. Finally, although it is certainly the case that a wide array of other factors affects the outcome of elections, candidates who won elections tended to use a different set of politeness strategies in debates than those who lost. Specifically, although challengers were generally more aggressive than incumbents, challengers who won elections tended to threaten face indirectly (e.g., by naming the opponent’s administration or political party as a culprit rather than the opponent as the culprit) rather than directly. In contrast, for incumbents, no relationship between facethreatening attacks and election outcomes was found. In other words, incumbents might be freer to use aggressive communication than challengers (Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2008). An additional framework for analyzing political debates (and other political discourse) is functional theory (Benoit, 2007a). According to this perspective, candidates try to make themselves appear preferable to their opponents in three ways: through the use of acclaims (i.e., making positive statements about themselves), attacks (i.e., criticizing their opponents), and defenses (i.e., refuting opponents’ attacks). Furthermore, acclaims, attacks, and defenses can focus on a candidate’s policies (i.e., past deeds, future plans, and general goals) and/or character (i.e., personal qualities, leadership ability, and ideals). Research in this tradition (e.g., Benoit, 2004, 2007b; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999; Benoit & Wells, 1996) indicates several trends. First, acclaims are used more than attacks, which, in turn, are used more than defenses. This makes sense given that acclaims can make a candidate appear desirable, attacks can be perceived as offensive by audiences, and defenses can make a candidate appear weak and defensive (Benoit & Brazeal, 2002). Second, incumbents are more likely to use acclaims than challengers, while challengers use more attacks than incumbents. Finally, winners of elections are more likely to attack their opponents’ policies than their opponents’ characters. Nonverbal Attacks Aggressive communication is not limited to verbal behavior. Sometimes smirking, scowling, eye rolling, or head shaking can be just as effective as words, if not more so, for ridiculing or disagreeing with a person. This may be especially true on television, where nonverbal behaviors are particularly potent (Pfau & Kang, 1991), and in televised political debates, where cut-away shots, camera angles, and split-screen technology allow viewers to watch both speakers’ comments and opponents’ reactions. Such reactions have garnered their fair share of attention and criticism. In 1992, for example, viewers perceived George H. W. Bush as disengaged when a reaction shot caught him checking his watch, and during the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 debates, candidates were observed

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

225

and criticized for demonstrating derogatory background nonverbal behavior (Seiter & Weger, 2005; Stephanopoulos, 2008). To examine the effects of such nonverbal behavior, previous studies (Seiter, 1999, 2001; Seiter, Abraham, & Nakagama, 1998; Seiter et al., 2007; Seiter & Weger, 2005; Seiter et al., 2009) have asked participants to view various versions of fictionalized televised debates, showing debaters engaged in different types of nonverbal behavior. Consistent with our principle of decorum, results indicated that any background nonverbal disagreement tended to lower ratings of the nonverbal communicators’ credibility, likeability, and appropriateness, while sometimes improving ratings of their speaking opponents’ credibility. Moreover, consistent with our principle of veracity, when the audience was led to be suspicious of the debaters’ truthfulness, moderate nonverbal background disagreement made both debaters appear more deceptive. Additional research suggests that these findings might be moderated by other variables such as audience predispositions (Scheufele, Kim, & Brossard, 2007).

Traditional Media and Aggressiveness Not all insults about candidates in the media are aggressive if conceptualized as being designed to damage the reputations or images of candidates. For example, late-night talk show hosts and stand-up comedians often lambast politicians, but their primary goal is to entertain. Much the same may be said of other insults and slights found in mainstream media. Consider the July 21, 2008 cover of The New Yorker, which depicted Michelle and Barack Obama as Muslim extremists. The cover, created by Barry Blitt, was intended as satire, but not everyone got the joke. Political Attack Ads One of the more ubiquitous forms of verbal aggressiveness is political attack ads. Two types are featured prominently during election cycles. The first are ads created, sponsored, and aired by a candidate’s own campaign. These contain the obligatory acknowledgment, “I’m candidate Q and I approve of this message.” The second type are third-party, tax-exempt ads, commonly known as 527s (based on their section in the U.S. Tax Code). The latter are not officially endorsed by the candidate and tend to be far more scurrilous. Attack Ads and Aggressiveness It is no accident that campaign ads tend toward the negative. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley vs. Valeo that political ads on television and radio are a protected form of free speech. In 2002, Congress enacted the McCain-Feingold legislation, which limited “soft money” contributions from corporations, political lobbies, and special interest groups, but only if they mentioned a party or candidate by name. This advanced the development

226

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

of so-called 527 ads and their close cousins, 501(c)(4)s. Groups such as MoveOn.org and FreedomsWatch.org can raise unlimited funds for negative ads. Ostensibly, 527s support “issue advocacy” yet are clearly partisan in nature. As long as they do not explicitly say “Vote for candidate Q” or “Don’t vote for candidate Z,” such ads enjoy free reign. So 527 groups can say, essentially, anything they want. A complaint may be filed with the Federal Election Commission, but this is a post facto remedy—after the damage has been done. At the same time, candidates and campaign managers can profess they have no control over 527 ads. One is reminded of Captain Louis Renault’s line from Casablanca: “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here!” However, candidates can renounce such ads. They can also pick up the phone and ask the sponsors to pull the ads. In the case of the Swift Boat ads, the majority of the funding came from prominent Republican donors, all Texans, with long-standing ties to the Bush family (OpenSecrets.org, 2004). While candidates may claim their hands are tied, in most cases they have long-standing connections with the 527’s major contributors. Prototypical Attack Ads One ad that will forever have a place in the annals of negative campaigning is the “Willie Horton” spot, which ran during the 1988 presidential campaign. The ad, which was funded by Citizens United, portrayed Michael Dukakis as being soft on crime. Viewers saw a mug shot of Willie Horton, an AfricanAmerican inmate, serving a life sentence without parole. The narrator noted that while on a weekend furlough, a program Dukakis supported, Horton committed a series of violent crimes, including armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran a series of ads challenging John Kerry’s war record in Vietnam. So damaging were the ads that they added the verb “swiftboating” to the popular lexicon. And in 2008, voters were treated to Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m. phone call” ad, which suggested Barack Obama would be unable to answer the call should a sudden, international crisis emerge. Similarly, John McCain’s “Anti-celebrity” ad portrayed Obama as an overnight sensation, rather than a time-tested statesman with a record of accomplishment. As these ads illustrate, the possible ways to attack an opponent are numerous and varied. Previous research has identified several types of common attacks found in political advertisements. Among these are the use of fear, ridicule, labeling, apposition, and accusations of dishonesty (see Buell & Sigelman, 2008; Jamieson, 1992). First, political advertisements use fear by suggesting or implying what negative consequences might result if an opponent is elected. The “Daisy” ad discussed below is a good example. Second, political ads might ridicule opponents with humor or derogatory comments. Third, candidates might be labeled in negative ways. As noted above, for instance, ads labeled

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

227

Michael Dukakis as soft on crime. Fourth, the tactic of apposition seeks to associate an opponent with something negative. For example, in 2008, advertisements compared John McCain to then unpopular President George W. Bush. Finally, it is common for ads to question the integrity or honesty of candidates. Ads comparing what candidates say and what they do are examples. Effectiveness of Attack Ads The effectiveness of attack ads is sometimes a point of disagreement between academics and political practitioners (Pfau, Parrot, & Lindquist, 1992). While some studies suggest that ads focusing more on policy than on character are more effective (e.g., Benoit, 2004), others indicate that because audiences dislike such ads, they may produce a backlash (see below). Campaign managers and political consultants, however, are unequivocal in their belief that attack ads are highly effective (Swint, 2008, p. x). The results of a study by CNN/ Thinkscan.com concluded that “such ads have a significant and measurable impact on voter opinion outside their awareness” (PR.com, 2008, p. 1). As an illustration of how attack ads can be evaluated in light of the three standards we have outlined, we look next at a well-known negative ad. Veracity, Relevancy, and Decorum in Johnson’s “Daisy” Ad An infamous example of an attack ad is the anti-Goldwater “Daisy” ad from 1964. In that ad, a little girl plucks daisy petals while a voice in the background begins a countdown to Armageddon. The spot ends in a blinding nuclear flash. Although the ad never mentioned Barry Goldwater by name, the implication was clear; a Goldwater presidency would increase the risk of nuclear war. The commercial had an immediate, negative impact on voters’ perceptions of Goldwater (Middendorf, 2006). Many voted more out of fear of Goldwater than fondness for Lyndon Johnson. So how does the Daisy ad stand up under scrutiny based on our three features of veracity, relevance, and decorum? With respect to veracity, it is a close call. Some commentators labeled the ad “vicious,” “disgusting,” and “a lie” (Mohr, 1964). Nevertheless, Goldwater was not only an ideological conservative, he was a military hawk. In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, he declared, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” He advocated giving NATO commanders in Europe the authority to use tactical nuclear weapons (known as mini-nukes) and even entertained the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam (Jacobs, 2006; Swint, 2008). Was there a genuine risk that Goldwater would involve the nation in a nuclear war? To a large extent, it was Goldwater’s own words that allowed the ad to resonate with voters. He boasted that “brinksmanship is a great word,” and once commented off-handedly, “Let’s lob one [a missile] into the men’s room at the Kremlin” (Donaldson, 2003, p. 146). Asked how he would deal with the emerging Vietnam conflict, he retorted, “I’d drop a low-yield atomic bomb on

228

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Chinese supply lines in North Vietnam” (Donaldson, 2003, p. 147). Goldwater wasn’t eager to start a nuclear war, but he was willing to consider the nuclear option. Thus, the ad exaggerated the probability that Goldwater would provoke a nuclear confrontation, but not the severity of a nuclear war, should one occur. The message voters took away from the ad was that Goldwater viewed what was previously unthinkable—a nuclear war—to be thinkable. While veracity may be a close call, with respect to relevancy the Daisy ad appears to pass muster. The election took place during the height of the Cold War. In the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, the prospect of nuclear war was quite real, though usually premised upon some accidental, “failsafe” scenario. This was an era when many families built bomb shelters and children practiced “duck and cover” drills at school. If one can fault the Daisy ad, it is primarily on the grounds of decorum. The Daisy ad never mentioned Goldwater by name, relying instead on innuendo. The juxtaposing of the image of a young, innocent child with an atomic detonation was horrific. The ad was not intended to make a rational appeal to voters. The underlying motive was to stoke public fear that Goldwater was an extremist who was willing to risk nuclear annihilation. Despite the emotional nature of the appeal, however, the ad was not entirely exploitative. The ad resonated with voters because Goldwater was a saber-rattler. To many, he seemed to be a reckless Dr. Strangelove. Vote Suppression or Voter Mobilization? Early empirical research suggested that attack ads made the public more jaded or cynical about the election process and, in so doing, suppressed voter turnout (Ansolabehere et al., 1994; Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995). Other studies, however, dispute this conclusion, suggesting that negative ads actually increase voter turnout (Freedman & Goldstein, 1999; Kahn & Kenney, 1999). More recent research by Martin (2004) indicates that the mobilizing effects of negative ads outweigh their demobilizing effects. That is, attack ads cause more voters to go to the polls to vote against a candidate than to stay home. It should be noted that the effects of negative ads on voter turnout are clouded by a number of moderating variables, however. These moderators include how strong the attacks are, whether voters perceive that the attacks focus on substantive issues or personal matters, and whether the ads are designed to galvanize a candidate’s base, or lure swing voters over to that candidate’s side. Attack Ad Backlash? While campaigns have always been nasty, the trajectory of campaign ads has become increasingly negative in terms of their sheer quantity (though nothing may ever top the sheer ugliness of the 1828 presidential campaign between Andrew Jackson and John Adams). Even Karl Rove, the modern architect of negative campaigning, admitted that McCain’s ads had “gone one step too far”

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

229

(CNNPolitics.com, 2008, para. 1). Among other things, campaigns are now better funded and can afford to buy more commercial time. Scholars dispute whether the percentage of negative to positive ads is increasing (see Lau & Sigelman, 2000; Buell & Sigelman, 2008), but this is largely a matter of the counting methodology used. Bear in mind that the candidates themselves almost always maintain they are running a positive campaign; it’s the other candidate, they insist, who’s going negative. Conventional wisdom holds that voters claim they dislike negative ads yet also admit that they are effective. There is growing evidence, however, that the axiom “negative ads work” may need updating. A number of commentators reported that Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m. phone call” ad and McCain’s “Anti-celebrity” ad both backfired. Viewers compared the Obama they saw in the debates with the image portrayed in Clinton’s ad and thought to themselves, “This guy is cool, calm, and collected. He’s got the composure to handle a crisis.” Similarly, they watched McCain’s doddering style in some of the debates and heard his verbal gaffes on the campaign trail and concluded Obama was the more capable of the two. Public opinion polls have shown that voters report they have grown weary of negative campaigning. One poll found that 80 percent of voters regarded attack ads as “unethical and damaging to democracy” (Begley, 2008, para. 6). In the most recent election, 70 percent of voters responded that McCain and Palin’s ads were “too negative or nasty,” while 41 percent of voters said the same about Obama and Biden’s ads (Begley, 2008, para. 6). In tough economic times people can recognize attacks as diversionary tactics. As Adubato (2008) noted, “Today’s attack ads are falling on deaf ears” (para. 5). Other Traditional Media Talk Radio and Television Talk radio and television are forums that play a role in negative attacks. On radio, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and others dispense spin from the right, while Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, and Thom Hartmann do so from the left. The parade of punditry continues on television, where Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, on the left, and Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, and others, on the right, denounce the opposition on a nightly basis. Olbermann, for example, called Dick Cheney a “fatuous, condescending lunatic,” Sarah Palin a “dope,” and Ann Coulter a “Coultergeist.” Suffice it to say that when media mouthpieces enter the broadcast booth, they often leave veracity, relevance, and decorum at the door. In addition to these regular hosts there is a cavalcade of right- and left-wing talkers who appear as guests on political programs, including Paul Begala, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, James Carville, Ann Coulter, and William Kristol, to name only a few. Op-ed pieces in newspapers also contain their fair share of hostility, including contributions by editorial cartoonists.

230

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Push-Polling and Robo-Calling One of the most insidious forms of traditional attacks is via the telephone. Push-polling and “robo-calling” are a regular feature of the campaign landscape. Push-polls are thinly-disguised attempts to influence voters by asking loaded questions. Questions such as “Which candidate has a pregnant teenage daughter?” and “Which candidate started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?” Both questions were among those included in push polls in 2008 (FiveThirtyEight.com, 2008). Robo-calls rely on automated calls containing a pre-recorded message to shape voters’ opinions. In 2000, John McCain was the victim of a vicious smear campaign conducted via robo-calling. Automated phone messages claimed that McCain had fathered an “interracial child,” which was patently false. In fact, in 1993, the McCain family adopted an infant from an orphanage in Bangladesh (Banks, 2008). It was ironic that in 2008 the McCain campaign used automated phone messages to warn voters that Barack Obama had “worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans” (Stein, 2008, para. 2).

New Media: Aggression on the Web Campaigning on the web is the New Frontier. In 2004, Howard Dean demonstrated the promise of the internet as a method of campaign organizing and fundraising. In 2008, Barack Obama brought that promise to fruition by mobilizing a grassroots campaign via the internet and raising unprecedented sums from small donors. “The 2008 presidential election,” wrote Mitch Wagner (2008), “crowned the Internet as the king of all political media, ending the era of the television presidency that started with John F. Kennedy” (p. 17). In 2007, one of the democratic debates accepted questions for the candidates via YouTube (Vargas, 2007). Negative campaigning has embraced the internet as well, and the results aren’t always pretty. YouTube and the blogosphere are recent additions to the political scene, yet already their importance is being felt. If negative ads on television are analogous to a boxing match, with opponents throwing verbal barbs and occasional low blows, attacks on the web are more like a back-alley brawl with broken bottles and brickbats. Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules do not require candidates to endorse their internet ads as they must do on television and radio. So-called “soft-money” that may not be used for traditional media ads may be used for internet advertising. Thus, online campaigning is largely exempt from campaign finance regulations. “Internet campaigning,” noted senator Ron Wyden (an Oregon Democrat), “looks like the Wild West” (cited in McCullagh, 2004, para. 9).

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

231

YouTube YouTube, the fourth most popular website in the world (Alexa.com, 2009), has become a fertile breeding ground for negative ads. Not only is YouTube unregulated by the FEC, it is also cheap. Such video clips have viral marketing power. One viewer can forward the link to another viewer, and so on, until millions of people have seen the clip. By way of example, in 2007 a poster uploaded a video, “Dear Mr. Obama,” featuring a young, male veteran who tells Barack Obama that the Iraq war was not a mistake (YouTube, 2008). As he turns and walks away at the end, the viewer sees that he has an artificial leg. His message was largely emotional and the evidence anecdotal, but the clip was nonetheless powerful. As of January 2009, the video had been viewed nearly thirteen and a half million times. As we noted earlier, attack ads can backfire. When John McCain ran an attack ad on television equating Barack Obama with celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Paris Hilton fired back with her own counter-ad on the Web (FunnyOrDie.com, 2008). After a series of barbs about McCain’s age, Hilton noted “That wrinkly, white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I’m running for president.” Hilton then declared “And I want America to know that I’m, like, totally ready to lead.” YouTube may not yet be a king-maker when it comes to presidential elections, but it can make a candidate into a Humpty Dumpty overnight. The Blogosphere Since 1896, the masthead of the New York Times has displayed the motto “all the news that’s fit to print.” The blogosphere, however, is more akin to “all the people having fits about the news.” With the advent of weblogs, or blogs, we are witnessing the birth of e-democracy. Anyone can blog. Bloggers are credited with outing Trent Lott for his inopportune comment at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday celebration. Lott remarked that the pro-segregation candidate from 1948 would have made a great president (Burroughs, 2007). John Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post, called it “the Internet’s first scalp” (2002). Bloggers are also the ones who originally exposed a series of errors in Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes story about Bush’s iffy service in the National Guard. The blogosphere thus functions as a fact-checker for mainstream media. Many stories are broken first in the blogosphere. At the same time, many false and misleading stories are posted without due diligence. As Lyons (2005) commented, “Web logs are the prized platform of the online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective” (para. 1). In the 2008 campaign, for example, a rumor was circulated on the blogosphere that Sarah Palin’s infant son was really her daughter Bristol’s baby (Baumann, 2008). On the web, gossip, innuendo, hate speech, and libel are but a mouse click away. Every newspaper, television network, and wire service has its own set of ethical guidelines that journalists must follow. Not so in the blogosphere (see Hayes,

232

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Singer, & Ceppos, 2007). While many political junkies who contribute to blogs are responsible, others are not. Bloggers can be as hostile and vindictive as they want, subject only to the rules of the host site—if there is one. In this vein, Bissinger (cited in Baumann, 2008) intoned, “I think blogs are dedicated to cruelty, they’re dedicated to journalistic dishonesty . . . it’s the complete dumbing down of our society.” In short, veracity, relevancy, and decorum are not requirements in cyberspace.

Political Heckling Political protests—including rallies, marches, picketing, and sit-ins—even when nonviolent, are antagonistic in nature. Thus, they are aggressive forms of communication. Although the literature on protests is extensive, we confine our discussion to heckling, a unique form of political communication in that it violates the traditionally passive role of audiences (Nandi, 1980). Although heckling has been described as an “oral interruption” (Bennett, 1979, p. 28), we suggest that such a narrow definition snubs the nonverbal forms of ridicule that are commonly found in political contexts. For example, 1992 found President George H. W. Bush, who was reluctant to debate with Bill Clinton, being followed around the county by people dressed as chickens. At one point, a squabble broke out between Bush and one feathered citizen, whose sign read, “Chicken George Won’t Debate.” The incident made newscasts and probably contributed to Bush agreeing to debate that year (Schroeder, 2000). The aims of political heckling are varied. Less honorable goals include repressing speech with noise or interruption or causing embarrassment through name-calling or personal attacks. A more ideal aim is to promote debate. Typically, though, the goal of heckling is to turn audiences against speakers and their positions, a topic addressed by empirical research. Such work indicates that simply being heckled tends to hurt speakers by lowering their persuasiveness and perceived credibility (Silverthorne & Mazmanian, 1975; Sloan, Love, & Ostrom, 1974; Ware & Tucker, 1974). If the audience identifies with the speaker, persuasion and perceptions of speaker credibility are sometimes increased (Beatty & Kruger, 1978) yet sometimes decreased (Sloan, Love, & Ostrom, 1974). Petty and Cacioppo (1986) suggested that heckling may tend to decrease attitude change because it increases an audience’s likelihood of generating counterarguments toward a speaker’s topic. A limitation of these and similar studies is that they did not address the effects of speakers’ responses to hecklers. According to Seiter (1991), because candidates are concerned with presenting a favorable public image, their range of appropriate responses to hecklers is constrained. Previous research suggests that presidential candidates are held to higher standards than other candidates. Downs, Kaid, and Ragan (1990), for instance, found that while verbal aggression was accepted from a newscaster, it was detrimental to a presidential candidate. Given such standards, it is one thing for hecklers to ridicule candidates—as in 1968 when crowds shouted “Sieg heil!” and waved placards

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

233

reading “George Wallace is Rosemary’s baby!”—but quite another thing for candidates to reciprocate—as George Wallace did by shouting back, “I know some four-letter words you can’t even spell: work and soap!” (cited in Bennett, 1979, pp. 33–34). Although research (Bennett, 1979; Seiter, 1991) describes various strategies political candidates have used to counter hecklers (e.g., neutralization, manipulation, conversion, ad hominem, invalidation, image building), we know of only one that examined the effectiveness of a speaker’s responses. Specifically, Petty and Brock (1976) found that audiences rated a speaker as more credible, likable, and persuasive when her response to hecklers was calm and relevant than when her response was upset and irrelevant. This is not to say that heckling is good for a speaker’s image and persuasiveness. To be sure, the study showed that heckling, whether handled in a calm and relevant way or not, failed to improve the speaker’s effectiveness when compared to the conditions in which the speaker was not heckled at all.

Cultural-Political and Gender Considerations Without doubt, countless variables influence how aggressive communication is perceived and enacted in political contexts. Here, we consider two briefly. First, due to cultural or political influences, aggression may vary widely from country to country. For example, while the forcible silencing of hecklers has characterized totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, where house guards “took care” of contrarians (Bosmajian, 1972, p. 218), heckling is often embraced in free societies such as Britain, where verbal sparring is a cherished feature in the House of Commons and elsewhere. Moreover, political aggression may differ between individualistic cultures where competition is emphasized, and collectivistic cultures, where cooperation is valued. For example, Chang (cited in Benoit, Wen, & Yu, 2007) found that U.S. presidential ads were less positive than Taiwanese ones. On the other hand, some cross-cultural similarities are apparent. For example, research suggests that, as in the U.S. (see above), political communication in South Korea (Lee & Benoit, 2005) and Taiwan (Benoit, Wen, & Yu, 2007) was characterized by more acclaims than attacks, and by more attacks than defenses. A politician’s gender can also be an important consideration. Despite the recent attention gained by politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Nancy Pelosi, females are under-represented in U.S. politics. One potential problem they face is a double-bind described by Jamieson (1995): their communication must be competitive and assertive enough to be taken seriously yet feminine enough so as not to violate stereotypes of the cooperative and nurturing female. While some literature suggests that females who breach gender-role expectations are in jeopardy of being perceived negatively (e.g., Campbell, 1989; Carli, 2004), other research indicates that women can benefit from being aggressive. Gordon and Miller (2005), for example, found that female candidates who used an oppositional style received warmer ratings than their male

234

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

counterparts, and suggested that females may be better able to “get away with” going negative. Bystrom (2003, 2006) concurs that females may be granted more latitude to attack since they enter races with the stereotypical advantage of being seen as kinder. On the other hand, some writers have argued that a feminine style of rhetoric (e.g., communication that is personal, anecdotal, inductive, and participative is coming of age) (Campbell, 1989). Jamieson (1995), for instance, suggests that television encourages a more personal and self-disclosive (i.e., feminine) style of campaigning. Although males can adopt such a style, it benefits females more since it is consistent with stereotypical feminine communication (Jamieson, 1995; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988).

Conclusion Political aggression is here to stay. The inherently aggressive nature of campaigns, where the stakes are so high, guarantees that political contests will be hotly contested. At the inception of her presidential run in Iowa in 2007, Hillary Clinton remarked, “When you’re attacked you have to deck your opponent” (Komblut & Balz, 2007, p. A-1). Similarly, in response to McCain’s attack ads, Barack Obama declared in October 2008, “We don’t throw the first punch, but we’ll throw the last” (Appelbaum, 2008, para. 5). And then there’s the old adage: “Politics is like sausage: If you enjoy either one you shouldn’t see how they are made.” A number of conclusions and implications flow from our discussion of aggressiveness in political communication. First, presidential debates will continue to occupy center stage as the forum through which candidates try to control images. However, candidates may be better served by having third parties engage in most of the nastiness. In 2008, Barack Obama maintained his composure throughout the presidential debates. McCain, on the other hand, stumbled. He refused to look directly at Obama in one debate, grimaced and clenched his jaw during another, referred to Obama as “that one,” as if he could not speak his name, and meandered on and off camera while Obama was speaking in another debate. These were viewed as signs of hostility or disrespect by many viewers. Second, as of 2008, voters appear to be growing weary of attack ads, with “Six in 10 of those surveyed [saying] Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president” (Baram, 2008, para. 4). Whether disenchantment with negativity carries over to the next election cycle remains to be seen. One thing remains sure; attack ads will appear with greater frequency in new media. Third, we are entering the age of the endless campaign. In 1960, a mere ten months elapsed between the time John F. Kennedy announced his presidential bid and the general election. Now the length of campaigns is closer to two years (Presutti, 2008). In addition, there is the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the addition of more than 500 cable and satellite channels, and the emergence of the internet. Mark (2006) underscored the accelerated pace of negativity when

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

235

he observed that “American politics, at least in the near future, is likely to see all attacks, all the time, even when no election is looming immediately” (p. 235). As if to prove this point, the day after the general election in 2008 Rush Limbaugh told his listeners, “The game is begun” (Limbaugh, 2008, para. 3). More time spent talking on the campaign trail translates into a greater likelihood that a candidate will commit a gaffe or utter a statement that can be used against him or her. A candidate who makes a blunder on a Tuesday morning may see it transformed into a web attack by Tuesday afternoon and a televised attack ad on Wednesday. At the same time, new media make it possible to counter a negative attack in virtually real time. Fourth, with so many outlets available, attacks can be focused like never before. Mark (2006) refers to this as “microtargeting.” In 2008, aggression was conveyed via traditional media, the blogosphere, YouTube, and email. This trend can be expected to accelerate to MySpace, Facebook, podcasting, Flickr, Twitter, and other emerging media. Social networking sites will play a larger role, framing positive images of candidates and as a forum for disseminating negative information. We have proposed three litmus tests—veracity, relevancy, and decorum— gleaned from other scholarly research, which may be used to evaluate political aggression in the form of heckling, split-screen nonverbal behavior, attack ads, the blogosphere, and other forms of political communication. We demonstrated how these three features could be applied to the infamous anti-Goldwater “Daisy” ad from 1964. Space limitations prohibit us from amplifying the utility of these criteria for evaluating other attack ads in depth or detail. Future research may shed light on the usefulness of these criteria for analyzing and evaluating other negative political messages.

References Adubato, S. (2008, October 8). Attack ads don’t work when people are hurting. Retrieved on January 12, 2008 from http://steveadubato.newsvine.com/_news/2008/ 10/08/1971437-attack-ads-don’t-work-when-people-are-hurting Alexa.com (2009). Top sites: The top 100 sites on the web. www.alexa.com. Retrieved on October 26, 2009, from http://www.alexa.com/topsites Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press. Ansolabehere, S. D., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838. Appelbaum, L. (2008, October 6). Obama: Not the first punch, but the last. MSNBC .com. Retrieved on October 10, 2008 from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ 2008/10/06/1499652.aspx Aristotle (1954). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, trans.). New York: Modern Library. Banks, A. (2008, January 14). Dirty tricks, South Carolina and John McCain. www.thenation.com. Retrieved on October 23, 2009, from http:// www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks Baram, M. (2008, October 14). Obama widens lead due to economy, voter backlash over

236

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

negative ads. Huffington Post. Retrieved on January 11, 2008 from http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/more-voters-trust-obama-t_n_134701.html Baumann, M. (2008, October). Campaign ’08: The power of the post. Information Today, p. 35. Retrieved on January 5, 2009 from Ebsco Academic Search Complete. Beatty, M. J., & Kruger, M. W. (1978). The effects of heckling on speaker credibility and attitude change. Communication Quarterly, 26, 46–50. Beck, C. S. (1996). “I’ve got some points I’d like to make here.”: The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13, 165–180. Begley, S. (2008, October 20). Ready, aim, fire. Newsweek. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/163476 Bennett, G. C. (1979). The heckler and the heckled in the presidential campaign of 1968. Communication Quarterly, 27, 28–37. Benoit, W. L. (2004). Election outcome and topic of political campaign attacks. Southern Communication Journal, 69, 348–355. Benoit, W. L. (2007a). Communication in political campaigns. New York: Peter Lang. Benoit, W. L. (2007b). Determinants of defense in presidential debates. Communication Research Reports, 24, 319–325. Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush–Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 38, 219–233. Benoit, W. L., & Currie, H. (2001). Inaccuracies in media coverage of the 1996 and 2000 presidential debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 38, 28–39. Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121–144. Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defenses in the 1960 Presidential Debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341–357. Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Benoit, W. L., Wen, W. C., & Yu, T. H. (2007). A functional analysis of the 2004 Taiwanese political debates. Asian Journal of Communication, 17, 24–39. Bosmajian, H. A. (1972). Freedom of speech and the heckler. Western Speech, 36, 218–232. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. New York: Cambridge University Press. Buell, E. H., & Sigelman, L. (2008). Attack politics: Negativity in presidential campaigns since 1960. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Burroughs, B. (2007). Kissing Macaca: Blogs, narrative, and political discourse. Journal for Cultural Research, 11(4), 319–335. Bystrom, D. (2003). On the way to the White House: Communication strategies for women candidates. In R. P. Watson & A. Gordon (Eds.), Anticipating Madam president (pp. 95–105). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Bystrom, D. (2006). Advertising, web sites, and media coverage: Gender and communication along the campaign trail. In S. J. Carroll & R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics (pp. 169–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

237

Campbell, K. K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist rhetoric. New York: Praeger. Carli, L. L. (2004). Gender effects on social influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 133–148). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Carlin, D. B., & Bicak, P. J. (1993). Toward a theory of vice presidential debate purposes: An analysis of the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. Argumentation & Advocacy, 30, 119–130. Center for Responsive Politics, Retrieved on November 12, 2008, from http:// www.opensecrets.org. CNNPolitics.com (2008, September 14). Rove: McCain went “too far” in ads. Retrieved on September 20, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/ campaign.wrap Dailey, W. O., Hinck, E. A., & Hinck, S. S. (2008). Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping political face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Donaldson, G. A. (2003). Liberalism’s last hurrah: The presidential campaign of 1964. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 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. Fantham, E. (1984). Studies in Cicero’s “Opera Rhetorica”: Orator 69–74. Central States Speech Journal, 35, 123–125. Felknor, B. L. (1992). Political mischief: Smear, sabotage, and reform in U.S. elections. New York: Praeger. FiveThirtyEight.com (November 18, 2008). Zogby engages in apparent push polling for right-wing website. Retrieved on December 9, 2008, from http:// www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189–1208. FunnyOrDie.com (2008). Paris responds to McCain ad. FunnyOrDie.com. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d/paris-hiltonresponds-to-mccain-ad-from-paris-hilton-adam-ghost-panther-mckay-and-chrishenchy Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor/ Doubleday. Gordon, A., & Miller, J. L. (2005). When stereotypes collide: Race/ethnicity, gender, and videostyle in congressional campaigns. New York: Peter Lang. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse Society, 12, 451–472. Hayes, A. S., Singer, J. B., & Ceppos, J. (2007). Shifting roles, enduring values: The credible journalist in a digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 262–279. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jacobs, S. (2006). Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad. Argumentation, 20, 421–442.

238

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Jamieson, K. H. (1992). Dirty politics: deception, distraction, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press. Jamieson, K. H., Waldman, P., & Sherr, S. (2000). Eliminate the negative? Categories of analysis for political advertisements. In J. A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio (Eds.), Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 44–64). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877–89. Komblut, A. E., & Balz, D. (2007, January 28). “Clinton begins her run in earnest.” The Washington Post, p. A–1. Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. senate elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lau, R. R., & Sigelman, L. (2000). Effectiveness of negative political advertising. In J. A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio (Eds.), Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 10–43). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Leathers, D. G. (1997). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lee, C., & Benoit, W. L. (2005). A functional analysis of the 2002 Korean presidential debates. Asian Journal of Communication, 15, 115–132. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Limbaugh, R. (2008, November 5). Yes we can: The reestablishment of principled conservatism begins. The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110508/content/ 01125106.guest.html Lyons, D. (2005, November 14). Attack of the blogs. Forbes.com. Retrieved on December 10, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/128.html Mark, D. (2006). Going dirty: The art of negative campaigning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Martin, P. S. (2004). Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology, 25, 545–562. McCullagh, D. (2004, May 7). Liberal Net rules spawn political attack ads. Tech Republic. Retrieved on December 29, 2008, from http://articles.techrepublic. com.com/5100-22_11-5207851.html Middendorf, J. W. (2006). A glorious disaster: Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign and the origins of the conservative movement. New York: Basic Books. Mitchell, J. (1992). How to get elected: An anecdotal history of mudslinging, red-baiting, vote-stealing, and dirty tricks in American politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Mohr, C. (1964, October 2). “Goldwater lays war aim to Reds; He says no U.S. president would start any conflict.” New York Times, p. 21. Nandi, P. K. (1980). The sociology of heckling. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 21, 14–33. OpenSecrets.org. (2004). Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 2004 Election Cycle. OpenSecrets.org. Retreived on November 12, 2008 from http://www.opensecrets.org/ 527s/527events.php?id=61.

Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts

239

Petty, R. E., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Effects of responding or not responding to hecklers on audience agreement with a speaker. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6, 1–17. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pfau, M., & Kang, J. G. (1991). The impact of relational messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42, 114–128. Pfau, M., Parrot, R., & Lindquist, B. (1992). An expectancy theory explanation of the effectiveness of political attack television spots: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 235–253. Podhoretz, J. (2002, December 13). The Internet’s first scalp. New York Post, p. 41. PR.com (2008, June 20). Thinkscan.com announces results of CNN-sponsored study to measure effectiveness of political attack ads. PR.com. Retrieved on January 5, 2009, from http://www.pr.com/press-release/91288 Presutti, C. (2008, January 29). Length of U.S. Presidential campaigns worries some. Voice of America. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from http://www.voanews.com/ english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-29-voa32.cfm?CFID=91631353&CFTOKEN= 88317304 Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Brossard, D. (2007). My friend’s enemy: How split-screen debate coverage influences evaluation of presidential debates. Communication Research, 34, 3–24. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press. Schwartz, T. (1974). The Responsive Chord. New York: Doubleday. Seiter, J. S. (1991). An analysis of the generic features of political heckling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ. Seiter, J. S. (1999). Does communicating nonverbal disagreement during an opponent’s speech affect the credibility of the debater in the background? Psychological Reports, 84, 855–861. Seiter, J. S. (2001). Silent derogation and perceptions of deceptiveness: Does communicating nonverbal disbelief during an opponent’s speech affect perceptions of debaters’ veracity? Communication Research Reports, 7(2), 203–209. Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent’s nonverbal behaviors affect viewers’ perceptions of a speaker’s credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491–497. Seiter, J. S., Kinzer, H. J., Jensen, A. S., & Weger, H. (2007, November). The role of background behavior in televised debates: Does displaying nonverbal agreement and/ or disagreement benefit either debater? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois. Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H., Jr. (2005). Audience perceptions of candidates’ appropriateness as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 225–235. Seiter, J. S., Weger, H., Kinzer, H. J., & Jensen, A. S. (2009). Impression management in televised debates: The effect of background nonverbal behavior on audience perceptions of debaters’ likeability. Communication Research Reports, 26, 1–11.

240

John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass

Silverthorne, C. P., & Mazmanian, L. (1975). The effects of heckling and media of presentation on the impact of a persuasive communication. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 229–236. Slevin, P., & Shear, M. D. (2008, Sept. 9). Palin camp takes umbrage at “Lipstick on a Pig” comment. Washington Post, Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://voices. washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/09/palin_camp_takes_umbrage_at_li.html Sloan, L. R., Love, R. E., & Ostrom, R. M. (1974). Political heckling: Who really loses? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 518–525. Stein, S. (2008, November 17). McCain using same robocall firm that helped smear him in 2000. www.huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on October 23, 2009, from http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/report-mccain-using-same_n_135699.html Stephanopoulos, G. (2008, Oct. 15). McCain’s best debate, but Obama still won. ABC News. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6043394 Stryker, J. (1996, October 6). Reigning cats and dogs. New York Times. Retrieved on October 23, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/06/weekinreview/reigningcats-and-dogs.html Swint, K. (2008). Mudslingers: The twenty-five dirtiest political campaigns of all time. New York: Union Square Press. Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 3–22). New York: Academic Press. Vargas, J. A. (2007, July 24). What’s up? Questions from the people, sharp to strange. The Washington Post, p. A06. Wagner, M. (2008, November 10). Dawn of the Internet presidency. Information Week, 1210, p. 17. Retrieved on January 8, 2009, from Proquest Search Engine. Ware, P. D., & Tucker, R. K. (1974). Heckling as distraction: An experimental study of its effect on source credibility. Speech Monographs, 41, 185–188. YouTube (2008). Dear Mr. Obama. YouTube. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Chapter 13

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care Mapping the Domain Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

Employees within the healthcare industry experience some of the most frequent and intense violent episodes of virtually any profession (Lanza, 2006). Mayhew and Chappell (2002) reported that there is increased risk of workplace violence for workers in public contact service industries which include all healthcare related professions (e.g., nursing, pharmacy, etc.). When considering the concept of healthcare, people generally conjure up an image of a traditional hospital setting. However, for the purposes of this chapter, we are defining a healthcare facility as any place where there is a practice of medicine or healing. The ubiquity of both verbal and nonverbal violence, although already prevalent in society, will be shown to be especially problematic during the practice of medicine and within healthcare facilities. Although tracking data for verbal violence only goes back as far as about 1983, it is believed that there has been a long-standing environment of aggressive communication within healthcare that consists of threats, name calling, yelling, etc. (Gates, 2004; Gerberich et al., 2004; Henderson, 2003; Kingma, 2001; Lanza, 2006). According to Nolan (2008), due to homicides ranging in the hundreds and assaults in the thousands, healthcare has become a place where people used to focus on fighting disease but now battle disease as well as each other. Given this, one has to ponder the notion that the human relationship is something that is imperative to the healing process yet something that is also an impediment. This duality of communication and healing has come about by a person’s ability or inability to use it effectively. This chapter will present the research indicating the unique elements found in the healthcare setting that are especially conducive to the proliferation of aggressive communication exchanges. Further, we will highlight intervention efforts targeted at the reduction of aggressive communication in a rural trauma healthcare setting. Finally, a research agenda for reducing aggressive communication in healthcare as well as future research directions will be forwarded. Given the proliferation of terms associated with aggressive communication, we will define the terms that are synonymous with, related to, or require a level of aggressive communication in order to encompass the multitude of related phenomena. According to the Joint Programme on Workplace Violence in the Health Sector (Cooper & Swanson, 2002) (which includes the International

242

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

Labour Organization [ILO], World Health Organization [WHO], Public Service International [PSI], and the International Council of Nurses [ICN]), the following terms and operational definitions have been forwarded: psychological violence, the intentional use of power, which may include the threat of physical force against another individual or group of individuals. This can include verbal abuse, bullying, and threat; abuse, behavior that results in humiliation, degradation, or shows a lack of dignity or respect for another person; bullying, any activity that is repeating and deemed offensive by the receiver. These repetitive behaviors are viewed as intentionally vindictive or malicious as well as behavior that seeks to undermine a person or a group of people; discrimination is undesired or unreciprocated behavior degrading a person’s dignity and can be based on categories such as race, gender, social status, etc.; sexual harassment is unreciprocated, unwanted or unwelcomed behavior of a sexual nature that offends the victim or makes the victim feel threatened, humiliated, or embarrassed; threat reflects the overt or implied promise of physical or psychological force resulting in a person fearing physical or psychological harm or other negative consequences. Each of these terms either overtly or covertly implies the use of verbal aggressiveness and aggressive communication exchanges. In a study conducted in Britain, Budd (1999) found that nurses and health personnel are second only to police and security staff in terms of their likelihood to experience violence at work. This equates to nurses being at two times greater risk than the national average of being verbally assaulted. This predisposition toward increased risk is associated with the age, gender, work hours, and occupational factor status characteristic of the health professions that makes the risk for aggressive communication and aggressive behavior intrinsic to the profession. In other words, healthcare personnel are constantly interacting with people who are experiencing pain, frustration, uncertainty about their survival/future, or under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. In American healthcare facilities, the Bureau of Labor Statistics report that healthcare workers are 16 times more likely to experience an assault at work than employees within any other industry. Beech and Leather (2006), focusing on specific health practice and professions, reported that violence is part of the work milieu for all healthcare workers. The highest risk includes those of the ambulance or EMS (Emergency Medical Service) service, student nurses, those working in emergency rooms, staff in mental health facilities, and those working with patients with learning disabilities and/or in elderly care settings. Personnel working in mental health facilities or working with patients with learning disabilities are almost two and half times more likely to experience violence, of any type, than other health-related positions. One may conclude, based on the research reviewed thus far, that the aggressor in any given situation may suffer from some degree of pathology. In fact, Beech and Leather (2006) argue that violence in healthcare is multi-factorial. It is believed that not only do interpersonal factors influence aggressive situations, but so do social roles, organizational roles, and procedures and

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care

243

processes unique to the specific setting (e.g., psychiatric settings, outpatient care, inpatient care). Powell, Caan, and Crowe (1994) argue that another possible factor is the patient’s reaction to the loss of control as well as provocation from other patients and visitors. Further, Sheridan et al. (1990) argue that patients’ violent activities may be triggered by “enforcement of rules” or policies that take control and choice away from the patient (e.g., visiting hours, protocol for emergency care, etc.). Other situational factors may include overcrowding, provocation, inexperienced staff, management practices, structural factors (Davis, 1991) as well as environmental factors (Whittington, 1994). The prevalence of aggressive communication as well as other communication-related issues has prompted governing bodies such as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to require competent communication skills as a criterion for graduation. More specifically, interpersonal and communication skills that result in effective information exchange, teaming with patients and the patient’s family, as well as with other healthcare professionals (Batalden et al., 2002; Mery et al., 2008). Communication training and education has become one of the fastest growing skill-set-based foci in healthcare (Polack, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008).

The Aggressive Patient Studies indicate that as many as 10 to 60 percent of patients that are seen in healthcare settings are high in verbal aggressiveness and exhibit some degree of aggressive behavior (Erb, 2001; Hahn, 2001). These patients are believed to bring about an increase in negative feelings such as frustration, anxiety, guilt, and dislike as well as to threaten litigation for perceived mistreatment or medical negligence (Platt & Gordon, 1999). More recently, Avtgis and Madlock (2008) argued that verbal aggression can be prompted by several triggers that are unique to the healthcare setting. Drawing on the verbal trigger event work of Wigley (2006), the researchers argued that the system of, and practice of healthcare have provided many triggers from which a verbally aggressive environment can be produced. According to Wigley (see Chapter 22 in this volume), verbal trigger events (VTEs) are those environmental prompts that exacerbate verbally aggressive behavior. The triggers identified by Avtgis and Madlock include exhaustion and stress, managed care programs, patient distrust, and consumerism. Exhaustion and stress are of special importance within healthcare in that facilities are full of people experiencing anxiety, worry, and stress. These types of environments have been well documented as contributing to depression and violent mood swings (Goodkin, Fletcher, & Cohen, 1995; Herbert, 1997). The proliferation of managed care programs has resulted in medical practices that are targeted at costcontainment, which, according to some scholars, results in undermining trust between the patient and provider (Annas, 1997; Mechanic & Schlesinger, 1996).

244

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

The undermining of primitive human relational elements such as trust can lead to patients’ doubts as to the quality of care that they receive (Eastman, Eastman, & Tolson, 1997). The resulting loss of control experienced by the patient as a result of managed care programs also results in a lack of trust and lower levels of satisfaction (Hall et al., 2001). The perception of control over health issues has long been of interest to both healthcare and communication scholars alike (see, for example, Avtgis, Brann, & Staggers, 2006; Wallston, Wallston, & DeVellis, 1978). The distrust experienced by patients has been identified as a cause for underutilizing healthcare services as well as doubting the efficacy of medical care as a whole (Ferguson et al., 1998). In fact, distrust has been related to increased frustration levels and aggressive communication episodes which can increase malpractice claims (Boehm, 2003). Some research indicates that, based on system induced limitations on physician practice, there are ethical questions that arise concerning the physicians’ ability to make medical decisions that may be detrimental to the patient (Morreim, 1989; Rodwin, 1995). More recently, the use of email and other forms of mediated communication as consulting tools between the physician and the patient has added a new dimension that can possibly contribute to distrust (Avtgis et al., in press). These factors leading to distrust may or may not have a cumulative influence on aggressive communication exchanges, but any of these individual factors alone can serve as a sufficient catalyst for the escalation of aggressive communication exchanges. Consumerism has been identified as a VTE because patients have become shoppers of health services and look for the best value. This is due to their ability as well as willingness to pay for such services (Roter et al., 1997). This concept of “medical care shopping,” similar to other types of consumerism, was brought about by legislative acts. In this case, it is partly due to the formation of tax saving vehicles such as the Flexible Savings Account (FSA) that allow patients to shop for and compare services as well as the relative cost of those services (which is often considerably cheaper when a patient is willing to pay in cash as opposed to filing claims through an insurance company). This type of medical shopping on behalf of the patient has resulted in a marked increase in patients opting for treatment outside of the United States and with foreigntrained doctors. Given that patients regularly exercise their rights to refuse to comply with medical treatment regimens without justification, doctors regularly employ an authoritarian approach to relating with patients. Such authoritarian approaches have been identified as escalators to aggressive communication exchanges (Turk & Meichenbaum, 1991). According to Avtgis and Madlock (2008), “the physician, in effect, disaffirms the self-concept of the consumer-oriented patient (i.e., condescends or chastises a patient whose perspective is that the physician works for the patient). Such condescending responses by physicians to patients . . . provide yet another context in which verbal aggression and conflict between patient and physician is manifested” (p. 175).

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care

245

Nursing and Aggressive Communication The nursing profession is by far the most violent job within the already risky profession of healthcare. This fact has been attributed to the reality that nurses have greater frequency and depth of contact with patients than any other healthcare workers and are more likely to be female (see Lanza, 2006). Research indicates that 90 percent of staff nurses experience at least one incident annually that involves abusive anger, condescension, or being globally rejected by a physician with 30 percent of nurses polled reporting having experienced sexual abuse ranging from inappropriate remarks to inappropriate touching every two to three months (Steadman et al., 1998). These statistics are not simply based on nurse–patient interaction; these aggressive statistics are also evidenced within the healthcare ranks (e.g., doctor–nurse, doctor–doctor). Other studies indicate that as many as 85 percent of nurses experience verbal abuse or have been threatened with physical violence (Coombs, 1998). Results from a study for the National Veterans Administration (VA) indicate that 48 percent of nurses reported at least one verbal or physical assault within the last year (Lanza, Zeiss, & Rierdan, 2005). Are these statistics accurate? Is nursing experiencing an epidemic of verbal and physical violence that is not as prevalent in other health professions? Based on existing evidence reflective of both verbal and physical abuse in nursing, these statistics tend to be more of a conservative estimate than an accurate representation. Gerberich et al. (2004) found that nurses regularly avoid reporting non-physical aggressive incidents because 44 percent consider verbal aggression as being part of the job, 30 percent reported a work environment in which reporting such events will fall on deaf ears or an unresponsive administration, 17 percent found such incidents to be not worthy of reporting, and 8 percent reported that the verbal aggression was relatively minor or an isolated incident and thus, not worthy of reporting. The remaining nurses reported being too busy to be burdened with the reporting process (e.g., completing lengthy forms, face-to-face interviews, etc.). The aggressive communication exchanges/attacks can manifest in a variety of media forms. Gerberich et al. (2004) report that 90 percent of aggressive communication between nurses and patients is via face-to-face interaction, 16 percent by telephone, 2 percent by email, and 3 percent by other forms of media. In light of the ever-increasing use of mediated communication in the practice of healthcare, these numbers reflecting aggressive exchanges via media will surely increase (Avtgis et al., in press). The outcomes of such behavior are far-reaching for the psychological well-being of the nurses. The same Gerberich et al. study (2004) also revealed that the most commonly reported outcomes of aggressive communication were frustration, anger, fear/anxiety, stress, and irritability. Given the disturbing statistics concerning both verbal and physical aggression, the resulting question becomes: how does the healthcare environment become less aggressive? The next section will discuss possible interventions and outcomes for both healthcare workers and patients.

246

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

Aggressive Communication Interventions in Healthcare In light of the staggering statistics reflective of both verbal and physical abuse that occur annually within healthcare, the development of effective interventions as well as proactive circumvention strategies is being implemented and mandated throughout the United States. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is the regulatory division of the U.S. Department of Labor, and has highlighted the following risk factors that exacerbate aggressive communication and assault:

• • • • • • • • • •

Prevalence of handguns which may be as high as 25 percent (patients, their families, and friends). Increased use of hospital police and security guards. Decreased use of large hospital facilities where patients with acute and chronic mental illness are now being released from hospitals. Patients exercising rights to refuse medication and can no longer be hospitalized involuntarily unless they pose a threat to themselves or others. The availability of drugs and money at hospitals including both clinics and pharmacies. Unrestricted movement that the public has within hospitals and healthcare facilities (24 hours per day/7 days a week). Long waiting times in the emergency and clinic areas. Low staffing, notably at mealtimes and during the night. Healthcare workers being isolated during examinations and treatment. Healthcare workers being in remote locations or working alone without backup or means of obtaining assistance via a communication or alarm device.

These are but some of the structural/procedural elements that may contribute to aggressive episodes. Given that healthcare facilities vary in culture, structure, practice, and location, it becomes difficult to establish universal reform that will work in equally effective ways across facilities, specialties, and types of care. There is a lack of training in the recognition and management of escalating hostility and aggressive behavior. In this light, the Occupational Safety and Health Promotion Management Guidelines for Workplace Violence and Prevention Programs (OSHA, 1989) developed five main components that should be targeted for reducing verbal and physical violence. These consist of: Management (the active containment of situations where aggression is about to or is just beginning to occur); Commitment and employee involvement (healthcare member dedication to the mission of a safe, violence-free workplace with a willingness to actively aid and assist others in pursuing such a mission); Worksite analysis (a comprehensive review of all aspects of healthcare delivery including the physical, psychological, and social factors involved in the healthcare experience; Hazard safety and control (comprehensive crisis plans for

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care

247

potential crises and containment strategies); and Safety and Health Training (training in intervention strategies as well as a knowledge of the system-wide detrimental effects of both verbal and physical aggression in the workplace). Lanza (2006) argues that training to reduce verbal and physical aggression may preclude the need for physical intervention. This type of escalation reduction effort in aggressiveness can be seen in the early work of the skills deficiency model as proposed by Infante, Chandler, and Rudd (1989). The skills deficiency approach to verbal aggressiveness assumes that people resort to aggressive communication because they lack the ability to argue or effectively relay their messages in ways that are appropriate to the situation. Training, therefore, should result in the ability for a person to deflect, combat, or dissolve a verbal attack and thus, make the situation less volatile and less likely to further escalate into a verbally and/or physically aggressive episode. Such skills training has been specifically advocated for health professionals by communication scholars (Avtgis & Madlock, 2008; Rossi et al., 2009a, 2009b) and general communication skills development has been proposed as necessary education for all medical students (Polack, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008). The Lanza (2006) approach to diffusing aggressive situations is based on the assumption that potentially violent patients may feel helpless, terrified of losing control, or frightened by their own aggressive behavior potential. As such, it is advocated that healthcare practitioners try to establish a rapport with the patient through empathetic strategies and focusing on affirming communication. Affirming communication (i.e., verbally and nonverbally validating the self-concept of another person) is a proven method for creating a positive communication environment that is less likely to escalate into verbal and physical violence (see, for example, Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Affirming communication training has been successfully implemented in healthcare systems and healthcare education (Polack et al., 2009; Rossi et al., 2009a, 2009b). As with any intervention, identifying an appropriate time for intervening can make the difference between a violent and nonviolent outcome. Lanza (2006) argues that nurses should look for a preassualtive tension state. This state, or point in a situation where verbal and physical aggression is about to be triggered, is marked by anxiety, a rigid and stiff posture, clenching of the teeth and fists, as well as physiological arousal (e.g., visible temporal artery pulsation). These verbal and nonverbal signs represent the fertile ground from which violent episodes will either occur, or be defused. One proven way to potentially defuse these types of situations is through the use of affirming communication strategies.

Research Exemplar It is often assumed that aggressive communication in healthcare occurs most often between patient and provider. Yet, this assumption is to the detriment of other healthcare dyads where aggressive communication is commonplace.

248

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

There are efforts under way to reduce aggression exchanges between healthcare providers in an effort to improve patient care and resulting survival rates. In a series of studies targeting the reduction of aggressive communication within a rural trauma healthcare system, Rossi et al. (2009a, 2009b) developed a communication training program designed to reduce the exchange of aggressive communication. The focus on aggressive communication was determined by Rossi et al. (2009b) after assessing problematic communication as perceived by trauma healthcare workers. The initial findings overwhelmingly endorsed the notion that the threats to face and the invalidation of self-concepts were at the root of most interpersonal difficulties occurring during the trauma patient transfer process. As such, the author’s developed a one-hour communication training curriculum designed to reinforce affirming communication principles and the beneficial results that such communication practices can yield. Utilizing a quasi-experimental design, Rossi et al. (2009a) trained various personnel at designated trauma facilities about the pitfalls associated with aggressive communication as well as the benefits of displaying an affirming communicator style (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Rossi et al. (2009a) reported that personnel in facilities receiving the communication training had a significant decrease in trauma patient transfer time. More specifically, the data points that showed significant reduction were: time of arrival (reduced by 36.18 minutes), which indicates the amount of time it takes to determine whether or not the patient should be transferred; and time from decision to transfer until emergency squad arrival (reduced by 46.22 minutes), which indicates coordination with the receiving hospital, transport squad, etc. Taken as whole, the reduction of 82.40 minutes was realized in the trauma patient transfer process and is believed to increase survivability rates considerably. Rossi et al. (2009a) argued that minimizing the potentiality for aggressive communication exchanges within not only trauma care, but in healthcare as a whole, should be a priority for health educators embedded within hospital staffs. They further assert that aggressive communication can be reduced via the use of technology (e.g., technology that mediates communication, thus controlling for relational difficulties). As indicated in these findings, combating aggressive communication exchanges with more competent communication behaviors can have bottom line effects for both healthcare practitioners (i.e., increased patient safety and financial gain as well as safer work environments) and patients (i.e., satisfaction and survivability).

Conclusion This chapter has presented research indicating the ubiquitous nature of aggressive communication throughout all facets of healthcare. Further, we have demonstrated the need to develop and apply effective communication training programs in order to reduce the prevalence of verbal aggression within the practice of healthcare. There have been many regulations and guidelines offered by various governing bodies put forth in efforts to reduce verbal and physical

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care

249

violence. However, the prevalence of aggression within healthcare has not declined. As such, significant reforms in intervention and education must take place. The skill to de-escalate a verbally aggressive situation becomes a fundamental competency for people entering the medical field. When considered as a whole, much of medical litigation stems from communication and relational related phenomena. In light of the evidence contained in this review, the following recommendations are being forwarded to address the commonplace practice of communication in healthcare.

• • • • •

Evidenced based interventions System-wide application of the intervention Affirming communication as a vital health literacy competency Mandatory medical education curriculum that advocates competent communication Creating cultural assumptions about the positive efficacy of communication in the practice of healthcare

We believe that cross-disciplinary approaches are necessary to successfully address the complex issues of verbal and physical violence in healthcare. In other words, scholars and researchers from different disciplines including healthcare, communication, psychology, etc. should be brought together in efforts to formulate comprehensive efforts for education, training, and cultural change. As was evidenced in the Rossi et al. (2009a, 2009b) effort, multidisciplinary approaches to complex problems such as verbal aggression in healthcare can be more effectively addressed than if only addressed from the perspective of one discipline. There is an imperative for inter-silo collaboration should any meaningful marked difference in the reduction of aggressive communication be pursued and realized.

References Annas, G. J. (1997). Patients’ rights in managed care—exit, voice, and choice. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 210–215. Avtgis, T. A., Brann, M., & Staggers, S. (2006). Information exchange and health control expectancies as influenced by a patient’s medical interview situation. Communication Research Reports, 23, 231–237. Avtgis, T. A., & Madlock, P. (2008). Implications of the verbally aggressive patient: Creating a constructive environment in destructive situations. In E. P, Polack, V. P., Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Applied communication for health professionals (pp. 167–184). Dubuque, IA, Kendall Hunt. Avtgis, T. A., Polack, E. P., Staggers, S. M., & Wieczorek, S. (in press). Healthcare provider-recipient interactions: Is “on-line” interaction the next best thing to being there. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and personal relationships. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Batalden, P., Leach, D., Swing, S., Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (2002). General competencies and accreditation in graduate medical education: An antidote to overspecification in the education of medical specialists. Health Affairs, 2, 103–11.

250

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

Beech, B., & Leather, P. (2006). Workplace violence in the healthcare sector: A review of staff training and integration of evaluation models. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 27–43. Boehm, F. H. (2003). Building trust. Family Practice News, 33, 12. Budd, T. (1999). Violence at work: findings from the British crime survey. London: Health and Safety Executive. Coombs, R. (1998). Violence: The facts. Nursing Times, 94, 12–13. Cooper, C. L., & Swanson, N. (2002). Workplace violence in the health sector—State of the art. International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland. Davis, S. (1991). Violence by psychiatric patients: A review. Hospitals and Community Psychiatry, 42, 585–590. Eastman, J. K., Eastman, K. L., & Tolson, M. A. (1997). The ethics of managed care: An initial look at physicians’ perspectives. Marketing Health Services, 17, 26–40. Erb, J. (2001). Assessment and management of the violent patient. In J. L. Jacobson & A. M. Jacobson (Eds.), Psychiatric secrets (2nd ed., pp. 440–447). Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus. Ferguson, J. A., Weinberger, M., Westmorland, G. R., Mamlin, L. A., Segar, D. S., Greene, J. Y., et al. (1998). Racial disparity in cardiac decision making: Results from patient focus groups. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 1450–1453. Gates, D. M. (2004). The epidemic of violence against healthcare workers. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 61, 649–650. Gerberich, S., Church, T., McGovern, P., Hansen, H., Nachreiner, N., Geisser, M. S., et al. (2004). An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: The Minnesota Nurses’ study. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 61, 495–503. Goodkin, K., Fletcher, M. A., & Cohen, N. (1995). Clinical aspects of psychoneuroimmunology. The Lancet, 345, 183–185. Hahn, S. R. (2001). Physical symptoms and physician-experienced difficulty in the physician–patient relationship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134, 897–904. Hall, M. A., Dugan, E., Zheng, B. Y., & Mishra, A. K. (2001). Trust in physicians and medical institutions: What is it, can it be measured, and does it matter? Milbank Q, 79, 613–639. Henderson, A. (2003). Nurses and workplace violence: Nurses’ experiences of verbal and physical abuse at work. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 16, 82–98. Herbert, J. (1997). Stress, the brain, and mental illness. British Medical Journal, 315, 530–536. Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. Kingma, M. (2001). Workplace violence in the health sector: A problem of epidemic proportion. International Nursing Review, 48, 129–130. Lanza, M. (2006). Violence in nursing. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Ed.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 147–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lanza, M. L., Zeiss, R., & Rierdan, J. (2005, November). Violence assessment, medication, and prevention: Factors related to staff violence and implications. American Nurses Association Conference, Washington, DC. Mayhew, C. & Chappell, D. (2002). An overview of occupational violence. Australian Nursing Journal. 9(7), 34–35. Mechanic, D., & Schlesinger, M. (1996). The impact of managed care on patients’ trust

Aggressive Communication within Medical Care

251

in medical care and their physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1693–1697. Mery, C. M., Greenberg, J. A., Patel, A., & Jaik, N. P. (2008). Teaching and assessing the ACGME competencies in surgical residency. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons., 93, 39–47. Morreim, E. H. (1989). Conflicts of interest. Profits and problems in physician referrals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262, (3), 397. Nolan, K. (2008). There’s no vaccine for violence: An inside look at the deadly realities of working in health care. Dallas, TX: The P3 Press. OSHA (1989). OSHA’s safety and health program management guidelines: Issuance of voluntary guidelines. Federal Register, 54, 3904–3916. OSHA (2008). Statistics. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Retrieved on June 12, 2008, from www.osha.gov/oshstats/index.html Platt, F. W., & Gordon, G. H. (1999). Field guide to the difficult patient interview. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. Polack, E. P., Avtgis, T. A., Rossi, D., & Shaffer, L. (2009). Defining moments: Teaching communication, compassion, and professionalism in a surgical residency program. Are these “soft skills” natural abilities? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery, Salt Lake City, UT. Polack, E. P., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2008). Applied communication for health professionals. Dubuque IA: Kendall Hunt. Powell, G., Caan, W., & Crowe, M. (1994). What events precede violent incidents in psychiatric hospitals? British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 107–112. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Newbury Park, CA; Sage. Rodwin, M. A. (1995). Strains in the fiduciary metaphor: Divided physician loyalties and obligations in a changing health care system. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 21, 241–257. Rossi, D., Polack E. P., Kappel, D. A., Avtgis, T. A., & Martin, M. M. (2009a). It’s not about being nice: it’s about being a better doctor: The investigation into problematic communication and delays in trauma patient transfer. Medical Encounter, 29, 5–6. Rossi, D., Kappel, D. A., Polack, E. P., Avtgis, T. A., & Martin, M. M. (2009b, March). Does the rural trauma team development course shorten the interval from trauma patient arrival to decision to transfer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Trauma Association, Crested Butte, CO. Roter, D. L., Stewart, M., Putnam, S. M., Lipkin, M. Jr., Stiles, W., & Inui, T. S. J. (1997). Communication patterns of primary care physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 350–357. Sheridan, M., Henrion, R., Robinson, L., & Baxter, V. (1990). Participants of violence in a psychiatric inpatient setting. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 776–780. Steadman, H., Mulvey, E., Monohan, J., Robbins, P., Applebaum, P., & Grisso, T. (1998). Violence by people discharged from active psychiatric in-patient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 393–401. Turk, D., & Meichenbaum, D. (1991). Adherence to self-care regimens—the patients’ perspective. In J. J. Sweet, R. H. Rozensky, & S. M. Tovian (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings (pp. 249–267). New York: Plenum Press. Wallston, K. A., Wallston, B. S., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scale. Health Education Monographs, 6, 5–25.

252

Theodore A. Avtgis and E. Phillips Polack

Whittington, R. (1994). Violence in psychiatric hospitals. In N T. Wykes (Ed.), Violence and healthcare professionals (pp. 23–44). London: Chapman and Hall. Wigley, C. J. (2006). Verbal trigger events. In A. S. Rancer & T. A. Avtgis, Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application (pp. 243–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 14

Trash Talk and Beyond Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

To some degree sport is inherently aggressive, particularly given that it often involves instrumental aggression or aggression enacted to achieve a nonaggressive goal as part of the performance (VaezMousavi & Shojaie, 2005a). This may involve aggressive behaviors to get the ball, score points, or stop opponents—all of which can be enacted instrumentally without the intention of harming opponents. Yet instrumental aggression within the context of sport can lead to other forms of aggression during performance (Stornes & Roland, 2004). Thus, the inherency of aggression in sport easily and readily spills over to hostile acts of aggression between players, coaches, fans, referees, parents, and the like. Our intention in this chapter is to examine aggression within the context of sport, paying particular attention to the role communication plays in this context. In doing so we will consider the major sources of aggression in sport and how those are derived, fostered, and advanced communicatively. Although the connection between sport and aggression appears to be inherent, it is in fact learned (Visek & Watson, 2005), socially constructed (Meân & Kassing, 2008a; Pappas, McKenry, & Skilken Catlett, 2004; Storch et al., 2005; Traclet et al., 2008), and variable within specific sports (Pappas, McKenry, & Skilkern Catlett, 2004; Visek & Watson, 2005). For example, hockey players enhance their value by displaying toughness and fighting skill (Pappas, McKenry, & Skilkern Catlett, 2004), claiming that “instigating fights is part of the game” and that “instigating a fight can work to your advantage” (Pappas, McKenry, & Skilkern Catlett, 2004, p. 301). But these normative beliefs appear to be learned through participation in sport across one’s playing career. Visek and Watson (2005) found that the level of perceived legitimacy of aggression increased with male hockey players’ age and competitive level, with professional players reporting greater levels of perceived legitimacy of aggression than high school and youth players. And although aggression is often linked to masculinity (Pappas, McKenry, & Skilkern Catlett, 2004), female players have been observed to engage in instrumental aggression as well, and interestingly were penalized by male referees more than their male counterparts for doing so (Coulomb-Cabagno, Rascle, & Souchon, 2005). Thus, sport and aggression are entwined both in practice and perception. Consider that officials are predisposed to penalize teams that have reputations for aggressive play (Jones,

254

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

Paull, & Erskine, 2002) and aggressive players legitimize aggression by differentiating between instrumental and hostile aggression (Traclet et al., 2008). Yet referees do not necessarily penalize players for using profanity with them as they understand it is a normative part of sporting discourse that unfolds during play (Meân, 2001). Thus, aggression seems to be an accepted part of the sporting experience, yet intercollegiate athletes were more likely to reject teammates who were deemed comparatively more physically and verbally aggressive (Storch et al., 2005). Aggression in sport, then, is determined in large part by the communication that occurs in and around sport (Meân, 2001; Meân & Kassing, 2008a, 2008b). In this chapter we intend to examine these communicative practices in greater detail. We begin with an examination of trash talk, a particularly pronounced form of verbal aggression in sport. We then consider some of the fundamental sources of and reasons for aggressive communication in sport. These include sport relationships, masculinity, identification, and anonymity.

Trash Talk “Trash talk” represents a particularly robust form of verbal aggression enacted within the context of sport that has gained prominence and traction due to the absence of sanctions and the normative approval of the practice (LoConto & Roth, 2005). Although widely accepted as an additional strategic component of sport and an accepted practice within this specific context, trash talk has its detractors (Dixon, 2007, 2008). Dixon (2007) questioned why something so demeaning, reprehensible, and insulting would be tolerated and excused as part of an accepted sport ethos. In an effort to provide counterarguments to the prevailing sentiment regarding trash talk, Dixon (2008) argued that the fundamental concern with athletes who engage in trash talk is that “they are demeaning to opponents and treat them merely as objects to be overcome in the pursuit of victory” (p. 90). Dixon added that framing trash talk as a strategic part of the game designed to increase the likelihood of winning ignores the possibility that players may also equally focus on “the intrinsic satisfaction that playing well brings” (p. 91). Thus, trash talk, although commonplace in contemporary sports, should not necessarily be considered intrinsic to sport. Verbally aggressive by nature, trash talk involves derogation of a competing player with the explicit purpose of disrupting the opponent’s performance through intimidation (LoConto & Roth, 2005). Collegiate athletes noted that parents, TV, movies, and teammates served as sources for learning about and observing trash talk (LoConto & Roth, 2005). Trash talk appears to serve two functions: the intended function of “psyching out” the opponent, but also the purpose of psyching up the athlete voicing the trash talk (LoConto & Roth, 2005). It has become so prevalent and normative, though, that it is no longer limited merely to the playing field or to sports in general. For example, Davis and Carlisle-Duncan (2006) found evidence of trash talk between participants in a fantasy sports league, while Kapman (2006) examined the use of trash talk

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

255

among and between members of the salsa club culture. Moreover, trash talk is so prevalently connected to sport that it has become an important part of the entertainment value of particular sports like wrestling (Tamborini et al., 2008). In their exploration of trash talk among collegiate athletes, LoConto and Roth (2005) discovered a set of unwritten rules that underpinned the norms for practicing trash talk. These included engaging in trash talk only on the field and when one’s team is winning and the notion that exemplary play entitled one to engage in trash talk. Interestingly, athletes acknowledged the nonverbal dimensions of trash talk as well—speaking about staring down, standing over, or elbowing opponents as displays of trash talk. Additionally, athletes recognized the normative boundaries governing trash talk. Athletes recalled, for instance, that commenting about someone’s mother was inappropriate. While seemingly rule-governed and socially moderated, verbal aggressiveness fundamentally grounds trash talk, with swearing, competence attacks, and character attacks being the most prevalent forms of verbal aggression incorporated into routine trash talk (Tamborini et al., 2008). Although arguably the most predominant and observable form of verbal aggression associated with sport, trash talk is one of many ways in which aggressive communication contributes to the enactment of sport (Kassing et al., 2004). There are many other sources of and reasons for aggressive communication in sport. In the following sections we explore these, discussing relevant research related to each.

Sport Relationships Coaches play a significant role regarding aggression in sport, particularly youth sports (Kassing & Infante, 1999; Kassing & Pappas, 2008; VaezMousavi & Shojaie, 2005b). These effects can begin at an early age as students’ perceptions of their physical education teachers’ verbal aggressiveness appears to affect their fair play behaviors (Hassandra, Bekiari, & Sakelariou, 2007). Specifically, students behaved less prosocially and more antisocially with regard to fair play behaviors when they perceived that their teachers were more verbally aggressive. Other research indicates that athletes perceived basketball coaches to be more verbally aggressive than volleyball coaches (Bekiari, Digelidis, & Sakelariou, 2006). In earlier work, Kassing and Infante (1999) examined the outcomes associated with coaching styles that were more aggressive in nature. They found that coaches’ use of verbally and physically aggressive tactics were negatively related to athletes’ satisfaction, team success, and sportsmanship behavior. More recently, Ruggiero and Lattin (2008) examined African American intercollegiate female basketball players’ perceptions of their coaches’ verbal aggression. Their findings indicated that coaches regularly insulted players, attacking their self-concept, athletic skill, motivation level, and commitment to their respective teams. In addition, coaches’ use of verbal aggression took the form of threats and debt. Coaches threatened athletes with the loss of their scholarships or with extra workouts and practices. Coaches engendered feelings of debt by

256

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

framing an athlete’s relationship as one of indebtedness to the coach for providing a scholarship. Athletes understood that threat and debt were intended as motivational strategies, but found that these specific strategies were not at all motivational. Aggressive communication between coaches and athletes does not always occur so overtly. In some cases, coaches use specific types of messages that subtly leverage verbal or physical aggression (Kassing & Pappas, 2008; Turman, 2005). For example, regret messages directed at teams or individual players serve as a mechanism by which coaches can assign blame for poor performance, and can remind players of how they have failed the coach, fans, or teammates and how they have potentially squandered a socially significant opportunity (Turman, 2005). When doing so, coaches attack players’ performance, their selfesteem, or both, in order to move athletes to recognize the regret they may face if they fail to perform better. Memorable messages can work in a similarly subtle way. In their examination of the memorable messages used by highschool coaches, Kassing and Pappas (2008) identified a set of predominantly positive and nonaggressive memorable messages. The category of physical toughness, however, worked to frame sport as an aggressive experience riddled with pain and discomfort. A particular coach, for example, exclaimed “You’ll pass out before you die, don’t stop when your body tells you to” (p. 542) when goading his football players through a particularly physically taxing practice. Such statements reminded players of the aggressive nature of sport by reflecting the physical toughness required to compete. Finally, coaches can indirectly endorse aggression by not addressing it appropriately (VaezMousavi & Shojaie, 2005b). In their observational study, VaezMousavi and Shojaie (2005b) found that high-school coaches implicitly endorsed player aggression by predominantly engaging in the practice of ignoring players’ mistakes and by not engaging in corrective action to address players’ missteps. Parents can contribute to or detract from the aggressive nature of sport as well (Kassing & Barber, 2007; Meân & Kassing, 2008a). They can model trash talk (LoConto & Roth, 2005), but also inoculate against it. Kassing and Barber (2007) found that the predominant type of message that parents shared with youth athletes about sportsmanship centered around respect and concern for opponents, which involved avoiding engaging in trash talk. However, the overall discourse at youth sporting events supports the general notion that sport and aggression are inextricably linked (Meân & Kassing, 2008a). A recent study revealed that parental discourse at youth sporting events re/produced the ideology of winning at all costs and aggressive competition. The regularity and repetitiveness with which parents uttered remarks like “Kill ’em,” “Let ’em have it,” and “Be more aggressive” colored the discourse in a way that perpetuated aggression as a fundamental component of sport (Meân & Kassing, 2008a). Thus, parents along with coaches communicate in ways that shape sport as an aggressive endeavor. The relationship between athletes and fans, albeit predominantly parasocial in nature (Kassing & Sanderson, 2009; Sanderson, 2008a), represents

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

257

another relationship that can inculcate an aggressive communication orientation. Sanderson (2008b) examined the self-presentation strategies that Major League Baseball (MLB) pitcher Curt Schilling achieved through his blog. He found that one of the key identities that Schilling claimed was that of critic. Schilling positioned himself as an outspoken, harsh, and verbally aggressive critic of the media in general and of specific media personalities in particular. Schilling, for example, claimed that sports journalists “have little to no talent at what they do and other than a mastery of the English language their skill sets are nonexistent” (Sanderson, 2008b, p. 922). Athletes, then, display aggressive communication via mediated channels for the consumption of fans. Nowhere is this more prevalent perhaps than in professional wrestling. In their analysis of verbally aggressive content in televised professional wresting, Tamborini et al. (2008) found that there were 23 acts of verbal aggression on average per hour of viewing. Amusement appeared to be the leading reason for the large majority of verbally aggressive interactions and the predominant perpetrators of verbal aggression were not only the wrestlers themselves, but also the commentators. These works demonstrate how parasocial relationships cultivated via mediated outlets can serve as an additional sport relationship that engenders aggressive communication in sport.

Masculinity and Sport Sport is a prominent site for the re/production of masculinity and is often perceived as a male-dominated activity (Atencio & Wright, 2008; Meân & Kassing, 2008a, 2008b). Indeed, “No other institution in American culture has influenced our sense of masculinity more than sport” (Trujillo, 1996, p. 183). Research suggests that males are more intense with regard to how they display fandom than females (Wann, Waddill, & Dunham, 2004). Additionally, males are more likely to become aggressive during sporting events (Wann et al., 2002), to perceive verbal aggression more positively (Dimmock & Grove, 2003), and to consider physically harming opposing players or coaches (Wann et al., 2003). Given these findings it is not surprising that displays of verbal and physical aggression are common occurrences at sporting events. In fact, many devout male sports fans join exclusionary clubs that disallow access to female fans and much of the activity of these groups reinforces a particular heterosexual version of masculinity by trivializing others, by feminizing their actions, and by marking them as homosexual (Hughson, 2000; Palmer & Thompson, 2007). The intensity with which masculinity is re/produced within such fan groups cultivates aggressiveness among members. Palmer and Thompson (2007), for example, observed members of the “Grog Squad,” a devoted group of supporters of the South Australian Football League North Adelaide Football Club. They noted that when the North Adelaide team played poorly, Grog Squad members verbally insulted team members by characterizing them as homosexual or feminine. In addition, fan club members slighted opposing players by

258

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

accusing them of being homosexual, feminine, and sexually impotent. Hughson’s (2000) observation of the Bad Blue Boys, a group of Australian/ Croatian soccer fans based in Sydney, Australia, revealed similarly disturbing behavior. Here too fan club members verbally abused players and fans of opposing teams by leveling homosexual slurs and accusations of homosexual behavior. These cases reveal how fans can practice masculinity and aggressive communication as athletic performance unfolds. However, aggressive fan communication and masculinity also extend to other non-game contexts. For example, the advent of sports talk radio and attendant “shock” forums has provided fans with a new and welcoming outlet for expressing their aggression toward opposing, but also favored teams’ players, coaches, and fans. Goldberg (1998) suggested that sports talk radio reinforces masculinity through a format that sanctions forceful opinions that participants generally convey through shouting and yelling. Sports talk radio serves as an ideal forum for sports talk that is “overwhelmingly masuclinist (but not exclusively male), combative, passionate, and apparently open ended discourse” (Farred, 2000, p. 101). Sports talk radio is a haven where hosts and callers can preserve masculinity by derogating players, coaches, officials, league representatives, and fellow fans (Nylund, 2004). This practice, perpetrated through verbal aggressiveness, works to ensure standards of masculinity while othering homosexuality and femininity (Nylund, 2004; Zagacki & Grano, 2005). Thus, through participation in the rituals of attending live sports, participating in sports talk radio, and enjoying membership in fan clubs, fans come to normalize the connection between masculinity and sport and to routinize the associated increased levels of aggressive communication. Doing sport becomes tied closely to being masculine and aggressive (Meân, 2001; Meân & Kassing, 2008a, 2008b). All of which suggests that identification plays a key role in drawing people to and connecting them with sport. The next section explores this relationship and the implications for aggressive communication.

Identification and Sport Identification has been conceptualized as the psychological connection a fan feels toward a sports celebrity or sports team (Dimmock & Grove, 2003; Wann & Branscombe, 1993) and these connections are largely grounded in the similarities that fans perceive they share with teams or athletes (Fraser & Brown, 2002; Kassing & Sanderson, 2009; Sanderson, 2008a). For some fans identification associates with greater psychological well-being (Wann, 2006a; Wann et al., 2004) because they view sports as an escape from the stresses and monotony of life (Wann, Allen, & Rochelle, 2004) or because identification engenders a sense of belonging and community for fans (Wann, 2006b). Although fan identification can be a positive force in the life of fans, it has a dark side as well. For some fans, in fact, identification is so intensely linked to a team’s successes that the fans’ social identity becomes threatened when their favored team performs poorly (Wann, 2006b). Moreover, fans experiencing

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

259

identity threats act out aggressively toward opposing fans and players whom they consider to be the cause of their team’s failure and the reason for their distress (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). When fans possess strong levels of identification they often perceive that their self-worth correlates with a team’s success, which cements their central identity as a team follower (Boen, Vanbeselaere, & Feys, 2002; Wann, Royalty, & Roberts, 2000). Thus, it is not surprising that people seek to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with historically successful franchises (End et al., 2002). High levels of fan identification can be problematic, however, given that personality factors of fans can be a key predictor of their likelihood to commit aggressive acts (Wann et al., 2003) and of their determination of the appropriateness of verbal aggression directed at opposing players and coaches (Rocca & Vogl-Bauer, 1999). Avid fans are likely to engage in aggressive acts when team performance and game outcomes result in threats to their identity (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). This is particularly troubling given that team losses result in anger and less emotional control for highly identified fans (Crisp et al., 2007; Dimmock & Grove, 2003). Thus, highly identified fans resort to hostility and verbal aggression when their teams perform poorly (Wann, Carlson, & Schrader 1999), particularly directed towards players and fans of the opposing team (Wann, 1993). Moreover, fans with high team identification levels appear to posses a greater willingness to commit aggressive acts following favored teams’ losses (Wann et al., 2005). Thus, verbal and physical aggression can follow when fans seek to displace the anger they experience due to a favored team’s loss (Rocca & Martin, 1998). Clearly identification with one’s favored team can serve as a catalyst to engage in aggressive communication in the context of sports. Identification, though, extends beyond merely one’s favored team and includes the types of fan clubs discussed earlier. In these instances fan identification merges with group identification to create a powerful force affecting group norms regarding aggressive communication (Spaaij, 2008). Spaaij’s (2008) work, for example, revealed that European soccer fans developed aggressor identities in order to extend solidarity with and belonging to the group. Additionally, poor performance is not the only catalyst for aggressive fan behavior. Recent findings suggest that team success also can lead to fan aggression (Moore et al., 2007). Thus, identification is an important component that contributes to the occurrence of aggressive communication among fans, but there are other factors that contribute as well. The next section discusses one such factor, something we refer to as “fanonymity” or the capacity of fans to act aggressively due to the potent combination of normative fan behavior coupled with the anonymity afforded fans who are one of many.

260

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

“Fanonymity” Anonymity plays a role in a fan’s willingness to behave aggressively (Wann et al., 2003; Wann et al., 1999). For example, Wann et al. (1999) found that a sizeable minority of fans were willing to consider committing violent acts against opposing players or coaches if they were guaranteed anonymity. Subsequently, Wann et al. (2003) discovered that sports fans were more comfortable with engaging in anonymous acts of instrumental aggression against opposing players and coaches compared to anonymous acts of hostile aggression because such acts would directly benefit their team’s chances of success. “Fanonymity” also carries over to other media. Our early discussion of sports talk radio provides another outlet whereby fans can anonymously engage other listeners, fans, critics, and the like. Similarly, internet communication technologies and computer-mediated communication (CMC) have created a whole host of new opportunities for fans to interact with sport personalities and fellow fans (Kassing & Sanderson, 2009; Sanderson, 2008a). Via CMC, fans can engage in aggressive communication with a heightened sense of anonymity afforded by the medium. The internet is a very convenient resource that enables fans to consume sports instantaneously (Galily, 2008; Schultz & Sheffer, 2008). Many internet sports sites offer fans the possibility to participate communicatively by posting their own comments to sporting news stories, to professional athletes’ blogs, and to fan websites. Not surprisingly, CMC formats have voluminous participation and are very popular locations for fans to come together to communicate about sports (Butler & Sagas, 2008; Phipps, 2000). Recent research traced fan comments posted to dethroned Tour de France champion cyclist Floyd Landis’ website (Kassing & Sanderson, in press). The fan postings were predominantly supportive of Landis’ efforts to clear his name and reputation over doping allegations, but also included accusatory comments from a dissenting minority. Interestingly, supportive fans took it upon themselves to police negative postings and their respective contributors by insulting the knowledge and intelligence of those sharing contradictory opinions about Landis’ innocence. Thus, verbal aggressiveness was seen as an appropriate response to curb countervailing comments. Sanderson (2008a) found a similar pattern when examining fan postings made to MLB pitcher Curt Schilling’s website. Among these postings was a prevailing effort on the part of fans to criticize and chastise Schilling for his apparent hypocritical piousness and overt political endorsements. In these instances anonymity afforded fans the opportunity to be excessively aggressive with celebrity athletes and fellow fans, certainly more so than they would have been if interacting in less anonymous settings. While some fans may use their real name, and in some cases can attach their picture to their posts, many participants in CMC formats adopt pseudonyms to mask their actual identity and disclose very little personal information. In addition, there is no guaranteeing the accuracy of the minimal amounts of personal information disclosed in these settings (Qian & Scott, 2007). The lack of accountability and

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

261

responsibility associated with communicating via anonymous sport websites serve to promote aggressive communication, often referred to as cyberbullying (Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; see also Chapter 11 in this volume). Anonymity also fuels aggressive communication exchanged between members of fantasy sports leagues (Davis & Carlisle-Duncan, 2006). Fantasy sports participation has increased significantly over the past decade, particularly because the internet makes participation more accessible (Farquhar & Meeds, 2007; Grady, 2007). Fantasy sports leagues are available for fans of most major sports, and leagues typically consist of multiple individuals taking control of a fictional team, drafting real players for their team and being rewarded when the players comprising the fantasy team perform well in actual sporting contests. Competition in fantasy leagues is often fierce, and many leagues enable participants to communicate with one another on league message boards specifically designated for trash talk. Interaction occurring in these sites replicates aggressive communication patterns linked to sport and masculinity, with trash talk derogating fellow participants through demeaning references to femininity and homosexuality such as “I’m gonna beat your stacked team with my pussy team” (Davis & Carlisle-Duncan, 2006, p. 255).

Conclusion Sport relationships, masculinity, identification, and “fanonymity” all coalesce within the context of sport to underpin aggressive communication as normative sporting behavior. Socialization to the apparent coupling of aggressive communication and sport begins as early as little league (Meân & Kassing, 2008a), concretizes with advanced participation in sport (Visek & Watson, 2005), and appears across sports and sporting events (Pappas, McKenry, & Skilken Catlett, 2004; Tamborini et al., 2008). Alcohol is an important component of certain sporting rituals such as tailgating, thus it too should be recognized as a contributing factor to aggressive communication in sport settings. Add it to the mix and we have a high probability for aggressive behavior at or around sporting events (Coons, Howard-Hamilton, & Waryold, 1995; Glassman et al., 2007). All of these factors contribute to what Wakefield and Wann (2006) refer to as the dysfunctional fan. That is, the fan who confronts others with regularity, engages in undue complaining, consumes and participates in excessive sports talk radio, and consumes unwarranted amounts of alcohol. To this list we would add excessive participation in and consumption of CMC sport sites and fantasy leagues, along with inappropriate behavior at youth sporting events. Fundamentally, aggressive communication is at the root of dysfunctional fandom and taints the enactment of sports for others involved (Kassing et al., 2004; Meân & Kassing, 2008a, 2008b). Thus, we conclude where we began, recognizing the powerful, albeit socially constructed and accepted, connection between aggressive communication and sport. Aggression and aggressive communication surface as essential to how

262

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

people enact sport (Kassing et al., 2004; Meân, 2001; Meân & Kassing, 2008a, 2008b). They are so intertwined that it may be unrealistic to untangle them completely. However, our continued work as communication scholars can help to identify the issues fostering aggressive communication in sport and should help to determine viable options for abating it.

References Atencio, M., & Wright, J. (2008). “We be killin’ them”: Hierarchies of Black masculinity in urban basketball spaces. Sociology of Sport, 25(2), 263–280. Bekiari, A., Digelidis, N., & Sakelariou, K. (2006). Perceived verbal aggressiveness of coaches in volleyball and basketball: A preliminary study. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 103, 526–530. Boen, F., Vanbeselaere, N., & Feys, J. (2002). Behavioral consequences of fluctuating group success: An internet study of soccer-team fans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 769–781. Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641–657. Butler, B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Making room in the lineup: Newspaper websites face growing competition for sports fans’ attention. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(1), 17–25. Coons, C. J., Howard-Hamilton, M., & Waryold, D. (1995). College sports and fan aggression. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 587–593. Coulomb-Cabagno, G., Rascle, O., & Souchon, N. (2005). Players’ gender and male referees’ decisions about aggression in French soccer: A preliminary study. Sex Roles, 52, 547–553. Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. N. (2007). Seeing red or feeling blue: Differentiated intergroup emotions and ingroup identification in soccer fans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 9–26. Davis, N. W., & Carlisle-Duncan, M. (2006). Reinforcing masculine privilege through fantasy sports league participation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 30(3), 244–264. Dimmock, J. A., & Grove, J. R. (2003). Relationship of fan identification to determinants of aggression. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 17, 37–47. Dixon, N. (2007). Trash talking, respect for opponents and good competition. Sport, Ethics, and Philosophy, 1, 96–106. Dixon, N. (2008). Trash talking as irrelevant to athletic excellence: Response to Summers. Journal of Philosophy of Sport, 35, 90–96. End, C. M., Dietz-Uhler, B., Harrick, E. A., & Jacquemotte, L. (2002). Identifying with winners: A re-examination of sports fans’ tendency to BIRG. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1017–1030. Farquhar, L. K., & Meeds, R. (2007). Types of fantasy sports users and their motivations. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1208–1228. Farred, G. (2000). Cool as the other side of the pillow: How ESPN’s Sportscenter has changed television sports talk. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24(2), 96–117. Fraser, B. P., & Brown, W. J. (2002). Media celebrities and social influence: Identification with Elvis Presley. Mass Communication & Society, 5(2), 183–206.

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

263

Galily, Y. (2008). The (re)shaping of the Israeli sports media: The case of talk-back. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(3), 273–285. Glassman, T., Werch, C. E., Jobli, E., & Bian, H. (2007). Alcohol-related fan behavior on college football game day. Journal of American College Health, 56(3), 255–260. Goldberg, D. T. (1998). Call and response: Sports, talk radio, and the death of democracy. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22(2), 212–223. Grady, J. (2007). Fantasy stats case tests limits of intellectual property protection in the digital age. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 230–231. Hassandra, M., Bekiari, A., & Sakelariou, K. (2007). Physical education teacher’s verbal aggression and student’s fair play behaviors. Physical Educator, 64, 94–101. Hughson, J. (2000). The boys are back in town: Soccer support and the social reproduction of masculinity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24(1), 8–23. Jones, M. V., Paull, G. C., & Erskine, J. (2002). The impact of a team’s aggressive reputation on the decisions of association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 991–1000. Kapman, D. (2006). Trash talking: Performing home and anti-home in Austin’s salsa culture. American Ethnologist, 33, 361–377. Kassing, J. W., & Barber, A. M. (2007). “Being a good sport”: An investigation of sportsmanship messages provided by youth soccer parents, officials, and coaches. Human Communication, 10, 61–68. Kassing, J. W., Billings, A. C., Brown, R. S., Halone, K. K., Harrison, K., Krizek, B., Meân, L. J., & Turman, P. D. (2004). Communication in the community of sport: The process of enacting, (re)producing, consuming, and organizing sport. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 373–409). Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers. Kassing, J. W., & Infante, D. A. (1999). Aggressive communication in coach-athlete dyads. Communication Research Reports, 16, 110–120. Kassing, J. W., & Pappas, M. (2008). “Champions are built in the off season”: An exploration of high school coaches’ memorable messages. Human Communication, 10, 537–546. Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (2009). “You’re the kind of guy that we all want for a drinking buddy”: Expressions of parasocial interaction on floydlandis.com. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 182–203. Kassing, J. W., & Sanderson, J. (in press). “Is this a church? Such a big bunch of believers around here!”: Fan expressions of social support on Floydlandis.com. Journal of Communication Studies. LoConto, D. G., & Roth, T. J. (2005). Mead and the art of trash talking: I got your gesture right here. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 215–230. McCarthy, M. (2008). NFL cracks down on unruly fans. USA Today. Retrieved on December 10, 2008, from the Lexis-Nexis Academic Database. Meân, L. (2001). Identity and discursive practice: Doing gender on the football pitch. Discourse and Society, 12, 789–815. Meân, L. J., & Kassing, J. W. (2008a). Identities at youth sporting events: A critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1, 42–66. Meân, L. J., & Kassing, J. W. (2008b). “I would just like to be known as an athlete”: Managing hegemony, femininity, and heterosexuality in female sport. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 126–144. Moore, S. C., Shepherd, J. P., Eden, S., & Sivarajasingam, V. (2007). The effect of rugby

264

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

match outcome on spectator aggression and intention to drink alcohol. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 17, 118–127. Nylund, D. (2004). When in Rome: Heterosexism, homophobia, and sports talk radio. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(2), 136–168. Palmer, C., & Thompson, K. (2007). The paradoxes of football spectatorship: On-field and online expressions of social capital among the “Grog Squad.” Sociology of Sport Journal, 24, 187–205. Pappas, N. T., McKenry, P. C., & Skilken Catlett, B. (2004). Athlete aggression on the rink and off the ice: Athlete violence and aggression in hockey and interpersonal relationships. Men and Masculinities, 6, 291–312. Phipps, J. L. (2000). Football websites come off the bench. Electronic Media, 19(45), 12–14. Qian, H., & Scott, C. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1428–1451. Rocca, K. A., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Verbal aggression and team identification: A sports fan’s perspective. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern Communication Association, Saratoga Springs, NY. Rocca, K. A., & Vogl-Bauer (1999). Trait verbal aggression, sports fan identification, and perception of appropriate sports fan communication. Communication Research Reports, 16(3), 239–248. Ruggiero, T. E., & Lattin, K. S. (2008). Intercollegiate female coaches’ use of verbally aggressive communication toward African American female athletes. Howard Journal of Communications, 19, 105–124. Sanderson, J. (2008a). “You are the type of person that children should look up to as a hero”: Parasocial interaction on 38pitches.com. International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(3), 337–360. Sanderson, J. (2008b). The blog is serving its purpose: Self-presentation strategies on 38pitches.com. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 912–936. Schultz, B., & Sheffer, M. L. (2008). Left behind: Local television and the continuity of sport. Western Journal of Communication, 72(2), 180–196. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. Spaaij, R. (2008). Men like us, boys like them: Violence, masculinity, and collective identity in football hooliganism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 32(4), 369–392. Storch, E. A., Bagner, D. M., Bongilatti, S., Werner, N. R., & Storch, J. B. (2005). Psychosocial correlates of overt aggression in intercollegiate athletes. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 2, 68–74. Stornes, T., & Roland, E. (2004). Handball and aggression: An investigation of adolescent handball players’ perceptions of aggressive behavior. European Journal of Sports Science, 4, 1–13. Tamborini, R., Chory, R. M., Lachlan, K., Westerman, D., & Skalski, P. (2008). Talking smack: Verbal aggression in professional wrestling. Communication Studies, 59, 242–258. Traclet, A., Rascle, O., Souchon, N., & Coulomb-Cabagno, G. (2008). Aggressor and victim perspective-related differences in perceived legitimacy of aggression in soccer. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 234–240. Trujillo, N. (1996). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of

Aggressive Communication in the Context of Sports

265

Nolan Ryan and the American sports culture. In S. K. Foss (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practices (pp. 181–203). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Turman, P. D. (2005). Coaches’ use of anticipatory and counterfactual regret messages during competition. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 116–138. VaezMousavi, S. M., & Shojaie, M. (2005a). Frequencies of aggressive behaviors in win, lose, and tie situations. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 17, 42–50. VaezMousavi, S. M., & Shojaie, M. (2005b). Association between coaches’ behaviors and players’ aggressive and assertive actions. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 17, 35–43. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503. Visek, A., & Watson, J. (2005). Ice hockey players’ legitimacy of aggression and professionalization of attitudes. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 178–192. Wakefield, K. L., & Wann, D. L. (2006). An examination of dysfunctional sports fans: Method of classification and relationships with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(2), 168–186. Wann, D. L. (1993). Aggression among highly identified spectators as a function of their need to maintain a positive social identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 134–143. Wann, D. L. (2006a). Examining the potential causal relationship between sport team identification and psychological well-being. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(1), 79–95. Wann, D. L. (2006b). Understanding the positive social psychological benefits of sport team identification: The team identification-social psychological health model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(4), 272–296. Wann, D. L., Allen, B., & Rochelle, A. R. (2004). Using sport fandom as an escape: Searching for relief from under-stimulation and over-stimulation. International Sports Journal, 8(1) 104–113. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1–17. Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 597–602. Wann, D. L., Culver, Z., Akanda, R., Daglar, M., De Divitiis, D., & Smith, A. (2005). The effects of team identification and game outcome on willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(3), 282–294. Wann, D. L., Dunham, M. D., Byrd, M. L., & Keenan, B. L. (2004). The five-factor model of personality and the psychological health of highly identified sport fans. International Sports Journal, 8(2), 28–36. Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identification and willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 406–413. Wann, D. L., Peterson, R. R., Cothran, C., & Dykes, M. (1999). Sport fan aggression and anonymity: The importance of team identification. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 597–602. Wann, D. L., Royalty, J., & Roberts, A. (2000). The self-presentation of sports fans: Investigating the importance of team identification and self-esteem. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 198–206. Wann, D. L., Shelton, S., Smith, T., & Walker, R. (2002). Relationship between team

266

Jeffrey W. Kassing and Jimmy Sanderson

identification and trait aggression: A replication. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 94, 595–598. Wann, D. L., Waddill, P. J., & Dunham, M. D. (2004). Using sex and gender role orientation to predict level of sport fandom. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27(4), 367–377. Zagacki, K. S., & Grano, D. (2005). Radio sports talk and the fantasies of sport. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(1), 45–63.

Chapter 15

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression Its Forms and Its Relation to Trait Verbal Aggressiveness Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, and Emily C . Faulkner

Aggressive communication has been the subject of much empirical study for almost three decades (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006 for an exhaustive review). Infante (1987) offered one of the most comprehensive definitions of aggression in interpersonal communication: An interpersonal behavior may be considered aggressive if it applies force physically or symbolically in order, minimally, to dominate and perhaps damage or, maximally, to defeat and perhaps destroy the locus of attack. The locus of attack in interpersonal communication can be a person’s body, material possessions, self-concept, position on topics of communication, or behavior. (p. 158) In this definition, a distinction is made between physical and symbolic aggression. Physical aggression involves the use of the body to apply force, such as shaking, striking, or hitting someone. Symbolic aggression involves the use of words or other nonverbal behaviors (e.g., gestures made with the face or body, or voice) toward someone or something, and it can be either constructive or destructive in nature (Infante, 1987). As one type of symbolic aggression, verbal aggression, according to Infante and Wigley (1986), is an attack on an individual’s self-concept in order to create psychological pain, and, thus, is considered destructive communication behavior. Verbal aggression manifests itself in many forms such as competence attacks, character attacks, and ridicule. As a discipline concerned with the use of symbols, communication scholars are less interested in understanding the use of physical aggression, but extremely interested in understanding more fully when, how, and why people engage in symbolic aggressive behavior. Over the last 25 years, scholars have developed a line of research that helps us understand the nature of many forms of verbal aggression, their effects, and their relations to the characteristics of individuals of different social relationships and in various social contexts. This line of research includes Infante (1995) on students and Myers and Knox (1999) on instructors in school settings, Infante et al. (1990) on married couples

268

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

in family settings, and Infante and Gorden (1985) on managers in the organization, to name just a few. A unique form of verbal aggression is nonverbal “verbal” aggression, which consists of aggressive nonverbal behaviors that “can be equivalent to a word, and thus constitute a verbal message” (Infante, 1988, p. 22). However, nonverbal “verbal” aggression has been noticeably missing from all of the previous studies of aggressive communication. Conceivably, our understanding of aggressive communication would be limited without a further investigation of nonverbal “verbal” aggression. Therefore, the study reported in this chapter attempts to identify and classify the common aggressive nonverbal “verbal” behaviors in interpersonal communication, and to investigate the relationship between these aggressive behaviors and trait verbal aggressiveness of individuals who engage in these behaviors.

Symbolic Aggressive Communication A model of aggressive communication was offered by Infante (1987) which provides a framework for classifying all forms of symbolic aggressive communication. This model suggests that symbolic aggression can be divided into two categories: constructive and destructive. In addition, the model suggests that a cluster of four aggressive communication-based personality traits influences and controls aggressive communication: assertiveness, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and hostility. These traits interact with environmental factors to produce message behavior (Infante, 1987). Two traits in this cluster are considered constructive (assertiveness, argumentativeness), while two are considered destructive (hostility, verbal aggressiveness). A number of different types of verbally aggressive behaviors have been identified (Infante, 1987; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). These include competence attacks (verbal attacks directed at another person’s ability to do something), character attacks (attacks on another person’s character), profanity, teasing (making fun of or playfully mocking another), ridicule (using words or deeds to evoke condescending laughter directed at another), maledictions (wishing someone harm), threats (suggesting the intention to inflict pain, injury, or hurt on another), personality attacks (“He’s a timid fool”), negative comparison (“You’re not as handsome/pretty as your brother/sister”), and disconfirmation (completely ignoring another person).

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression As mentioned, a frequent form of aggressive communication is nonverbal “verbal” aggression. Nonverbal communication is often considered a more potent form of communication behavior (Knapp & Hall, 2006). When examining the impact of messages, the interaction between the verbal and nonverbal dimensions has great importance. Nonverbal messages are identified as

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

269

carrying with them the same potential for misinterpretation that verbal messages incur when individuals communicate. Mehrabian and his colleagues (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967; Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967) suggested that meaning is derived from the interactions between individuals with a majority of the meaning being derived from nonverbal behavior. The ubiquitous “Mehrabian’s Formula” suggests that meaning is largely the result of nonverbal behaviors, with vocalic and facial expression accounting for 38 percent and 55 percent of the total meaning respectively. The remaining 7 percent is derived from the verbal component, the actual words spoken during an interaction. Similar results were suggested by Argyle et al. (1970), who stated that nonverbal behaviors provoke 4.3 times more effect than verbal behaviors. Extrapolating from this, it may be seen that nonverbal forms of aggressive behavior would be perceived as more potent than verbal forms of aggressive behavior. Knapp and Hall (2006) suggest a number of functions of nonverbal messages, including the reinforcing and strengthening of verbal messages. According to Ekman (1965), there are distinct ways in which nonverbal messages can complement, and in many cases, override verbal messages. These include repeating (reinforcing the verbal message), conflicting (nonverbal messages which contradict and override verbal messages), complementing (nonverbal messages that modify or elaborate the verbal message), and substituting (nonverbal messages that replace the verbal message). The question arises, however, as to which is most potent in affecting a receiver’s perception of the message, and which has the greatest impact on perceptions of aggressive communication. While the potency of nonverbal communication has been recognized, little research exists regarding what constitutes nonverbal aggression and the impact it has in interpersonal communication. In addition to being perceived as being potentially more potent than verbal messages, nonverbal messages have been identified as carrying more information and are viewed as more believable to receivers (Burgoon, 1980). Nonverbal behaviors are also seen as more spontaneous, and not as easily faked. Consequently, greater importance might be placed on the nonverbal components of aggressive communication. Infante (1987) expanded the domain of verbally aggressive communication by suggesting a few nonverbal behaviors which could be considered as the nonverbal counterparts of verbal aggression (e.g., rolling of the eyes, sticking out the tongue). This chapter expands on this conceptualization. The importance of this examination can be seen in how nonverbal behaviors are utilized in communication which is characterized by conflict and controversy. When individuals are involved in disagreement and conflict, both verbal and nonverbal aggressive elements are operational. Two decades ago, Downs, Kaid, and Ragan (1990) examined aggressive communication in a televised debate and stated: In addition, the research of Infante, et al. does not specify the nonverbal

270

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

components of aggressive and argumentative behaviors as much as it identifies their verbal correlates. It is possible that nonverbal message accompaniers, as yet largely unexplored in existing research, may account for viewers’ discriminations between argumentativeness and aggressiveness more than other message characterizers. Future research needs to ferret out these discriminators by asking subjects to attend more closely to vocal and other nonverbal aspects of message delivery as well as to verbal components of the message. (p. 109) During interpersonal conflict and controversy, nonverbal symbolic behaviors can be utilized to augment and reinforce a true verbally aggressive message (e.g., slowing the rate of speech while saying the words “disgusting” and “revolting” as in “You look absolutely disgusting and revolting today”). However, “speech independent behaviors” or emblems can also substitute entirely for the verbal message. These nonverbal indicators “can be equivalent to a word, and thus constitute a verbal message” (Infante, 1988, p. 22). Since the inception of the research program on aggressive communication, a few “nonverbal indicators” of aggressive messages have been suggested (Infante, 1987, 1988). For example, nonverbal indicators which could be considered forms of nonverbal “verbal” aggression include shaking a clenched fist, “flipping the bird,” looks of disgust, shaking the head in disbelief, looks of contempt, rolling the eyes, and a paralinguistic emblematic cue such as a deep sigh (Infante, 1988). These behaviors have also been labeled “implicit ad hominems” and are considered attempts to belittle an opponent nonverbally (Remland, 1982). While these emblematic cues are ubiquitous during aggressive communication encounters, they represent only a small number of the cues communicators employ during aggressive communication encounters. Which others are used? While previous research developed a classification schema of verbally aggressive communication, no systematic or comprehensive efforts developed a taxonomy of nonverbal “verbal” aggression. The identification of nonverbal communication behaviors considered aggressive in nature is an important step in more fully understanding characteristics of communication, especially those exhibited during conflict and disagreement. A study was undertaken in order to remedy this omission. Two theoretical models provide some guidance in the development of a taxonomy of nonverbal “verbal” aggression: Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon, 1978, 1983, 1993; Burgoon & Hale, 1988) and Norton’s work on Communicator Style (Norton, 1978, 1983). Expectancy Violation Theory suggests that people hold expectations about the nonverbal behavior of others. Violations of these expectations can heighten arousal, and if these violations are negatively valenced, unfavorable perceptions of the interaction usually result. For example, if an individual thinks that another person is looking at her/him “too much,” this may contribute to the emergence of verbally aggressive behavior and could indeed stimulate

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

271

or escalate an interpersonal conflict. In a series of studies, Seiter and his colleagues (Seiter, 1999; Seiter, 2001; Seiter, Abraham, & Nakagama, 1998; Seiter, Kinzer, & Weger, 2006; Seiter & Weger, 2005) explored how a debater’s display of nonverbal disagreement during an opponent’s speech affected perceptions of each debater. These studies revealed that, in general, background nonverbal disagreement from one debater to another (e.g., nonverbal displays of boredom, disgust, and frustration which is considered a violation of normative debate protocol) led the norm-violating communicator to be perceived as less credible and appropriate. Another factor that may affect the way aggressive communication messages are perceived during a conflict episode is the manner in which those messages are delivered. Communicator Style is defined as “the way one verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood (Norton, 1978, p. 99). A receiver-oriented subcluster of communicator style dimensions has been identified which contains the styles of relaxed, friendly, and attentive. When individuals communicate with relaxed, friendly and attentive behaviors, they are said to exhibit an “affirming communicator style.” However, when individuals communicate with tense, unfriendly, and inattentive behaviors (e.g., frowns, tense or expressionless countenance, stern eyes, greater physical distance, little or no eye contact), they exhibit a “nonaffirming communicator style.” Infante, Rancer, and Jordan (1996) studied communicator style to determine if it influenced perceptions of argumentative and aggressive communication. They found that observers of an interpersonal dispute were more likely to perceive verbally aggressive behavior, and less likely to perceive argumentative behavior when they read transcripts of a conversation marked by conflict presented with a nonaffirming versus affirming communicator style. While previous research has suggested a few nonverbal behaviors which may be defined as “aggressive” in nature, clearly, additional research is needed to develop a more comprehensive taxonomy that classifies different forms of aggressive nonverbal behaviors. In addition to the development of this taxonomy, a second concern is the determination of which nonverbal aggressive behaviors are considered most “hurtful” when they are received. To help address these two issues, the following research questions were posited: RQ1: What behaviors are considered forms of nonverbal “verbal” aggression in interpersonal communication? RQ2: Which of the aggressive nonverbal behaviors are considered most hurtful?

Study One Method Participants and Procedures The first study involved a four-step process. First, in order to identify common aggressive nonverbal behaviors, a survey was administered to an undergraduate

272

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

communication class of individuals (n = 26, 16 males and 10 females) at a large Midwestern university. The students were asked to identify the types of nonverbal behaviors they see as being aggressive. Based on the review of previous research (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006) and the analysis of the survey, a list of 51 nonverbal behaviors that fit the category of nonverbal “verbal” aggression was developed. Second, two trained judges were given the list that was developed in the first step and asked to indicate to which of five categories (facial, eye, vocalics, gestures, or other) each behavior belonged. As the “other” category contained behaviors that generally constituted forms of nonverbal disconfirmation (e.g., “stepping away from another”), the “other” category was renamed “nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors.” Based on the two judges’ classifications, an interrater reliability analysis was performed to determine consistency among the two raters in placing the aggressive behaviors in the aforementioned categories (Kappa = 0.78 (p < .001), at the 95 percent confidence interval). Third, after the categorization scheme was developed via independent trained judges, a 51-item survey was administered to 40 undergraduate students to examine the degree of pain/hurt that is experienced by receiving each type of message. Each of the behaviors was followed by a five-space semantic differential-type scale which ranged from 1: almost no hurt to 5: a great deal of hurt. Degree of perceived hurt for each nonverbal behavior was measured by taking the mean of all participants’ responses for each behavior. One additional question examined how well the participants recalled receiving the behaviors listed (also measured on a five-point semantic differential scale). The responses showed that the participants did recall receiving these behaviors quite well (M = 3.93, SD = .92). Results Research Question One attempted to identify different types of nonverbal “verbal” aggression used in interpersonal communication. Informed by the previous research, a content analysis of the participants’ responses suggested an outcome of five categories consisting of 51 different types of nonverbal “verbal” aggressive behaviors (see Table 15.1). These five categories are: facial expressions, eye behaviors, vocalic behaviors, kinesic behaviors, and nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors. Research Question Two concerned identifying those most hurtful nonverbal aggressive behaviors. Of the 51 nonverbal behaviors, it was found the top four most hurtful facial expressions were giving a look of disdain, frowning, tightened/pursed lips, and scowling; the top four eye behaviors included a hard angry stare, rolling of the eyes, averting gaze, and giving the “evil eye;” the vocalic behaviors that were found to cause the most hurt included the use of a snapping/sharp/harsh tone, an unintelligible muttering/grumbling under a person’s breath, raising of the voice, and laughing using a mocking tone. The top four hurtful kinesic behaviors were getting into a person’s face/space, turning

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

273

Table 15.1 Nonverbal Behaviors (Degree of Perceived Hurt) Nonverbal Behavior

Mean* SD

Nonverbal Behavior

Mean* SD

Look of disdain (FE) Frowning (FE)

2.58 2.35

1.13 1.05

2.55 3.78

1.13 1.19

Gritting of the teeth (FE) Tightened lips/Pursed lips (FE)

2.15 2.15

1.14 1.19

2.58 2.88

1.47 1.51

Raising the eyebrows (FE)

1.68

0.92

2.93

1.31

Tightening jaw (FE)

2.00

1.06

1.95

1.20

Scowling (FE) Flared nostrils (FE)

2.58 1.97

1.15 1.06

1.75 2.25

0.98 1.15

Hard angry stare (EB) Rolling of the eyes (EB) Averting gaze (EB)

3.03 2.70 2.28

1.23 1.22 1.06

2.53 3.25 3.05

1.18 1.26 1.40

Giving the “evil eye” (EB) Bugged out eyes (EB) Squinting eyes (EB)

2.98 1.63 1.83

1.25 0.84 1.06

3.78 2.73 3.23

1.29 1.20 1.29

Snapping/Sharp/Harsh tone (VB) Sarcastic tone (VB) Clearing the throat (VB) Muttering or grumbling under breath (VB) Raising of voice (VB) Sighing (VB) Laughing in a mocking tone (VB) Growling or grunting (VB)

3.70

0.99

1.83

0.96

2.60 1.60 2.98

1.19 0.84 1.27

2.13 1.67 3.15

1.22 0.93 1.23

3.98 2.28 4.03 2.25

1.10 1.11 1.10 1.08

2.18 2.75 2.75 3.40

1.15 1.37 1.28 1.34

Giving the finger (KB) Sticking out the tongue (KB)

2.73 1.43

1.40 0.78

3.85 2.50

0.92 1.06

Stomping of feet (KB) Shaking head side-to-side (KB)

1.78 2.40

1.03 1.17

Shaking of fist (KB) Getting into face/space (KB) “Up Yours” gesture (KB) Pulling one’s own hair (KB) “Slitting the throat” gesture (KB) Running fingers under chin (KB) Tapping objects (KB) Hitting fist into palm (KB) Clenching fist (KB) Turning head away (KB) Throwing hands/arms up (KB) Throwing objects (KB) Pointing finger (KB) Slamming doors/objects (KB) Crossing of the arms (KB) Hands on hips (KB) Tapping of feet (KB) Turning of back away (KB) “Puffing out” chest (KB) Pounding of the fist (KB) “Slapping” motion (KB) Giving silent treatment (NDB) Walking away (NDB) Stepping back/away (NDB) Storming away (NDB)

3.60

1.08

Key: FE = Facial Expression, EB = Eye Behavior, VB = Vocalic Behavior, KB = Kinesic Behavior, NDB = Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behavior. * Means = degree of hurt. > mean, the greater the perceived hurt.

away of the head, throwing objects at the wall or ground, and slamming doors or other objects with force. The top four nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors that were found to cause the most hurt included walking away, stepping back/ away, storming away, and giving someone the silent treatment. As a result, a taxonomy of aggressive nonverbal behaviors was finalized to include only those

274

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

20 most hurtful behaviors, or the top four in each of the five categories (see Table 15.2).

Study Two Aggressive nonverbal behaviors do not constitute any new communicative phenomenon, but they are certainly one of the least studied. Identifying and classifying aggressive nonverbal behaviors with a taxonomy is an initial step of a research endeavor that may help better understand the use and the effects of those behaviors. The taxonomy itself is a tool that helps scholars and researchers engage in a rigorous and systematic investigation. With the taxonomy developed in the first study, the communicative impact of the interaction among the aggressive nonverbal behaviors themselves and the interaction between these behaviors and other communication factors can be further explored. One such communication factor is destructive aggressive communication traits. Table 15.2 A Taxonomy of Aggressive Nonverbal “Verbal” Behaviors Nonverbal Behavior

Mean*

SD

Facial Expressions Look of disdain Scowling Frowning Tightened lips/Pursed lips

2.58 2.58 2.35 2.15

1.13 1.15 1.05 1.19

Eye Behaviors Hard angry stare Giving the “evil eye” Rolling of the eyes Averting gaze

3.03 2.98 2.70 2.28

1.23 1.25 1.22 1.06

Vocalic Behaviors Laughing using a mocking tone Raising of voice Snapping/sharp/harsh tone Muttering or grumbling under breath

4.03 3.98 3.70 2.98

1.10 1.10 0.99 1.27

Kinesic Behaviors Getting into face/space Throwing objects at wall or ground Turning of head away Slamming doors or objects with force

3.78 3.78 3.25 3.23

1.19 1.29 1.26 1.29

Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors Walking away Storming away Giving someone the silent treatment Stepping back/away

3.85 3.60 3.40 2.50

0.92 1.08 1.34 1.06

* Means represent degree of hurt. The higher the mean, the greater the perceived hurt.

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

275

Destructive aggressive communication traits such as hostility and verbal aggressiveness aid in our understanding of individuals’ aggressive behaviors. Verbal aggressiveness is defined as “the tendency to attack the self-concepts of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication” (Infante, 1987, p. 164). A few notable findings have been reported in past research regarding individuals’ verbal aggressiveness and their use of verbal aggressive messages (see, for example, Infante et al., 1992). First, highly verbally aggressive individuals were reported to engage in verbal aggression for different reasons from those low in verbal aggressiveness. Second, different types of verbal aggressive messages could inflict different degrees of hurt between individuals of high and low trait verbal aggressiveness. Third, compared to low verbally aggressive individuals, highly verbally aggressive individuals indicated that they not only used different types of verbal aggressive messages with a higher frequency, but they also received them with a higher frequency. More specifically, individuals high in verbal aggressiveness are more likely to employ the aggressive messages in the form of nonverbal emblems. Taken together, conceptually, nonverbal “verbal” aggression consists of aggressive nonverbal behaviors that perform symbolic functions of verbal message. However, the uniqueness of nonverbal behavior suggests that there might not be a simple parallel between verbal aggressive and nonverbal aggressive behaviors, and the current knowledge of verbal aggressive messages and the trait of verbal aggressiveness is not sufficient. A further investigation that focuses on nonverbal “verbal” aggression is warranted. We thus forwarded the following research questions: RQ3: Do individuals who are high or low in trait verbal aggressiveness differ in the reasons for employing nonverbal “verbal” aggression? RQ4: Do individuals who are high or low in trait verbal aggressiveness differ in: a. b. c.

the perceived hurt experienced by five categories of nonverbally aggressive messages? the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages received from others? the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages directed at others?

Study Two Method Participants and Procedures The second study utilized a four-part survey which was administered to undergraduate students (n = 293, 135 males and 158 females) at a large Midwestern university. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 56 years old (M = 22.56, SD = 6.11). The first part consisted of the 20-item Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

276

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

(Infante & Wigley, 1986). This scale was developed to measure a person’s trait verbal aggressiveness. A five-point Likert-type format (1 = almost never true to 5 = almost always true) was used for the scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .85 (M = 48.11, SD = 10.90). Using the taxonomy developed in Study One, the second part of the survey sought the responses on the degree of hurt experienced with different types of aggressive nonverbal behaviors. The taxonomy contained 20 nonverbal behaviors with each of the behaviors followed by a five-space semantic differentialtype scale next to each which ranged from 1: almost no hurt to 5: a great deal of hurt. The third part of the survey asked the participants to recall the number of times in the past two weeks that they received from someone and also directed toward someone each of the 20 nonverbal behaviors. Participants were asked to indicate the number of times they received a particular nonverbal aggressive behavior from someone and directed it toward someone respectively. The fourth part of the survey asked the participants to indicate the frequency for using those 20 nonverbal behaviors for each of 12 different reasons which were taken from Infante et al. (1992). Each of the reasons was followed by a five-space semantic differential-type scale which ranged from “1 = almost never” to “5 = almost always.” Additionally, a demographic section was included to gather information on participants’ gender, age, race, and level of education. Statistical Analysis Since each of the categories of nonverbally aggressive behaviors consists of four individual behaviors, a composite score was calculated for each particular category consisting of the sum of a participant’s responses to each of the individual behaviors. For example, the degree of perceived hurt caused by “eye behaviors” was the sum of a participant’s responses to the following four individual behaviors: “hard angry stare,” “giving the ‘evil eye’,” “rolling of the eyes,” and “averting gaze.” In a similar fashion, the frequency of receiving/ directing aggressive “eye behaviors” from/at others would be the sum of a participant’s responses to the following four individual behaviors: “hard angry stare,” “giving the ‘evil eye’,” “rolling of the eyes,” and “averting gaze.” Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed to compare the differences in the variables in the research questions between individuals reporting high and low levels of trait verbal aggressiveness. Based on the participants’ scores on the scale of trait verbal aggressiveness (M = 48.14, SD = 10.87), those participants with the scores in the top third of the distribution (n = 95) were considered to be high in trait verbal aggressiveness, and those with the scores in the bottom third of the distribution (n = 99) to be low in trait verbal aggressiveness. The use of the top and bottom thirds in the current analysis followed a line of research practices on analyzing aggressive traits (see, for example, Infante et al., 1992). Infante and his associates (1992) pointed out that the use of scores

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

277

beyond one standard deviation from the mean would have created two smaller groups for comparison (i.e., n = 53 for high and n = 55 for low in the current analysis) and, thus, lower statistical power in this analysis. Results Research Question 3 concerned the reasons for employing nonverbal “verbal” aggression by individuals of high or low trait verbal aggressiveness. This research question was investigated by MANOVA with high/low verbal aggressiveness as the independent variable and the twelve possible reasons for employing nonverbal “verbal” aggression as the dependent variables. The MANOVA was significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .72, F (12, 181) = 5.88, p < .001). Significant corresponding univariate main effects were found in the following seven dependent variables (see Table 15.3): “Reciprocity,” F (1, 192) = 16.31, p < .01, η2 = .08; “Disdain for the target,” F (1, 192) = 25.55, p < .01, η2 = .12; “Being angry,” F (1, 192) = 13.76, p < .01, η2 = .07; “Discussion degenerating into nonverbal fight,” F (1, 192) = 7.57, p < .01, η2 = .04; “Being taught to use nonverbal aggression,” F (1, 192) = 6.78, p < .05, η2 = .03; “Trying to appear tough,” F (1, 192) = 13.30, p < .01, η2 = .07; and “Wanting to be mean to the other person,” F (1, 192) = 30.02, p < .01, η2 = .14. There was no such effect shown in the other five dependent variables. Thus, high verbally aggressive individuals differ from low verbally aggressive individuals on seven of the twelve general reasons for their engaging in nonverbal “verbal” aggression. Research Question 4a explored the hurtfulness of the five types of nonverbally aggressive messages perceived by the individuals who received them. Table 15.3 Reasons for Employing Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression VA Reasons***

Low

High

F

η2

Reciprocity Disdain for the target Being angry Unable to think of an effective argument Discussion degenerating into nonverbal fight Being taught to use nonverbal aggression The situation reminding one of past hurt Being in a bad mood Trying to be humorous but not hurtful Having observed a TV or movie character Trying to appear tough Wanting to be mean to the other person

2.37 1.93 2.75 2.17 1.90 1.84 2.55 3.03 3.38 2.47 2.16 1.77

3.07 2.73 3.37 2.28 2.32 2.27 2.68 3.15 3.44 2.66 2.84 2.67

16.31** 25.55** 13.76** .45 7.57** 6.78* .52 .49 .09 1.07 13.30** 30.02**

.08 .12 .07 .00 .04 .03 .00 .00 .00 .01 .07 .14

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** Means represent the average score on the measure of how often a particular reason for employing nonverbal verbal aggression in the past two weeks.

278

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

A MANOVA was used: high/low verbal aggressiveness as the independent variable and the degree of hurt for each of the five types of nonverbally aggressive messages as the dependent variables. While this analysis failed to reveal a significant overall effect for the individuals of high and low verbal aggressiveness on the combined five dependent variables (Table 15.4), Wilks’ Lambda = .96, F (5, 186) = 1.52, p = .16, four of the five variables were significantly different for the two groups. These four variables are: “Facial Expressions” (p < .05); “Vocalic Behaviors” (p < .05); “Kinesic Behaviors” (p < .05); and “Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors” (p < .05), respectively. A further analysis indicated that lack of statistical power (Observed Power = .53) might be one of the reasons that the current test on combined five dependent variables could not reveal a significant difference. Research Question 4b investigated the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages received from others. A MANOVA was conducted: the independent variable was high/low verbal aggressiveness, and the frequencies of the five types of nonverbally aggressive messages received from others served as combined dependent variables. The results of this analysis showed a significant difference for the groups of high/low verbal aggressiveness on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F (5, 180) = 2.75, p < .05. Significant corresponding univariate main effects were found in the following three dependent variables (see Table 15.5):, “Eye Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 6.20, p < .05, η2 = .03; “Vocalic Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 8.20, p < .01, η2 = .04; “Kinesic Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 9.14, p < .01, η2 = .05. There was no such effect shown in the other two dependent variables. Therefore, the frequencies of three types of nonverbally aggressive messages (“Eye Behaviors,” “Vocalic Behaviors,” and “Kinesic Behaviors”) received by high verbal aggressive individuals were higher than those reported by low verbal aggressive individuals. Research Question 4c investigated the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages directed toward others. A MANOVA was employed: the independent variable was high/low verbal aggressiveness, and the frequencies of the five types of nonverbally aggressive messages directed toward others served as Table 15.4 Perceived Hurtfulness of Nonverbally Aggressive Messages VA Type of Messages***

Low

High

F

η2

Facial Expressions Eye Behaviors Vocalic Behaviors Kinesic Behaviors Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors

8.93 9.67 13.47 12.80 11.49

7.92 8.82 12.19 11.36 10.34

4.44 2.63 5.02 6.19 4.06

.02 .01 .03 .03 .02

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** Means represent the average score on the measure of the degree of perceived hurtfulness of each type of nonverbally aggressive messages received.

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

279

Table 15.5 Frequency of Nonverbally Aggressive Messages Received from Others VA Type of Messages***

Low

High

F

η2

Facial Expressions Eye Behaviors Vocalic Behaviors Kinesic Behaviors Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors

5.11 4.38 4.63 1.40 2.55

6.79 7.41 8.42 3.39 3.92

2.31 6.20* 8.20** 9.14** 2.82

.01 .03 .04 .04 .02

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** Means represent the average score on the measure of the frequency of each type of nonverbally aggressive messages received in the past two weeks.

Table 15.6 Frequency of Nonverbally Aggressive Messages Directed at Others VA Type of Messages***

Low

High

F

η2

Facial Expressions Eye Behaviors Vocal Behaviors Kinesic Behaviors Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors

4.65 5.26 4.81 1.74 2.68

8.46 9.21 12.65 5.53 4.19

8.15* 7.91* 15.67** 7.06* 3.61

.04 .04 .08 .04 .02

* p < .01. ** p < .001 *** Means represent the average score on the measure of the frequency of each type of nonverbally aggressive messages directed at others in the past two weeks.

combined dependent variables. The results of this analysis indicated a significant difference for the groups of high/low verbal aggressives on the combined dependent variables, Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F (5, 180) = 3.46, p < .01. Significant corresponding univariate main effects were found in the following four dependent variables (see Table 15.6): “Facial Expressions,” F (1, 184) = 8.15, p < .01, η2 = .04; “Eye Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 7.91, p < .01, η2 = .04; “Vocalic Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 15.67, p < .001, η2 = .08; “Kinesic Behaviors,” F (1, 184) = 7.06, p < .01, η2 = .04. There was no such effect shown in the other dependent variable, “Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors.” Therefore, the frequencies of four types of nonverbally aggressive messages (“Facial Expressions,” “Eye Behaviors,” “Vocalic Behaviors,” and “Kinesic Disconfirmation Behaviors”) directed at others by high verbal aggressive individuals are higher than those by low verbally aggressive individuals.

Discussion To identify and classify the common aggressive nonverbal behaviors and to recognize those behaviors that create the most hurtful impact are the two

280

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

concerns investigated in Study One. The results indicate that 51 separate nonverbal communication behaviors can be considered to be the nonverbal equivalent of verbal aggression. These behaviors cluster into five distinct categories of nonverbal behavior including aggressive facial expressions, eye behaviors, vocalic behaviors, kinesic behaviors, and nonverbal behaviors considered to be disconfirming in nature. In terms of the most hurtful behaviors, the results also suggest four behaviors in each of the above five categories. The most hurtful behaviors are perceived to have greater impact on individuals. Therefore, on the basis of parsimony and potency, a taxonomy of aggressive nonverbal behaviors is finalized to include only those 20 most hurtful behaviors (see Table 15.2). With this taxonomy, scholars and researchers should be able to begin a new line of research as suggested in Richmond and McCroskey (2004), that is, to examine individual categories of aggressive nonverbal behaviors one by one to understand all of these behaviors. Furthermore, the taxonomy also should enable scholars and researchers to study the communicative impact of the interaction among the aggressive nonverbal behaviors themselves and the interaction between these behaviors together and other communication factors. Further, the study investigated the reasons for employing nonverbal “verbal” aggression by individuals of high or low trait verbal aggressiveness. The findings of Study Two indicated that individuals who varied in trait verbal aggressiveness (high vs. low) differed in seven reasons for using nonverbally aggressive behavior. More specifically, those high in verbal aggressiveness more so than those low in the trait reported that they used nonverbal forms of aggression due to reciprocity, disdain, anger, because a discussion degenerated into a nonverbal fight, being taught to use nonverbal aggression, for trying to appear tough, and wanting to be mean to the other person. These findings on reasons for using nonverbal forms of aggressive communication extend previous research by Infante et al. (1992). Infante et al. (1992) explored whether high and low verbal aggressives could be differentiated by the reasons they endorsed for using verbal aggression. They discovered that high verbal aggressives endorsed four reasons for using verbally aggressive communication (i.e., to appear tough, being in rational discussions which degenerate into verbal fights, wanting to be mean to the target, and wanting to express disdain toward the target). The results of the present study identified these similar reasons for using nonverbally aggressive communication, and extended these results by identifying three additional reasons (i.e., reciprocity, being angry, being taught to use it). Of particular interest are the underlying reasons the participants reported for using nonverbal aggression. First, there is a clear presentational style or “image” that those high in verbal aggressiveness want to present, one that makes them appear tough and mean. Second, there is an underlying sense of hostility as a reason for the nonverbal display of aggression, as verbal aggressiveness is a subset of hostility (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Severe dislike and anger for the target, and reciprocity emerged as reasons which differentiate high from low argumentatives.

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

281

The discovery of these additional reasons has a few implications. First, they underscore the idea that anger often accompanies aggressive communication, in this case, the use of nonverbally aggressive behavior. Anger stimulated by verbal aggression can act as a catalyst “in that it triggers a realization of undissipated anger . . . and mount to a level where it manifests itself symbolically as physical violence” (Infante & Rancer, 1996, p. 337). A neglected factor in attempts to reduce verbal aggressiveness and verbally aggressive behavior is the body of research on anger management. However, one successful program on anger management therapy designed for male youth offenders (Ireland, 2004) included the importance of nonverbal communication (i.e., kinesics) in signaling anger, replacing aggressive nonverbal behavior with nonaggressive nonverbals, and the importance of bodily arousal in relation to angry behavior. It is our contention that anger is often present during conflict, and if reductions in anger can be accomplished, reduction in both verbal aggression and nonverbally aggressive behavior may follow. Of course, this assertion is subject to empirical examination. Research Question 4a is concerned with the perceived hurt caused by the five types of nonverbally aggressive behaviors on the individuals who received them. The past research found that, regarding verbally aggressive messages, individuals high in verbal aggressiveness felt less hurtful when receiving them than those of low verbal aggressiveness (Infante et al., 1992). However, the results of the second study reported here did not reveal any difference between high and low verbal aggressive individuals on their perceived hurt created by the nonverbally aggressive behaviors. While this particular finding does not point in the same direction as what had been reported by Infante et al. (1992), we should be cautious to draw any further conclusion because the statistical analysis conducted in the current study suggested a lack of statistical power in the analysis for the given data. Therefore, how to increase the statistical power is one immediate issue that needs to be addressed in the future research. Using a larger sample of participants could be one of the solutions. Research Questions 4b and 4c explored the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages received from, and directed at others, respectively. The findings also showed that individuals high in verbal aggressiveness reported receiving and using nonverbally aggressive communication behaviors more often than individuals low in verbal aggressiveness. Particularly, the former is more likely to encounter aggressive behaviors in the forms of using eye, voice, body language, and nonverbal disconfirmation (e.g., silent treatment and walking away); and the former is also more likely to direct the following aggressive behaviors toward others: using facial expression, eye, voice, and body language. In other words, a frequent user (or receiver) of aggressive nonverbal behaviors tends to be a frequent receiver (or user) of those behaviors. Since “reciprocity” had been identified as one of the reasons for people to employ aggressive nonverbal behaviors (see the previous discussion of Research Question 3), the above finding is not a surprise, but expected. In addition, the “verbal aggressive” person clearly appears to not only engage

282

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

in greater use of verbal aggression (Infante et al., 1992), but also nonverbal “verbal” aggression. One of the functions of nonverbal communication is to reinforce verbal messages (see Knapp & Hall, 2006). These results underscore that when engaged in conflict and controversy, highly verbal aggressive individuals could use nonverbal behaviors to augment and reinforce their already verbally aggressive communication. A plethora of research (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006) has revealed the destructive and dysfunctional consequences of employing verbal aggression in a variety of communication contexts including relational and family, organizational, instructional, and intercultural. Given the dominance of the nonverbal component in the meaning of any message (Mehrabian, 1981), an argument could be made that during interpersonal interaction marked by conflict, the nonverbal forms of aggressive communication, particularly those being the most hurtful, would have greater potency than a verbally aggressive message in stimulating hurt, embarrassment, and psychological pain. In addition, from a perspective of applied communication, the results of the studies reported here underscore the need to develop additional communicationbased training programs targeted at the effect of nonverbal behavior on the reduction of aggressive communication. While several training programs have focused on reducing verbally aggressive communication (Anderson, Schultz, & Courtney-Staley, 1987; Rancer et al., 2000; Rancer et al., 1997), to this date, none of the programs have focused on the nonverbal dimensions of aggressive communication. The development of a taxonomy of nonverbal “verbal” aggression has now identified specifically the forms of kinesic, eye, facial, vocalic, and nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors considered aggressive in nature. With the findings that those higher in aggressive communication predispositions both receive and direct these nonverbally aggressive forms of communication more, we can now develop training modules to help individuals recognize when and why they use these nonverbal aggressive behaviors, and how they can eliminate or at minimum, reduce their use. To communication scholars, the destructive effects of verbal aggression on interpersonal relationship in such contexts as family and organization are not ambiguous, but the effects of nonverbal aggression on interpersonal relationship are unclear. It is time for communication scholars to put more effort into exploring this uncharted research area. Can communication scholars afford not to?

References Anderson, J., Schultz, B., & Courtney-Staley, C. (1987). Training in argumentativeness: New hope for nonassertive women. Women’s Studies in Communication, 10, 58–66. Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The Communication of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 222–231. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.

Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression

283

Burgoon, J. K. (1980). Nonverbal communication research in the 1970s: An overview. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 179–197). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Burgoon, J. K. (1983). Nonverbal violations of expectations. In J. M. Wiemann & R. P. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 77–111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectancies, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79. 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. Ekman, P. (1965). Communication through nonverbal behavior: A source of information about an interpersonal relationship. In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality (pp. 390–442). New York: Springer. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A., Chandler-Sabourin, T., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates’ satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 11–125. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Jordan, F. F. (1996). Affirming and nonaffirming style, dyad sex, and the perception of argumentation and verbal aggression in an interpersonal dispute. Human Communication Research, 22, 315–334. Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Ireland, J. L. (2004). Anger management therapy with young male offenders: An evaluation of treatment outcome. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 174–185. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2006). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (6th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Influence of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248–252. Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109–114. Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1999). Verbal aggression in college classrooms: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47, 33–45.

284

Andrew S. Rancer, Yang Lin, James M. Durbin, & Emily C. Faulkner

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundations of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99–112. Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rancer, A. S., Avtgis, T. A., Kosberg, R. L., & Whitecap, V. G. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness between seventh and eighth grades. Communication Education, 49, 114–119. Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V. G., Kosberg, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Training in argumentativeness: Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescents. Communication Education, 46, 273–286. Remland, M. (1982). The implicit ad hominem fallacy: Nonverbal displays of status in argumentative discourse. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 79–86. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations. (5th ed), Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Seiter, J. S. (1999). Does communicating nonverbal disagreement during an opponent’s speech affect the credibility of the debater in the background? Psychological Reports, 84, 855–861. Seiter, J. S. (2001). Silent derogation and perceptions of deceptiveness: Does communicating nonverbal disbelief during an opponent’s speech affect perceptions of debaters’ veracity? Communication Research Reports, 18, 203–209. Seiter, J. S., Abraham, J. A., & Nakagama, B. T. (1998). Split-screen versus single-screen formats in televised debates: Does access to an opponent’s nonverbal behaviors affect viewers’ perceptions of a speaker’s credibility? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 491–497. Seiter, J. S., Kinzer, H. J., & Weger, H., Jr. (2006). Background behavior in live debates: The effects of the implicit ad hominem fallacy. Communication Reports, 19, 57–69. Seiter, J. S., & Weger, H., Jr. (2005). Audience perceptions of candidates’ appropriateness as a function of nonverbal behaviors displayed during televised political debates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 225–235.

Chapter 16

The Dark Side of Organizational Life Aggressive Expression in the Workplace Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

Workplace aggression may be defined as “behavior by an individual or individuals within or outside an organization that is intended to physically or psychologically harm a worker or workers and occurs in a work-related context” (Schat & Kelloway, 2005, p. 191). Although extreme instances of organizational aggression, most notably workplace homicide, tend to garner the most media attention, in reality, most occurrences of aggression in the organizational context are verbal in nature. Among these verbal acts of organizational aggression are yelling, insulting, cursing others, talking behind others’ backs, and spreading rumors (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Geddes & Baron, 1997; Glomb, 2002; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). The presence of aggression, aggressive communication, and conflict within the workplace is something that is so ubiquitous that it transcends political structures, industries, cultures, sectors, and any other “meaningful” distinction that one can make about work and workplace differences. For example, a review of aggressive communication in various organizational contexts revealed scores of investigations into the negative effects of verbal aggressiveness within the workplace (see, for example, Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). One of the most difficult tasks in the presentation of research on aggressive communication in the workplace is the development of a conceptualization that encompasses all of the constructs that have been investigated within the social sciences, as well as government research institutes. The various conceptualizations of organizational verbal aggression share so much variance that any one term would serve as an adequate definition upon which an entire chapter could be based. For example, aggressive communication, interpersonal aggression, workplace hostility, psychological aggression, workplace bullying, psychological bullying, verbal abuse, incivility, interactional injustice, harassment, and interpersonal abuse are but a representation of well-established research programs looking at basically the same phenomenon, but from varying perspectives. This conceptual overlap is so great that the unique variance accounted for by any one construct (while taking into consideration the variance accounted for by the other constructs) would be minuscule. Given the conceptual similarity among the constructs of interest and the definitional challenge such similarity presents, we will draw from a number of

286

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

research programs and perspectives in the discussion that follows. Throughout this chapter we will highlight findings from several of these approaches; however, we will focus exclusively on communication behavior that is verbal in nature, occurs within the context of the organization or workplace, and is perceived by the receiver as hurtful, harmful, or aggressive. We will refer to this construct in various ways, including aggressive communication and verbal aggression. The international and national statistics on workplace aggression are alarming. Internationally, Einarsen and Raknes (1997) found that 75 percent of Norwegian employees in the engineering sector reported experiencing some level of harassment at least once in the last six months. Sixty-nine percent of Canadian public employees reported experiencing verbal aggression at work (Pizzino, 2002). On the domestic front, 21 percent of public service employees reported being the victims of harassment in the last two years (Public Service Commission, 2002). The United States government reported 33 percent of workers experienced some form of verbal abuse on the job (NCASA, 2000). More recently, a survey by the Employment Law Alliance (2007) revealed that approximately 50 percent of American workers have experienced or learned of organizational superiors engaging in aggressive communication such as yelling, ignoring, insulting, interrupting, or criticizing their subordinates. Research also reveals that sources or perpetrators of aggressive organizational communication tend to be male (Duhart, 2001; Geen, 2001; Glomb, 2002; McFarlin et al., 2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006), older than the target (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), of the same race as the target (Glomb, 2002), of higher organizational status than the target (Baron & Neuman, 1998; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2007; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), and interact daily with the target (Glomb, 2002). Receivers or targets of aggressive organizational communication tend to be male (Duhart, 2001; Geen, 2001; Glomb, 2002; Grandey, Kern, & Frone, 2007; McFarlin et al., 2001; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006), younger (Hurrel, Worthington, & Driscoll, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2007), of the same race as the perpetrator (Glomb, 2002), of lower organizational status than the perpetrator (Baron & Neuman, 1998; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2007; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), do not hold a particular occupation (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002), have shorter job tenure (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2007), and interact with the aggressor on a daily basis (Glomb, 2002). The fact that younger workers, regardless of sex, report an increased risk of being victimized through workplace aggression (Hurrel, Worthington, & Driscoll, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2007) may not be indicative of age per se, as much as the vocational life space that younger workers occupy. That is, younger workers tend to be employed in retail sales, food service (fast food), or other customer service related positions such those in healthcare (see Avtgis & Polack, Chapter 13 in this volume; Mahew & Quinlan, 2002). These types of positions lend themselves to situations that are potentially explosive in nature (e.g., irate customers, low-paid co-workers and supervisors, intoxicated or mentally impaired patients, etc.). For those younger workers who hold more

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

287

professional positions, their positions at the bottom of the organizational structure render them more likely to be targets of workplace aggression. In addition, younger populations tend to be less competent communicators (see, for example, Pecchioni, Wright, & Nussbaum, 2005). Communication skills deficiencies, specifically deficiencies in arguing skills, have been cited as a reason that people aggress (Infante & Rancer, 1996). Thus, the youth factor in workplace aggression is further confounded by young people’s relative lack of communication competence.

Workplace Aggression as Logical Expression or Impulse? Explanations of Aggressive Organizational Communication Throughout the development of explanations for aggression in the workplace, there have been several different conceptualizations as to how both physical and verbal aggression are engaged. According to Kelloway, Barling, and Hurrell (2006), “the study of aggression and violence is characterized by two fundamental theoretical orientations: The rational choice and the frustration–aggression hypothesis” (p. 4). The rational choice model contends that people engage in aggressive behavior due to a need for compliance, the restoration of a sense of justice and/ or fairness when they believe they have been wronged, and a need to create and maintain a desired self- and social image (Felson, 2006). The rational choice explanation assumes that people are cognizant of their aggressive tendencies and make rational choices to engage in them. Decision-making, then, is present, but limited as aggressive expression involves rapid decision-making, strong emotional states, and in many cases, alcohol. The person may act out without regard to the long-term personal and professional consequences of the aggression. Even in light of great personal and professional sanctions, the person may still decide to engage in aggressive behavior (Felson, 2006). For example, aggressive communication triggered by perceptions of organizational injustice may be considered attempts to restore balance to the superior–subordinate relationship. Employees who feel they have been unfairly treated may decrease their positive contributions (and increase their negative ones) to the relationship or organization so that it better reflects the under-rewards they perceive themselves to have received from the organization or superior (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Chory & Westerman, 2009; Goodboy, Chory, & Dunleavy, 2008). Such an explanation is consistent with the equity theory explanation of interpersonal relationships (Adams, 1965; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). In contrast to the rational choice model, the frustration-aggression hypothesis assumes that aggression, in whatever form, is a response to exposure to aversive stimuli (Spector, Fox, & Domagalski, 2006). These stimuli can result in, or fuel, aggressive expression (Berkowitz, 1989). According to Berkowitz (1962), interpersonal aggression has to have the element of intent to harm another

288

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

person. According to Spector, Fox, and Domagalski (2006), “Affective, or ‘hot,’ aggression has as its primary goal the injury of a target, whether physical or psychological, at times impulsively and immediately during the experience of negative emotion in response to provocation” (p. 29). The integrated model of aggression is based on negative emotion and negative affective aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005). This model assumes that aggression is triggered by environmental factors, such as situational frustration, which can be brought about by direct insults or objects and people associated with the aggressive act. This concept is illustrated by Wigley in Chapter 22 of this volume with the discussion of verbal trigger events. Bies and Tripp (2005) further delineate among aggression due to goal obstruction (inhibiting one from achievement), violation (privacy, space, or rights), and attacks on power or status. Regardless of how it is conceptualized, the onset of aggressive communication in the workplace is an act that occurs with such frequency that participants often become so desensitized and expectant of verbal aggression, that any thought of de-escalation behavior appears to be discounted, if considered at all. So how do people predict the onset of a verbally aggressive episode in the organization?

Predictors of Aggressive Organizational Communication Often cited structural or macro-level factors associated with aggressive communication in the workplace include budget cuts, downsizing, part-time and sub-contracted workers, technology-related issues, and work and information overload associated with the pressure for greater productivity (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Hoobler & Swanberg, 2006; Johnson & Indivik, 2001; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Aggressive communication at work is also said to occur as a result of violent and informal organizational climates (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Spector et al., 2007) and the acceptance and enactment of aggressive communication and behavior by other organizational members (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Coombs & Holladay, 2004). Employees perceive that some types of aggression, such as verbal aggression, are harmless and tolerate their occurrence at work, leading to the development of an aggressive organizational culture and/or climate that can have untold effects on employee well-being and organizational viability. On a more micro-organizational level, research suggests that perceptions of organizational injustice (unfairness) are associated with aggressive organizational communication (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Chory & Westerman, 2009; Colquitt et al., 2001; Ellis & Van Dyne, 2009; Glomb, 2002; Goodboy, Chory, & Dunleary, 2008; Olson, Nelson, & Parayitam, 2006; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), as are the attributions individuals make for communication received, their perceptions of damage to their social identities (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and the

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

289

violation of psychological contracts (Neuman & Baron, 1997; Olson, Nelson, & Porayitam, 2006). Along similar lines, management practices (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Johnson & Indivik, 2001; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Olson, Nelson, & Parayitam, 2006) and relational issues such as managerial distrust (Chory & Hubbell, 2008), job and interpersonal conflicts, and perceived threats (Glomb, 2002; Olson, Nelson, & Parayitam, 2006) are said to predict employees’ aggressive communication in the workplace. Finally, individual factors such as high trait verbal aggressiveness, having a hot temperament, desiring revenge, and feeling negative affect such as anger, hostility, resentment, stress, and frustration (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; ChoryAssad, 2002; Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997; Glomb, 2002; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Neuman & Baron, 1997) are linked with aggressive workplace interactions. Given the multitude of factors that are identified as predictors of verbal aggression, which of these factors are more important or more meaningful to the actual engagement of aggressive communication? Although the answers to this question may reveal one or two factors that serve as significant predictors of aggressive episodes, the effects of such episodes are much more difficult to predict or even understand than the prediction of an upcoming aggressive episode.

Outcomes of Aggressive Organizational Communication Violence Implications Perhaps most troublesome as to the effects of aggressive communication in organizations is the potential for it to lead to more intense, harmful aggressive outcomes. Many scholars propose that verbally aggressive behavior in organizations may spark an escalating pattern of responses leading to more serious forms of aggression, including physical violence (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Magyar, 2003; Winstok, 2006). For example, Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) spiral of incivility model posits that various perceptions, emotions, desires, as well as personal and organizational characteristics, increase the likelihood that an incivility spiral in the workplace will occur and escalate. Such a spiral results in incivility/verbal aggression leading to more coercive actions such as more maligning insults, threats of physical violence, and actual physical attacks. This perspective mimics earlier research on abusive interpersonal relationships (Infante, 1987a; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990). Infante and colleagues argued that potentially aggressive situations are concretized through interpersonal reciprocation of aggressive communication known as reciprocal escalation. The lack of diffusion strategies on the part of any one party may serve as a catalyst that escalates the situation, even though the types of messages they employ may not overtly seek to do so. That is, messages that are not specifically geared toward de-escalation can exacerbate the aggressive

290

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

episode. Once the escalation cycle is engaged, only circumventive strategies are believed to effectively de-escalate the situation. Drawing from Margoline’s (1979) treatment model for abusive couples and Wagner’s (1980) dismissal strategies for verbal tactics, Infante (1995) developed various communication diffusion strategies specific to verbally aggressive situations. These strategies have recently been applied to healthcare organizations (Avtgis & Madlock, 2008). Health Implications In addition to the physical injuries that may result from physical attacks, aggressive workplace communication is associated with organizational members experiencing a variety of negative physical and emotional effects. Being verbally abused at work is related to declines in physical health (Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Spector et al., 2007), mental health (Coombs & Holladay, 2004), and emotional wellbeing (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). It is also linked to increased stress (Glomb, 2002; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), anxiety, depression (Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Spector et al., 2007), emotional exhaustion, and burnout (Avtgis & Rancer, 2008; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Organizational Implications The effects of aggressive communication in the workplace go well beyond the perpetrator and target and can have negative implications for organizations as a whole, particularly in the area of productivity (Coombs & Holladay, 2004). For instance, aggressive organizational communication is linked to decreases in victims’ job performance (Glomb, 2002) and disengagement from work in the forms of not performing extra-organizational activities and decreasing one’s work efforts (Glomb, 2002; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). The workplace, in effect, is seen as a battlefield that is to be experienced or weathered only when absolutely necessary. Extra-organizational activities, whether taskrelated or social in nature, become opportunities for victims to further experience ridicule and abuse and, as such, are to be avoided at all costs. Similarly, verbal abuse is associated with targets taking time off from work (Glomb, 2002; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000) and spending time at work worrying about the aggressive incident or future encounters with the perpetrator, as well as trying to avoid him/her (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Along the same lines, individuals who have experienced verbal aggression at work report lower levels of organizational commitment (Johnson & Indvik, 2001; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000) and job satisfaction (Glomb, 2002; Lapierre, Spector, & Leck, 2005). On the more extreme end, workplace verbal abuse is associated with turnover (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), organizational theft (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), and lawsuits (Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Johnson & Indvik, 2001).

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

291

As has been evidenced in the theory and research reviewed thus far, aggressive organizational communication has deleterious effects for all parties and institutions involved; thus, the occurrence of aggressive communication should be considered an aversive condition that should be reduced, if not eliminated from the contemporary workplace. In contrast to an employee who communicates in a verbally aggressive manner, consider the organizational member who has exhibited no outwardly aggressive behavior, yet has the propensity toward aggressive communication. Does an organizational member’s predisposition toward verbal aggression also correlate with destructive organizational and personal outcomes?

Correlates of Trait Verbal Aggressiveness Trait verbal aggressiveness is defined as the tendency to attack the self-concept of others instead of, or in addition to, the person’s position on a given topic (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Most of the research on trait verbal aggressiveness in the organizational context has been conducted by Infante, Gorden, and their colleagues and has examined perceptions of trait verbal aggressiveness in the superior–subordinate relationship. Their work indicates that when superiors are satisfied with their subordinates’ job performance, superiors judge their subordinates as lower in trait verbal aggressiveness (Gorden, Infante, & Izzo, 1988; Infante & Gorden, 1989) and more favorably in terms of getting along with others and knowing how to work well with others (Gorden, Infante, & Izzo, 1988). Likewise, subordinates’ satisfaction and commitment are tied to perceiving their superiors as being lower in trait verbal aggressiveness (Infante et al., 1993), which strongly contributes to perceptions of superiors’ affirming communication style (Infante & Gorden, 1991). Similarly, subordinates’ perceptions of their superiors’ trait verbal aggressiveness is negatively correlated with perceptions of superiors’ use of compliance-gaining strategies with subordinates (Infante et al., 1993), superiors’ credibility, and subordinates’ positive affect toward superiors (Cole & McCroskey, 2003). This research suggests that within the superior–subordinate relationship, perceptions of trait verbal aggressiveness are associated with negative job-related perceptions and characteristics. Trait verbal aggressiveness has also been associated with a number of problematic work outcomes. For instance, schoolteachers’ trait verbal aggressiveness is linked to teacher burnout syndrome (Avtgis & Rancer, 2008) and undergraduate student workers’ trait verbal aggressiveness is associated with a higher tolerance for workplace aggression (Coombs & Holladay, 2004). A person’s trait verbal aggressiveness is also negatively related to their likelihood of staying with a company and being a productive, reliable organizational member if hired (Harris, 1997), and positively related to the use of more ineffective and dysfunctional dissent strategies when expressing dissatisfaction about organizational processes and procedures (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Finally, telephone reservation representatives’ trait verbal aggressiveness is negatively correlated

292

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

with their objectively-assessed job performance after the “honeymoon period” with the job ends (Helmreich, Sawin, & Carsrud, 1986). Within the specific context of the job interview, research shows that interviewees’ trait verbal aggressiveness is positively related to their use of the impression management strategy of self-enhancement, in which they describe their own positive attributes, but negatively related to entitlement, in which interviewees take responsibility for the positive events in their lives (Lamude, Scudder, & Simmons, 2003). Interviewees’ trait verbal aggressiveness is also positively correlated with their communication apprehension in the interview context (Simmons, Lamude, & Scudder, 2003). These characteristics are considered less desirable in hiring decisions. In short, within organizations, trait verbal aggressiveness appears to detract from satisfaction and job performance and perceptions of organizational processes at all levels. It is important to distinguish between someone who is high in trait verbal aggressiveness and someone who regularly uses verbal aggression. It would be a mistake to indict a person based on a predisposition toward behavior as opposed to the actual display of that behavior. However, it should be noted that employees with this predisposition toward displaying aggressive behavior and other types of behaviors that are detrimental to the individual, their co-workers, and the organization are at an increased risk of actually engaging in verbally aggressive episodes.

Alternatives to Aggressive Organizational Communication The need for people to express themselves within the organization serves fundamental communication and psychological functions. How then, can an organization create a climate or culture that is conducive to civil dissent expression and idea exchange? There are several perspectives that have been forwarded regarding the creation and maintenance of an organizational structure that fosters pro-social self-expression, yet also accounts for the ultimate goal of an organization being financially successful (in terms of for-profit organizations) or fulfilling particular needs (in terms of non- and not-for-profit organizations). One such effort was the development of the theory of independent mindedness. Theory of Independent Mindedness The theory of independent mindedness (TIM) was developed to reflect the cultural assumptions of the United States within U.S. organizations (Infante, 1987b). That is, American workers have an implicit drive for self-determination, autonomy, and self-expression. Further, the need to conform and give up individual freedom for the good of the group is generally met with resistance as it is counter to western assumptions of freedom and individualism (Avtgis & Rancer, 2008). The TIM was conceptualized in direct response to the eastern management techniques that pervaded American industry in the 1980s.

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

293

Infante (1987c) argued that failures in eastern management techniques can be traced to the incongruencies that have existed between the organization’s culture or management philosophy and the larger culture within which workers live their lives. In other words, “Management by consensus is possible in a homogeneous and implicitly hierarchical culture. Deference to seniority and authority is expected and respected in Japan. Subordinates (or associates as they are called) communicate in a very respectful, nonconfrontational style” (Infante, 1987c, p. 4). These cultural assumptions and interactional patterns, if not reflective of western organizations, can be considered inorganic. One main assumption of the TIM is that to be effective, any theory of corporate success should be geared toward maximizing human productivity in an effort to serve the ultimate profit-making goals of the organization. Given this, issues such as employee dissatisfaction, lack of motivation, and lack of productivity may be the product of a disparity that exists between the organization’s values and the values of the larger culture within which it operates. According to Avtgis and Rancer (2007), “the degree of distance between the microstructure and the macrostructure may determine the amount of dissatisfaction experienced by organizational members. As such, the closer that these two philosophies are aligned, the greater employee satisfaction and productivity” (p. 188). There is a tension that is inherent when cultural incongruity exists. That is, how can we ask a person to behave in a subservient way in the workplace when outside of the organization people are free-thinking and free-speaking individuals? Infante (1987b) believes that organizations should emphasize the superior–subordinate dialectic. That is, in capitalistic societies it should be readily acknowledged that power and status differences exist and that these differences should not be hidden as if they were subversive to the larger culture. However, it is important to encourage an open exchange of ideas between upper-level management and lower-level employees, thus validating the power differences between the superior and subordinate, yet also validating the selfconcept of the person in terms of his/her right to self-expression (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007). One of the integral components of the TIM is that employees must hold the perception that they are actively involved in organizational decision-making. This is manifested in a give-and-take between superiors and subordinates when discussing organizationally relevant issues. Further, employees should feel as if they have the right to challenge decisions by superiors in socially appropriate ways. This open exchange between superior and subordinates is known as the “dialectic exchange” (Gorden & Infante, 1987; Rancer, 1995). When organizations adopt such interaction patterns, employee voice is heightened, which is in opposition to more autocratic or oppressive management methods that view argument and discussion between ranks as counterproductive (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007). This paradox in communication exchange exists between autocratic forms of management and “prevailing American values of freedom of speech and freedom of expression” (Rancer, 1995, p. 136). The theory of independent mindedness has been operationalized through a

294

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

communication trait profile that reflects the predisposition to critically think and express those thoughts in socially appropriate ways (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007). More specifically, the traits that are associated with being independent minded are verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986), argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), and communicator style (Norton, 1983). These three traits are deemed critical to the theory due to their focus on employee expression, voice, and style. As previously defined throughout this text, trait verbal aggressiveness refers to the tendency to attack the self-concept of others instead of, or in addition to, their positions on a given topic (Infante & Wigley, 1986). In contrast, trait argumentativeness is the predisposition to present and defend positions on controversial issues while simultaneously attacking the positions that others take on these issues (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Research into trait argumentativeness and argumentative behavior indicates positive outcomes for both employees and the organization as a whole (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). For example, high levels of trait argumentativeness have been linked to increased employee satisfaction (Infante & Gorden, 1985), increased expression of employee voice and willingness to speak up for individual rights within the organization (Gorden & Infante, 1987), and the expression of dissatisfaction in effective and productive ways, such as using articulated dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Furthermore, scholars have advocated that argument training be required of new hires in an effort to increase competent individual expression and independent mindedness (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007; Schullery, 1998; Schultz & Anderson, 1984). The TIM holds that a communication climate that encourages high levels of argument that are not considered personal criticism or escalators of interpersonal conflict (i.e., argument devoid of verbal aggression) results in a form of communication known as independent-mindedness. However, many people, when considering the idea of “arguing” imagine a rather punishing event (see, for example, Hample, 2005). Therefore, when communicating in an argumentative fashion, individuals must do so in a way that is interpreted as constructive criticism or that which is issue-oriented, as opposed to destructive criticism or that which is personal in nature. This distinction between constructive and destructive communication is mediated by the style with which one chooses to communicate differences of opinion. Communicator style serves as a comprehensive construct that encompasses a vast array of possible communication options. Communicator style is a trait that is defined as “the way one verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood” (Norton, 1978, p. 99). There are ten communicator styles that comprise a person’s communicator image. More specifically, people utilize various combinations of styles that contribute to molar ways of communicating. The communicator styles are dramatic (e.g., communicating in ways that tend to understate or overstate information), dominant (e.g., communicating in ways that take control of various situations), contentious (e.g., communicating in antagonistic and combative

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

295

ways), animated (e.g., regularly using para-verbal and nonverbal behavior when communicating), impression leaving (e.g., interacting in ways that are memorable to others), relaxed (e.g., communicating in ways that reflect a lack of anxiety or tension), attentive (e.g., communicating in ways that give other people the impression that they are being listened to), open (e.g., communicating in spontaneous and extroverted ways), friendly (e.g., communicating in more intimate fashions that reflect interpersonal closeness), and precise (e.g., communicating in accurate and correct ways). When combined in varying levels, the styles constitute a communicator image. It is this image that mediates the degree of effective and appropriate expression within the workplace. The affirming communicator image is one that is comprised of high levels of the relaxed, friendly, and attentive styles. That is, a key factor in the expression of voice in productive and pro-social ways is through an affirming communicator style (Infante & Gorden, 1989; Norton, 1983). The affirming communicator style reflects the idea that all communication within the organization should support the self-concept or face of both the supervisor and subordinate. That is, people in the organization are respected and valued by the organization, as well as by each organizational member. Given that argumentative behavior within the workplace can be easily misinterpreted, arguing with an affirming communicator style permits “individuals to engage in an aggressive form of communication such as arguing and realize positive rather than negative outcomes” (Infante & Gorden, 1989, p. 83). This argument was supported by research indicating that subordinates who perceived their immediate supervisor as using an affirming communicator style also reported their supervisor as less likely to be “hard and demanding” in the use of upward influence tactics (Edge & Williams, 1994). The TIM should not be considered a mutually exclusive construct in that one either is or is not independent-minded. Instead, Avtgis and Rancer (2007) argue that because independent mindedness is comprised of three separate traits it should be considered a matter of degree—it ranges from total absence to total presence. In fact, Infante and Gorden (1987) argued: Positive profiles would entail expressions of independent-mindedness as represented by argumentativeness mediated by affirming characteristics such as friendly and attentive communicator styles. Negative profiles would entail expressions that demeaned the self-worth of others, as represented by verbal aggressiveness, and would be coupled with disaffirming communicator style dimensions such as inattentiveness. (p. 79) To test this, Infante and Gorden (1987) attempted to identify the specific profile that would constitute an independent-minded employee. Surveying the personality profiles of supervisors in over 100 American organizations, results indicated that supervisors who reported high levels of self-perceived verbal aggressiveness and low levels of argumentativeness also reported having unfriendly, inattentive,

296

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

low impression leaving, and less relaxed styles, resulting in an overall poor communicator image. These same supervisors also perceived their subordinates as being high in verbal aggressiveness, low in argumentativeness, less relaxed, less friendly, and less attentive. Furthermore, when subordinates were perceived as being high in argumentativeness, they were also viewed as having a more appealing communicator image in that they were perceived as being more precise, animated, relaxed, impression leaving, dominant, and friendly communicators. These results confirm the claim that more appealing communicator style characteristics (i.e., those that are affirming) are associated with argumentativeness and less appealing communicator styles (i.e., those that are non-affirming styles) are associated with higher levels of verbal aggressiveness. The culmination of research efforts resulted in the development of four communicator quadrants reflecting the varying degrees of independent mindedness (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007). Quadrant One is considered total independent mindedness or being high in argumentativeness and high in affirming communication style; Quadrant Two consists of being high in argumentativeness and low in affirming communication style; Quadrant Three consists of being low in argumentativeness and high in affirming communication style; and Quadrant Four is considered the absence of independent mindedness or being low in argumentativeness and low in affirming communication style. There is a multitude of research that supports the basic assumptions of the TIM (Edge & Williams, 1994; Infante & Gorden, 1991; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). However, it should be noted that the theory has never been tested in its entirety and as such, awaits further testing that should include specific organizational designations (i.e., profit, non-profit, not-for-profit), specific organizational sectors (e.g., high tech, manufacturing, government, military), and specific cultures (e.g., United States, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Central and Eastern Europe). Interventions for Aggressive Organizational Communication In light of the overwhelming psychological, relational, and financial costs associated with aggressive communication in the workplace, what can be done to minimize exposure to and incidents of verbal aggression? There have been many intervention and remediation programs that show promise. According to Schat and Kelloway (2006), “although training has been suggested as a possible means of addressing workplace aggression in these literatures (e.g., Glomb, Steel, & Arvey, 2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2005) and there is preliminary evidence of its effectiveness (e.g., Schat & Kelloway, 2003), most of the research on training has appeared in the healthcare literature where the focus has been on training healthcare workers to manage patient aggression (Schat & Kelloway, 2006, pp. 579–580). The logical explanation for this emphasis on healthcare lies in the fact that among various occupations, healthcare professionals experience the greatest amount of physical, psychological, and verbal aggression in the workplace (Lanza, 2006). There are three general categories of interventions that are commonly

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

297

practiced in today’s organizations. Primary interventions reflect the reduction or elimination of a given negative situation or incident. Primary interventions can include: a) environmental approaches, which require the changing of the environment in which the adverse situation is taking place; b) organizational approaches, which reflect the adoption of procedures and policies that target the abolishment of the behavior; and c) behavioral approaches, which focus on the modification of employee behavior. Secondary interventions occur when the aggressive stimuli are known to exist or are expected to occur (e.g., handling an irate customer or intoxicated patient). This type of intervention focuses on employee training in terms of proper reaction to the stressor. For example, Infante, Chandler, and Rudd’s (1989) skills deficiency explanation for spousal abuse reflects a secondary intervention that assumes that if an abused person can employ effective dismissal and negation strategies when verbally attacked, he/she can utilize certain strategies to de-escalate the situation. The final type of intervention consists of tertiary interventions and assumes that people have already been harmed by exposure to a verbally aggressive attack and seek relief from the harm that has already taken place. Amelioration of these types of trauma may require the use of prevention focused efforts (i.e., primary intervention) or consequence focused efforts (i.e., secondary intervention) (Schat & Kelloway, 2006). There is ample opportunity for organizational communication scholars and practitioners to make valuable contributions to the reduction of aggressive communication in the workplace. Whether one takes the action research approach (Lewin, 1946) that advocates the identification and resolution of problematic issues facing organizational members or an appreciative inquiry approach (see Avtgis, Rancer, & Madlock, 2010) which advocates fostering excellence as a tool for intervention, communication research can and does have bottom line effects for the organization (Seibold, Kudsi, & Rude, 1993). Organizational Opportunities for Control The organization and its members have many opportunities to develop an organizational culture that prohibits the use of aggressive communication in any form. We believe that these opportunities can be proactive or reactive in nature and that both are necessary for effective prevention and control of aggressive communication exchanges. Exogenous Control Prevention of aggressive organizational communication begins with employee recruitment, screening, and selection. These processes, which usually do not consider aggression potentiality or co-factors of aggressive behavior, should begin to include mechanisms that better identify potential aggressors. During screening, employers are encouraged to conduct background investigations and to check the references of potential employees to help identify patterns of aggressive

298

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

behavior (Neuman & Baron, 1997). Screening candidates based on assessments of traits associated with [non-] aggression, such as empathy, emotional selfcontrol, self-awareness (Olson, Nelson, & Parayitam, 2006), as well as traits associated with aggression such as hostility, thrill seeking, lack of reliability, and trouble with authority (Neuman & Baron, 1997), and verbal aggressiveness should also reduce the likelihood of aggressive communication occurring in the workplace. In addition, the selection process may include situational and stress interviews in which job candidates are presented with difficult, frustrating, or unfair job-related scenarios and their responses observed for signs of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1997). The investigation into social networking is also important. These strategies should yield essential information as to the job candidate’s likelihood of contributing to an aggression-free workplace. Hiring decisions should then be based, in part, on this information. The organization should also foster a culture in which aggression of any kind is not tolerated and is openly discouraged (Coombs & Holladay, 2004). Management should not model aggressive communication, nor should they consider even mild forms of aggression, such as verbal aggression, an acceptable part of any job. Formal policies and procedures for reporting and redressing verbal aggression in the workplace can help to build a non-aggressive organizational culture and climate (Spector et al., 2007). Although cultivating a non-aggressive organizational culture and discriminating among job candidates’ potential for aggression is costly in terms of time and money, investment in these areas will return multi-fold by thwarting potential lawsuits and preventing workplace physical violence and threats to organizational members’ physical and emotional health. Endogenous Control Communication competency training is at the heart of many recommended intervention strategies. For example, organizations are advised to train employees to respond to provocation and threats in non-aggressive ways and to recognize potentially destructive situations and to defuse them (Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Neuman & Baron, 1997). Affirming communication, as well as dismissal and de-escalation strategies, are skills in which every member of the organization should be well versed. In addition, training in empathy, conflict management, and assertiveness for all organizational members, as well as education in the proper administration of performance evaluations, discipline, and exit interviews for employees responsible for such tasks are also recommended (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Chory & Westerman, 2009; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Olson, Nelson, & Parayitam, 2006; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Not only would training in such areas improve the communication skills of the participants, but it would send a message to all employees that the organization is serious about creating an affirming workplace that is void of aggressive communication. Recently, training in affirming communication and dismissal and de-escalation strategies has been successfully applied to rural trauma care networks (Rossi et al., 2009).

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

299

Conclusion Aggressive communication is pervasive in contemporary organizations. Its occurrence is driven by organizational processes, organizational culture, management practices, and the habits, perceptions, and predispositions of organizational members. The outcomes associated with aggressive communication in the workplace range from physical violence and legal action to job dissatisfaction and damaged work relationships. Prevention and interventions based on communication theory and research, practiced from the recruitment through the exit stages of the organizational assimilation process, are recommended and show promise in addressing this destructive phenomenon. Communication scholars are urged to continue researching the causes and consequences of aggressive organizational communication. Communication scholars and practitioners are also encouraged to continue testing communication theory- and research-driven prevention and training methods in actual organizational settings. Only then can this growing problem in today’s organizations be effectively managed, and hopefully, eliminated. It is on this final point of application where we call upon organizational communication scholars to actively engage the research and theory with commonplace practice. For too long the communication discipline has used theory and research of organizational communication processes for ends targeted at informing other scholars and researchers. Intervention, training, and education, if we are to have any relevancy in contemporary organizations and the lives of contemporary workers, should be the primary vehicle for such theory and research efforts. We are of the opinion that it is these “ground-roots” efforts that are the primary way to make invaluable contributions to organizational commonplaces.

References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073–1091. Avtgis, T. A., & Madlock, P. E. (2008). Implications of the verbally aggressive patient: Creating a constructive environment in destructive situations. In E. P. Polack, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Applied communication for health professionals (pp. 169–184). Dubuque, IA: Kendall–Hunt. Avtgis, T. A., & Polack, E. P. (in press). Aggressive communication within medical care: Mapping the domain. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research. New York: Routledge. Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2007). The theory of independent mindedness: An organizational theory for individualistic cultures. In M. Hinner (Ed.), The role of communication in business transactions and relationships: Freiberger beitrage zur

300

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

interkulturellen und wirtschaftskommunikation: A forum for general and intercultural business communication (pp. 183–201). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2008). The relationship between trait verbal aggressiveness and teacher burnout syndrome in K–12 teachers. Communication Research Reports, 25, 86–89. Avtgis, T. A., Rancer, A. S., & Madlock, P. E. (2010). Organizational communication: Strategies for success. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Baron, R. A. & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173. Baron, R. A. & Neuman, J. H. (1998). Workplace aggression—The iceberg beneath the tip of workplace violence: Evidence on its forms, frequency, and targets. Public Administration Quarterly, 21, 446–464. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGrawHill. Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counter-productive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (p. 43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chory, R. M., & Hubbell, A. P. (2008). Organizational justice and managerial trust as predictors of antisocial employee responses. Communication Quarterly, 56, 357–375. Chory, R. M., & Westerman, C. Y. K. (2009). Feedback and fairness: The relationship between negative performance feedback and organizational justice. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 157–181. Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). The predictive validity of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Research Reports, 19, 237–245. Cole, J. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). The association of perceived communication apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in organizational and interpersonal contexts. Communication Quarterly, 51, 101–110. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Understanding the aggressive workplace: Development of the workplace aggression tolerance questionnaire. Communication Studies, 5, 481–497. Duhart, D. T. (2001). Bureau of justice statistics special report: Violence in the workplace, 1993–1999 (NCJ 190076). Washington, DC. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Edge, H. A., & Williams, M. L. (1994). Affirming communication style of supervisor and subordinate use of upward influence tactics: An analysis of nonmanagerial and managerial employees. Communication Research Reports, 11, 201–208. Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247–263. Ellis, J. B., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Voice and silence as observer reactions to defensive voice: Predictions based on communication competence theory. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 37–61). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

301

Employment Law Alliance. (2007, March 21). Nearly 45% of U.S. workers say they’ve worked for an abusive boss. Employment Law Alliance. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.employmentlawalliance.com/en/node/1810 Felson, R. B. (2006). Violence as institutional behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 7–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geddes, D., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Workplace aggression as a consequence of negative performance feedback. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 433–454. Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.), Buckingham, UK: Open University. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Preface. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. vii.–x.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Glomb, T. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 20–36. Glomb, T. M., Steel, P. D., & Arvey, R. D. (2002). Office sneers, snipes, and stab wounds: Antecedents, consequences, and implications of workplace violence and aggression. In R. G. Lord, R. Klimowski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions at work (pp. 227–259). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodboy, A. K., Chory, R. M., & Dunleavy, K. N. (2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reports, 25, 255–265. Gorden, W. I., & Infante, D. A. (1987). Employee rights: Context argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and career satisfaction. In C. A. Osigweh (Ed.), Communicating employee responsibilities and rights (pp. 149–163). Westport, CT: Quorum. Gorden, W. I., Infante, D. A., & Izzo, J. (1988). Variations in voice pertaining to dissatisfaction/satisfaction with subordinates. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 6–22. Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397–418. Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63–79. Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harris, J. A. (1997). The relationship between aggression and employment integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 39–44. Helmreich, R. L., Sawin, L. L., & Carsrud, A. L. (1986). The honeymoon effect in job performance: Temporal increases in the predictive power of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 185–188. Hoobler, J. M., & Swanberg, J. (2006). The enemy is not us: Unexpected workplace violence trends. Public Personnel Management, 35, 229–246. Hurrell, J. J., Worthington, K. A., & Driscoll, R. J. (1996). Job stress, gender, and workplace violence: Analysis of assault experiences of state employees. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulateo (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 163–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Infante, D. A. (1987a). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1987b, July). Argumentativeness in superior-subordinate communication: An essential condition for organizational productivity. Paper presented at the

302

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

American Forensic Summer Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Alta, UT. Infante, D. A. (1987c, May). An independent-mindedness model of organizational productivity: The role of communication education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Syracuse, NY. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates’ satisfaction and perceptions of superiors’ compliance gaining tactics, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307–326. Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. Infante, D. A., Chandler-Sabourin, T., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of subordinates’ satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117–125. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles. Implications for independent-mindedness and upward effectiveness. Central States Speech Journal, 18, 73–80 Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37, 81–90. Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of an argumentative and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 294–304. 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. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management, 30, 457–465. Kassing, J. W., & Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Examining the relationship between organizational dissent and aggressive communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 100–115. Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Hurrell, J. J. (2006). Editors’ introduction to Part I. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 3–6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lamude, K. G., Scudder, J., & Simmons, D. (2003). The influence of applicant characteristics on use of verbal impression management tactics in the employment selection interview. Communication Research Reports, 20, 299–307. Lanza, M. (2006). Violence in nursing. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 147–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aggressive Expression in the Workplace

303

Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155–169. LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 444–453. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 34–46. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2007). “. . . But words will never hurt me,” abuse and bullying at work: A comparison between two worker samples. Ohio Communication Journal, 45, 81–105. Magyar, S. V. Jr. (2003, June). Preventing workplace violence. Occupational Health & Safety, 72, 64–66. Mahew, C., & Quinlan, M. (2002). Fordism in the fast food industry: Persuasive management control and occupational health and safety for young temporary workers. Sociology of Health and Illness, 24 (3), 261–284. Margoline, G. (1979). Conjoint marital therapy to enhance management and reduce spouse abuse. Journal of Marital Therapy, 7, 13–23. McFarlin, S. K., Fals-Stewart, W., Major, D., & Justice, E. M. (2001). Alcohol use and workplace aggression: An examination of perpetration and victimization. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 303–321. NCSA. (2000). Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A socialpsychological perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (p. 45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4, 99–112. Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Olson, B. J., Nelson, D. J., & Parayitam, S. (2006). Managing aggression in organizations: What leaders must know. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 384–398. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace civility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. Pecchioni, L. L., Wright, K. B., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life span communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pizzino, A. (2002). Dealing with violence in the workplace: The experience of Canadian Unions. In M. Gill, B. Fisher, & V. Bowie (Eds.), Violence at work: Causes, patterns, and prevention (pp. 165–179). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Public Service Commission. (2002). 2002 public service employment survey. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from www.survey-soundage.gc.ca/2002/results-resultants/index3.htm. Rancer, A. S. (1995). Aggressive communication in organizational contexts: A synthesis and review. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations: Communicative processes (pp. 151–173). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

304

Theodore A. Avtgis and Rebecca M. Chory

Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rossi, D., Polack, E. P., Kappel, D., Avtgis, T. A., & Martin, M. M. (2009). It’s not about being nice: It’s about being a better doctor. Medical Encounter, 23, 5–6. Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 110–122. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005). Workplace aggression. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 189–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Training as a workplace aggression intervention strategy. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 579–606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schullery, N. M. (1998). The optimum level of argumentativeness for employed women. Journal of Business Communication, 36, 362–381. Schultz, B., & Anderson, J. (1984). Training in the management of conflict: A communication theory perspective. Small Group Behavior, 15, 333–348. Seibold, D. R., Kudsi, S., & Rude, M. (1993). Does communication training make a difference?: Evidence for the effectiveness of a presentational skills program. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 111–131. Simmons, D., Lamude, K. G., & Scudder, J. (2003). Correlations among applicants’ communication apprehension, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in selection interviews. Psychological Reports, 92, 804–808. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. Spector, P. E., Coulter, M. L., Stockwell, H. G., & Matz, M. W. (2007). Perceived violence climate: A new construct and its relationship to workplace physical violence and verbal aggression, and their potential consequences. Work & Stress, 21, 117–130. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Domagalski, T. (2006). Emotions, violence, and counterproductive work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 29–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wagner, J. (1980). Strategies of dismissal: Ways and means of avoiding personal abuse. Human Relations, 33, 603–622. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Winstok, Z. (2006). Gender differences in the intention to react to aggressive action at home and in the workplace. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 433–441.

Chapter 17

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

The literature reviewed on groups and aggressive behaviors follows from established works by renowned scholars in defining and studying groups and the role of communication. Seminal work by Lewin (1947) laid the foundation for recognition of groups as dynamic wholes by stating that groups “have properties of their own, and . . . are different from the properties of their subgroups or their individual members” (p. 8). Further, Lewin claimed that social science researchers were well equipped with techniques to measure group life in small and large groups. Since then, research has progressed significantly. In this chapter, the focus examines aggressive communication and conflict specific to the small group context. Keyton (2006) defines small groups by using a puzzle metaphor, with five pieces representing group characteristics of size, interdependence, identity, goals, and structure. When the pieces snap together, the members can call themselves a group. Communication acts as the sine qua non or driving force that culminates in the members coming together in building a unique culture, making decisions and producing quality output (Bonito & Hollingshead, 1997). In this chapter, we follow Keyton’s (2006) concept of a group as three to twenty members who call themselves a group, are dependent on each other for information, engage in the process of decision making, and strive to reach group and individual goals. As the group process takes place, members engage in different types of communication and employ different skills and abilities. The authors of the present chapter advance the idea that aggressive communication can exist in group life and, when it does, that type of communication influences group members’ interaction at the interpersonal, group and even organizational units of analysis. That influence ultimately affects task input, processes, and practices, as well as relationship building and maintaining. If investigated as an antecedent (trait) and/or situational (state) factor, we think aggressive communication in groups can be studied, understood, and dealt with to maximize group output. In the following sections, we move through what we know about aggressive behaviors in small groups via a variety of theoretical perspectives. We end with the advancement of ideas centering on what’s in store for future research and

306

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

what ideas might ignite cutting edge small group communication models for researchers and trainers.

Literature Review Scant research exists on aggressive communication in groups, and most importantly particular to verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. Since these factors are defined elsewhere in this volume, we highlight concepts in group research that seem to provide a platform from which to discuss where and how aggressive behaviors fit into the scheme of things. A foundational platform was guided by (1) Meyers and Brashers’ (1999) organizing framework for studying group influence, (2) Schultz and Anderson’s (1984) seminal study of argumentativeness and verbal aggression in groups, and (3) Anderson, Riddle, and Martin’s (1999) socialization model that acknowledged traits, including argumentativeness and verbal aggression, as important characteristics that members bring to groups and the group process. We begin by addressing argument and conflict under the umbrella of social influence research. That framework should stimulate future questions for researchers as they seek to understand aggressive behaviors in groups. We begin with social influence in groups. Social Influence Meyers and Brashers (1998, 1999) introduced an organizing framework of social influence to illustrate its prominence in group interactions. The model is based on the dominant areas and shared characteristics of research conducted over the years. The model outlines four elements: (1) decision-making groups have dominated most of the research efforts; (2) influence has been conceived primarily as a verbal activity; (3) influence has been studied from the source of production, such as the individual, sub-group or group/inter-group level; and (4) the basic premise is to persuade group members to comply with one’s suggestions and ideas. Of interest is the fact that because social influence is usually perceived as a verbal activity, it is easily accepted as playing an important role in understanding argumentative and verbally aggressive behaviors. Verbal activity is evident in three levels of valence messages or statements. Valence mirrors the value and importance to each member. Valence at the first and basic level reflects the propensity of group members to prefer a particular option or decision (Meyers & Brashers, 1999). This message can develop into a second level of verbal influence messages in the form of argument. In this case, the preference or valence messages are supported by justification for why an idea or opinion is good or bad. The more complex version is the third level, where conflict communication tactics, such as threats and personal attacks, and other verbally aggressive behavior are used to gain compliance. The valence steps described above appear to be ripe for research questions to be answered. As one example, Kameda, Ohtsubo, and Takezawa (1997) identified that cognitively central members in decision-making groups are more

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

307

likely to secure pivotal power in the group and employ that to socially influence the decision outcomes of the group. Kameda, Ohtsubo, & Takezawa (1997) defined the cognitively central member as one having the greatest amount of shared knowledge in the group (or the greatest number of shared arguments) and one who can validate the knowledge of other members of the group. This shared knowledge lends the cognitively central member a perceived expertise and power that influences group outcomes. This fact aligns particularly with one of the defining characteristics of the Meyers and Brashers (1999) model: that the basic aim is to persuade other group members to comply with one’s ideas. In effect, Kameda, Ohtsubo, & Takezawa’s study offered support for the role of cognitive power in influencing other group members. Other research studies have been completed under the social influence umbrella. Glomb and Liao’s (2003) study investigated how social influence in work groups could impact individual members’ aggressiveness. These authors advanced the assumption that each individual in a group grasped ideas about norms, expectations and other behaviors based on the social environment of the work group, and proposed this to be true even of aggressive behaviors. The study found this hypothesis to be supported in that aggressive behavior shown by other members of the group was a significant predictor of an individual’s own aggression. An important fact is that social influence in group discussion and decision making can be labeled as normative or informative. Normative influence occurs when the members’ discussion favors the position, suggesting that good arguments have been made. Informational influence occurs when evidence is shared that was not previously given. According to Henningsen and Henningsen’s (2003) study, group members’ perceptions of new information in decision making was stronger than overall perceptions of normative influence because it resulted in members changing positions. One could speculate that new information could cause members to change or not change opinions based on whether aggressive behaviors occurred during these episodes. Recently, Turman (2006) reviewed the role of power as a tool for social influence when evaluating the communication relationship between athletes and coaches. Power was operationalized as the capacity to influence another person to do something that he/she would not do if not influenced. This study’s results found that starter athletes perceived their coaches as having higher levels of reward power compared to non-starters. Given that power is the ability to influence, it can be interpreted that the coaches will be more likely to influence their starters as compared to non-starters. This finding throws open the door for dynamic forays into the role of power (real and/or perceived) in the group context, particularly as related to conflict, verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. Persuasive Argument Theory The study of persuasive argument has a rich tradition in the communication discipline. Specific to groups, Seibold and Meyers’ (2007) comprehensive

308

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

review spans over two decades of studies from the lens of Structuration Theory. The theory’s basic premise states that communication among the members produces an observable group system and reproduces the product of the system through the use of rules and resources (see Frey & Sunwolf, 2005; Poole, 1999; Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985). Employing Structuration Theory, researchers have addressed such topics in groups as argument development and its influence on relationship building, decision making, structures (rules and resources), and decision outcomes. Seibold and Meyers (2007) concluded that research from a Structuration Theory perspective has not included a view of how emotions and affective states would clarify an “understanding of both the normative and non-normative aspects of group argument” (p. 325). One might speculate, then, that investigation of aggressive behaviors, such as argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, might be factors to enhance research employing this theory. For example, does the destructive nature of aggressive behaviors impede the group’s ability to manage the resources they need or follow the rules they envision as guiding their unique culture? The following section now moves us to conflict research. Conflict Conflict occurs during group interaction among individual members who perceive interference toward goal achievement due to incompatible goals (Hocker & Wilmot, 1985). The interdependence of group members adds to the mix because the behaviors of these members have consequences for the other members. Other significant research includes that of Bales (1950), who explored the conflict dynamics that emerged as group members tried to accomplish tasks as well as maintain relationships. Subsequently, substantial research has validated the concept of conflict as influencing task and/or relational outcomes. Recently, Ayoko, Callan, and Hartel’s (2008) review supported the idea that task conflict was favorably related to positive outcomes, whereas relational conflict likely created unfavorable outcomes, especially when evaluating performance. Another review of conflict research, this one by Tindale, Dykema-Engblade, and Wittkowski (2005), found that a key focus of the research has been on avoiding conflict and/or the use of such methods as mediation, negotiation and arbitration to resolve it. Additionally, recent research trends have been to examine the constructive role of conflict or how degrees of conflict influence group performance. One perspective suggested that groups facing task conflicts engaged in greater cognitive processes and tended to make better decisions (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Conversely, Stasser and Birchmeier’s (2003) study found that lack of conflict resulted in members ignoring information that would have aided in picking alternatives before making decisions. Tindale, Dykema-Engblade, and Wittkowski (2005) discussed the need to confront difficult conflicts between group members by working to re-establish trust. Distrust is a key factor that impedes both intergroup and intragroup activities. Communication is central to both reinstating trust and resolving

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

309

misunderstandings. One of the best strategies is using communication that is open and constructive but not destructive. In effect, aggressive communication might impede the effectiveness of the strategies used. Thus, it appears to be useful to trace studies conducted over time to understand the conceptualization and evolution of conflicts in groups. What is obviously missing is the inclusion of aggressive behaviors and their impact or influence in conflict scenes. Additionally, we must consider other modes of communication such as the use of technology. Technology With the advent of newer technologies, research on conflict in small groups has extended to computer-mediated communication (CMC) as opposed to traditional face-to-face (FTF) activity. For example, Zornoza, Ripoll, and Peiró (2002) investigated conflict between FTF and CMC groups. Focusing on expressed conflict in groups (measured through observation), the study revealed that CMC environments are not the most conducive for intellective or ideageneration tasks and that this mode of communication can increase the level of conflict behavior. Another study by Hobman et al. (2002) on the expression of conflict between FTF and CMC groups showed that while process and relationship conflict was higher in CMC groups on the first day, these differences disappeared on the second and third days. The study ultimately uncovered that there was no difference in the amount of conflict expressed by the group members either in the FTF or CMC environment. This finding refutes prior research that indicated either an increase or decrease in the amount of conflict experienced by CMC groups as compared to FTF groups. As a result, any type of communication training or approach to conflict, argumentativeness or verbal aggression need not be viewed differently if occurring in virtual space or FTF. Regardless of the modes of communication, however, conflict exists as a natural process for members to move toward goal achievement (McGrath, 1990) and is an open avenue for aggressive behavior research studies.

Aggressive Behavior Research Early group work by Schultz and Anderson (1984) introduced a framework for managing conflict that highlights the role of argumentativeness. The basic assumption in conflict resolution is that a member has to be argumentative and willing to defend positions. Employing Infante and Rancer’s (1982) high, moderate, and low argumentativeness levels of measurement, Schultz and Anderson (1984) concluded that it is possible to change an individual’s predisposition to argue. Based on this claim, Schultz and Anderson developed a three-step model for managing conflict: (1) identify issues; (2) determine goals based on the issues; and (3) select strategies based on goals. To achieve the goals, three strategies were offered to choose from: argument (description, interpretation, evaluation), persuasion (refutation, motive appeals, and appeals to act),

310

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

and agitation (threat, public exposure and disruption). Although the model clearly suggests that “persuasion is an escalation from argument, and that agitation is an escalation from persuasion” (p. 345), the authors do not place a value judgment on any strategy. They emphasize that trainees should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy. Based on this research, one can assume that conflict resolution triggers verbal activity in the group that can progress from argument to persuasion and, possibly, to a more extreme form of communication, such as verbal aggression. Another study highlights aggressive behaviors. Gruenfeld, Martorana, and Fan (2000) examined such social perceptions as involvement, good fit, value, and argumentativeness, as well as other factors in three to four member teams (indigenous). After six weeks, one member (itinerant) moved to a different group for two weeks and then returned to the original group. The group members rated each other before the change, during the change, and after the return. The findings showed that the itinerant member’s argumentativeness was seen as significantly greater upon the return to the group of origin than during the change. The itinerant member’s ideas were also less valued. Although not within the scope of that study, we speculate that these factors might have triggered each other. During the absence of the member, the group members moved forward in evaluating options and making decisions and input at this point was viewed more harshly. In 1999, Anderson, Riddle, and Martin introduced a communication-based model highlighting socialization of group members as an essential communicative process that helps them adapt to each other, work toward creation of a unique culture, and plan for goal achievement. More specifically, the model acknowledges the important role of communication traits, such as argumentativeness and verbal aggression, as key antecedent factors that individuals bring with them to the group. That premise was based on Gouran’s (1994) position that traits, including the aggressive ones, have not been fully studied in small groups. To fill this gap, research by Riddle, Anderson, and Martin (2000) supported the premise that effective socialization practices helps task and relationship development by establishment of group norms and rules on how to behave, handle conflict, and provide constructive feedback. In that study, aggressive communication impeded those steps. Further, answering the call for including antecedent factors in group research, Anderson and Martin (1999) investigated argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness for their relationship to members’ feelings of cohesion, consensus, and communication satisfaction in ongoing groups. The study’s findings supported the idea that when members established supportive climates for discussion (argumentativeness) and provided constructive feedback they perceived the group members as satisfied and able to reach consensus. As predicted, the findings were not positive for verbal aggression. Instead, the data reinforced the destructive nature of the trait. Members who communicated in verbally aggressive ways did not perceive their groups as cohesive. The authors speculated that aggressive behavior leads to frustration with group work and even

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

311

what Sorensen (1981) and Keyton, Harmon, and Frey (1996) referred to as grouphate. Extending research on the role of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, Limon and La France (2005) explored these traits in relation to emergent leadership in workgroups. Their study found that argumentativeness was positively related to leadership potential. However, the authors hypothesized that individuals who rated high in verbal aggressiveness (on the trait scale) would not be associated with leadership potential. This finding was not supported. Interestingly, one plausible explanation forwarded was the influence of social norms or how an individual can or cannot communicate in the group. A second explanation pointed to Politeness Theory in that the aggressive individuals were polite since they did not know the other group members well. That study’s finding reinforces the role of socialization in groups, as advanced by Riddle, Anderson, and Martin (2000), and suggests that with training even aggressive communicators may be predisposed to change when in a group environment. Moving from the communication trait perspective to argumentativeness as a behavior, Schultz (1982) provided a link between argumentativeness and perceptions of leadership in the group setting. Using perceived group leaders trained to argue for a polarized position, the study’s finding revealed that the degree of argumentativeness of an individual is what determines leadership perception. For instance, individuals with a high degree of argumentativeness were perceived as leaders and as having the most influence in the group. In such cases, group members were found to accept positions from this perceived leader even if diametrically opposite to the group’s popular opinion. However, if the individual perceived as a leader was considered extremely argumentative, group members were likely to reject the leadership, especially if other options for potential leaders existed within the group. Interestingly, though, if no other leadership choice was available, group members were found likely to continue to accept the extremely argumentative individual as leader. Schultz’s (1982) study appears to echo the social influence perspective of group processes, highlighting the extent to which argumentative individuals who seek compliance are accepted and deemed leaders. It also highlights the importance of social influence in group outcomes and the possibility of poor decisions as a result of extreme argumentative individuals in the group. The significant relation of social influence in groups and aggressive behavior has also been studied in the closely related context of bullying or mobbing. Bullying/Mobbing Salmivalli et al. (1996) point out that bullying is a social phenomenon that occurs in relatively permanent social groups where victims have little chance of avoiding the bully. The bully is often supported by his or her group members and the attacks can be verbal or physical, direct or indirect. In their study, Salmivalli et al. focused on identifying the role of social status in groups and

312

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

bullying among schoolchildren (of both sexes aged 12 to 13 years). They found that victims of bullying usually shared a low social status, whereas the defenders of the victims held the highest social status. Regarding the bully itself, interestingly, while male bullies held low social status, female bullies enjoyed a high social status. It can be assumed from this study’s findings that social status plays an important role in triggering aggressive behavior or curtailing it. Further, the study may provide a foundational step for understanding the role of status among the members in small groups and if that status is achieved through aggressive behaviors. Bullying, although mainly studied with regard to youth, has also been investigated among adults and in the workplace. In the workplace, bullying often takes place on an individual one-on-one level but in a surprising finding, Rayner’s (1997) study showed that 81 percent of the respondents interviewed reported group bullying where there were more than two victims being bullied by the same individual. Another area of interest here is the concept of mobbing, where groups of peers pick on one person for a prolonged period of time (Rayner, 1997; Zapf, 1999). Thus, the idea of bullying/mobbing may have potential for inclusion in aggressive behavior research and is worth investigating.

Future Research Directions In this section, we provide a few prime research directions in the hope of inciting scholars to move in new directions or concentrate on expanding what we know that might be applicable for the next generation of small group students, scholars, and researchers. Thus, we have opened our research lens to suggest six topic areas that are in need of research. Additionally, we add simple questions that need answering both from a trait and a state perspective. In the group context, if we look at these perspectives as interdependent (i.e., what we bring to the group, what influences occur in the group, and who we are when we leave the group), we will build more complete models of the role of aggression in groups. Although the simple questions only skim the surface, our goal is to plant the seeds that will grow into bigger and better research designs. The outcome should be noteworthy for future small group research. 1. Bonito’s (2000) study expands the Expectation States Theory (ESP) model to suggest that in the absence of status differences, group members evaluate self and other’s participation based in part on substantive contributions to the discussion, with self-evaluation linked to what others say. Although Bonito, along with Fisek, Berger, and Norman (1997), acknowledged that individual characteristics and communication delivery may affect those judgments, an important extension of ESP would be the examination of how and why substantive or non-substantive participation is influenced by individual members’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. RQ1: Would the display of verbal aggressiveness of a group member(s) lead to the rejection of a substantive contribution?

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

313

RQ2: Would the argumentative prowess of a group member(s) influence the acceptance of a non-substantive contribution? 2. The role of antecedent factors such as member characteristics in influencing participation in small group discussions was illustrated by Bonito and Hollingshead’s (1997) model. The model features the role of antecedent characteristics (individual, group, and task), as well as technology and time on participation, which, in turn affects decision outcomes. Although those authors argued that personality characteristics may affect participation, they noted that the examination has been “independent of an individual’s role or position in the group” (p. 249). Following Schultz’s (1982) study of leaders, the assertion suggests that perhaps role positions are worth pursuing. The inclusion of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in research studies of participation may shed new light, especially with time pressures and increased use of technology in decision making. For example, we know that lower status individuals speak up more in computer-mediated interactions with less inhibition (Bonito & Hollingshead, 1997). RQ1. Will a verbally aggressive group leader send more verbally aggressive messages in computer mediated meetings than in face-to-face meetings? RQ2. Since high argumentative individual are perceived as leaders in the absence of other options, will high verbally aggressive individuals be perceived as leaders in the absence of other options? 3. Seibold and Meyers (2007) suggested investigating more completely the process and characteristics of argument and the relationship between “conflict, argument, and group outcomes” (p. 329). One way to expand this model would be to include argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as individual and/or group traits. Further, by adding Meyers and Brashers’ (1998, 1999) findings that social influence has been viewed primarily as a verbal activity, an expansion of the ideas in this chapter would benefit from including a nonverbal dimension. Clearly, communication scholars have argued the need to integrate the study of verbal and nonverbal behaviors in groups (see Ketrow, 1999). RQ1. What types of nonverbal behaviors do argumentative and verbally aggressive group members use when in conflicts over tasks? Relationships? RQ2. Which nonverbal behaviors are used to reinforce verbally aggressive tactics to gain compliance in decision-making small groups? 4. Following from Schultz and Anderson’s (1984) three-step model for handling conflict, an expansion of their ideas seems natural in light of more recent research. Instead of suggesting that group members can select argument, persuasion, and agitation as strategies, we would like to introduce the idea that agitation can be followed by a higher form of aggressive behaviors, namely verbal aggression. Additionally, if argument is persuasion, then we could

314

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

reframe the model, as follows: persuasive conflict strategies = argumentativness > agitation > verbal aggression. This reframing opens up questions as to which strategies trigger an escalation of these behaviors, and if there are advantages and disadvantages to using them. RQ1. What are the advantages and disadvantages to using the argument strategy alone in managing conflicts over tasks and relationships? RQ2. What types of messages trigger an escalation from agitation to verbal aggression in conflict management in small groups concerning the task and relationships? 5. Moving forward, another area that beckons our attention is the process of change. Lewin (1947), in his pioneering work on groups, highlights the issue of social change, pointing out that “change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist” (p. 13). Since then, the role of change in groups has been explored in relation to creativity and the ability to develop new ideas (Salazar, 2002). However, the research on linkages between change and conflict with argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness is almost nonexistent. This fact leads to questions regarding possible relationships. RQ1. Is there an increase or decrease in conflict or verbal aggressiveness with changes in group membership, group norms, or redefinition of group goals? RQ2. Does change in the group engender constructive or destructive argumentativeness that leads to conflict and verbal aggression? 6. Emotional intelligence is a popular concept that holds opportunities for research in groups. The era of emotional intelligence research emerged with the works of Salovey and Mayer (1990) and Goleman (1995) in the organizational setting. Defining emotional intelligence, Goleman (2001) said, at the basic level, it refers to “the abilities to recognize and regulate emotions in ourselves and others” (p. 14). Drawing this concept into the group context, Ayoko, Callan, and Hartel (2008) proposed that team emotional intelligence climate, which comprises team empathic concern, emotion management and conflict management norms, would shape events that are perceived as conflict, be it conflict types (task and relationship) or conflict features (intensity and duration). Also, one could explore the use of emotional intelligence in tandem with the group socialization model by Anderson, Riddle, & Martin (1999), as it has application for each of the socialization model phases of antecedent, anticipatory, encounter, assimilation, and exit. RQ1. What is the relationship between the group emotional intelligence climate on argumentativeness and verbal aggression displayed by group members in the assimilation phase?

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

315

RQ2. How does the emotional intelligence climate in small groups influence task and relationships when aggressive behaviors escalate?

Conclusion The focus of this chapter has been to review salient research of aggressive behaviors that tells us where we are in the scheme of building models and frameworks to understand its influence in small groups. We began with social influence as an umbrella framework, with persuasive argument, conflict, and aggressive communication as key agents. Although this approach covers only a fragment of the literature and theoretical approaches to understanding aggressive behavior that tells us who group members are, what happens in the group setting to influence their behaviors, and how to evaluate the output as a result, we think it has been a fruitful endeavor. One aim has been to stimulate excitement for future research. Some ideas have potential for new and uncharted territories. Don’t think for a moment that we should rest on the findings of a scarce number of studies of aggressive behaviors in small groups. Wagner (1980) and Anderson and Martin (1999) call for us to learn more.

References Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12, 21–31. Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 139–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members’ reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 121–149. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bonito, J. A. (2000). The effect of contributing substantively on perceptions of participation. Small Group Research, 31, 528–553. Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In B.R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 227–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fisek, M. H., Berger, J., & Norman, R. Z. (1997). Two issues in the assessment of the adequacy of formal sociological models of human behavior. Social Science Research, 26, 153–169. Frey, L.R., & Sunwolf. (2005). The communication perspective on group life. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 159–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in workgroups: Social influence, reciprocal and individual effects. Academy Management Journal, 46, 486–496.

316

Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee

Goleman, D. P. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. P. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations (pp. 13–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gouran, D. S. (1994). The future of small group communication research. Revitalization of continued good health. Communication Studies, 45, 29–39. Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldiest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 45–59. Henningsen, D. D., & Henningsen, M. L. (2003). Examining social influence in information-sharing contexts. Small Group Research, 34, 391–412. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439–465. Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W.W. (1985). Interpersonal conflict. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80. Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in the group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296–309. Ketrow, S. M. (1999). Nonverbal aspects of group communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.) The handbook of group communication theory & research (pp. 251–287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keyton, J. (2006). Communicating in groups (3rd ed.), New York: Oxford University Press. Keyton, J., Harmon, & Frey, L. R. (1996, Nov.). Grouphate: Implications for teaching group communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1, 5–42. Limon, M. S., & La France, B. H. (2005). Communication traits and leadership emergence: Examining the impact of argumentativeness, communication apprehension, and verbal aggressiveness in work groups. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 123–133. McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261–281. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 288–312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Poole, M. S. (1999). Group communication theory. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups

317

Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102. Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199–208. Riddle, B. R., Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (2000). Small group socialization scale: Development and validity. Small Group Research, 31, 554–572. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salazar, A. J. (2002). Self-organizing and complexity perspectives of group creativity: Implications for group communication. In L R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 179–199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. Schultz, B. (1982). Argumentativeness: Its effect in group decision-making and its role in leadership perception. Communication Quarterly, 30, 368–375. Schultz, B., & Anderson, J. (1984). Training in the management of conflict: A communication theory perspective. Small Group Behavior, 15, 333–348. Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312–336. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. Sorensen, S. (May, 1981). Grouphate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis. Stasser, G., & Birchmeier, A. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 85–109). New York: Oxford University Press. Tindale, R. S., Dykema-Engblade, A., & Wittkowski, E. (2005). Conflict within and between groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 313–328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Turman, P. D. (2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between playing status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 273–282. Wagner, J. (1980). Strategies of dismissal: Ways and means of avoiding personal abuse. Human Relations, 33, 603–622. Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/ bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, (1/2), 70–85. Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiró, J. M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 33, 481–508.

Chapter 18

Aggressive Expression within the Family Effects on Processes and Outcomes Sally Vogl-Bauer

Accepting the reality of aggressive family interactions tends to create dissonance; acknowledging the darker side of family relations often runs counter to our efforts to hang on to an idyllic depiction of family interactions (Stafford & Dainton, 1994). While the most violent examples of family aggression tend to take center stage, it is critical not to overlook the role mundane, routine everyday interactions could play in aggressive exchanges (Duck, 1992; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Stafford & Dainton, 1994). These verbally aggressive exchanges typically occur under the radar, being less obvious to outsiders, but have the potential to occur with great frequency (Marshall, 1994). In spite of potential restrictions or challenges, it becomes imperative that family members learn how to manage aggressive expressions between one another. Failure to ascertain when, how, or why aggressive messages are utilized could lead to the potential for psychological as well as physical harm to family members. In addition, aggressive messages can contribute further to the weakening of family bonds between members. Vangelisti (2004) noted that “If family are created through social interaction, understanding family communication is essential to understanding family members and family relationships” (p. xiii). Social interaction is certainly critical when examining aggressive family communication. However, the relational dynamics operating when family members engage in aggressive exchanges could vary depending on the family relationships in question. Therefore, the goals of this chapter are (a) to provide background on the research examining aggressive expression in various family relationships; and (b) to examine two underlying themes in the expression of aggression in family relationships.

Understanding Family Aggression in Family Dyads Typically, when scholars have studied aggressive messages in families they have chosen particular dyads to examine in greater detail. This is not an ideal approach to understand how aggression operates across family relationships. However, it does provide scholars opportunities to uncover unique communicative elements embedded in the aggressive exchanges within family dyads. Researchers have typically chosen one of three family dyads when examining

Aggressive Expression within the Family

319

aggressive messages in families: (a) the marital dyad; (b) the parent–child dyad; or (c) the sibling dyad. All three areas of scholarship will be reviewed. The same-sex romantic dyad will also be addressed, as there is a growing body of research exploring how same-sex significant other relationships manage aggressive exchanges. Marital Relationships and Aggressive Communication Aggressive interactions in marriages have been studied most extensively. Stafford and Dainton (1994) noted, “Marriage is replete with less-than-expected and less-than-desirable interaction, and the communication in marriage rarely conforms to the cultural stereotype of “good communication,” (p. 265). Whether it is the propensity for aggressive exchanges in marriage or the sheer importance of the marital dyad in family relationships, scholars have tried to uncover how and why couples engage in verbally, as well as physically aggressive behaviors. Due to the wealth of research on aggression in marriages, this area will be divided into two subsections: (a) aggressive messages and marital communication; and (b) aggression and interspousal violence. Aggressive Messages and Marital Communication It is no surprise research on aggressive marital communication lacks much of a silver lining. With few exceptions, knowledge on aggressive communication in marriages identifies prospective problems or challenges facing partners. The findings are most supportive of marital communication when assessments of argumentativeness in marital couples have been undertaken. For example, Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) examined whether partners’ levels of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness would lead to differences in levels of marital satisfaction. Essentially Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) were interested in learning how similar versus complementary levels of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in marital partners would influence perceptions of marital satisfaction. Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) found higher levels of marital satisfaction reported by partners having dissimilar levels of argumentativeness, with males reporting higher levels of argumentativeness than females, suggesting traditional gender role expectations could be linked to levels of marital satisfaction. Therefore, if marital partners met their spouses’ communicative expectations, they might be better able to anticipate or cope with remarks made by their spouses. Payne and Sabourin (1990) also found differences in marital satisfaction when assessing marital partners’ argumentativeness. Payne and Sabourin (1990) found husbands’ levels of verbal aggressiveness negatively impacted perceptions of marital satisfaction for both husbands and wives. However, wives’ verbally aggressive tendencies did not have the same impact on marital satisfaction. In addition, wives’ argumentativeness was positively related to both marital partners’ marital satisfaction, contradicting Rancer, Baukus, and Amato’s

320

Sally Vogl-Bauer

(1986) findings. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain what impact traditional gender role expectations played in either study. If more time had elapsed between the two studies, it could be hypothesized that cultural influences contributed to the results. However, it is probably more likely that elements of each sample influenced the findings. Babcock et al. (1993) found husbands’ behavior, rather than wives,’ was more important in differentiating violent from nonviolent marital partners. In light of these findings, the results on argumentativeness for marital partners may need to be reconsidered. A body of research on hurtful messages by Vangelisti and colleagues (Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti et al., 2007; Vangelisti & Young, 2000; Vangelisti et al., 2005) may also add to what is known about aggressive communication in intimate relationships. People experience hurt based on something they believe another person said or did (Vangelisti, 1994). Both argumentative as well as verbally aggressive statements have the potential to be hurtful. Granted, the content associated with these two communicative behaviors varies. Verbally aggressive messages could easily be classified as hurtful. However, it is plausible that relational partners interpret argumentative statements as hurtful, especially if partners are unaccustomed to having the quality of their arguments questioned. While individuals may not feel anger when someone is better able to establish their arguments toward an issue, frustration, disappointment, or hurt feelings could result if this event occurs in front of others. Vangelisti and Young (2000) found that when individuals believe others intentionally inflict pain on them with hurtful remarks, recipients respond by attempting to create both physical and psychological distance between themselves and their partners. Reductions in relational satisfaction and closeness also occurred. Vangelisti et al. (2005) reported that whether or not people experienced hurt had to do with (a) the way individuals perceived their relationships and themselves; and (b) the influences shaping the manner in which people responded to hurtful comments (e.g., an individual’s self-esteem). Recipients were likely to experience dissatisfaction when they felt their relational partners’ hurtful comments suggested they didn’t care about them or their relationship. These findings are consistent with the work done on verbal aggression that links increased levels of verbal aggression with decreases in relational satisfaction (Payne & Sabourin, 1990). Recently, Vangelisti et al. (2007) explored how hurtful messages impacted family communication. Several findings are helpful in understanding how hurtful messages may increase our understanding of aggressive exchanges in families. First, the concept of intentionality was delineated further to consider if hurtful comments were done as an act of commission (with clear intent) or as an act of omission (linked more with neglect or oversight). Individuals were more likely to consider acts of commission as hurtful, aggressive, and intentional; acts of omission, while also hurtful, did not have as hurtful or aggressive an impact. This is important for family interactions, because as levels of intentionality increase, it may become more difficult to remain close to family members (Vangelisti et al., 2007). If that were the case, family members

Aggressive Expression within the Family

321

receiving intentional hurtful messages may have to develop some sophisticated rationales to remain in these verbally aggressive family relationships. This question is often pondered by third parties observing verbally aggressive exchanges between marital partners (Gortner et al., 1997; Gottman, 1994). Aggression and Interspousal Violence Although a plethora of scholars have examined aggressive communication in marital relationships, two scholars, Dominic Infante and John Gottman, and their respective colleagues have significantly influenced what is known about verbal and physical aggression in marital communication. Both programs of research are highlighted to shed light on these complicated relational dynamics. DOMINIC INFANTE AND THE SKILLS DEFICIENCY MODEL OF INTERSPOUSAL VIOLENCE

In the 1980s, Infante and others (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990; Payne & Sabourin, 1990) began work on explaining what happens when individuals engage in verbally aggressive exchanges in marriages. This led to the development of the Skills Deficiency Model of Interspousal Violence. Infante had advocated that destructive messages, such as verbal aggressive remarks, were likely to lead to physical violence, while constructive messages, such as those used in argumentation, were likely to de-escalate the potential for physical altercations (Infante, 1988; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989). Infante, Chandler, and Rudd (1989) put the study of marital aggression within the realm of communicative exchanges. What occurred when, how, and after marital partners conversed was critical to whether events would escalate to physical aggression. Building off the work of Zillman (1979, 1983) and others, Infante, Chandler, and Rudd (1989) noted that “it may be correct to implicate verbal aggression as a catalyst in the complexity of circumstances which surround interpersonal violence. Verbal aggression may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of interspousal violence” (p. 166). Although verbally aggressive remarks may generate a negative emotional response, such as anger, people may not always provide an immediate retaliation to such aggressive communication. Instead, individuals could either deflect the comment, or simply refrain from responding until their tolerance levels have been exceeded. For example, one day, partners can say something potentially offensive or demeaning, with no immediate response; on another day, recipients could snap, remarking with intense animosity. Therefore, of fundamental interest was the ability to defuse partners’ responses when their mates made verbally aggressive statements. One way to accomplish this was for individuals to have the necessary verbal skills to talk their way out of negatively escalating interactions. The Argumentative Skills Deficiency Model of Interspousal Violence contends that the argumentative skills of both marital partners could either provoke or defuse potentially hostile exchanges. The model proposes that when individuals

322

Sally Vogl-Bauer

feel ill-equipped to respond to verbally aggressive statements, they would be more likely to provide a reciprocal negative-valence reply, and may feel justified in doing so. If both partners have difficulty arguing constructively, this can be particularly problematic. When at least one marital partner is able to talk rationally about issues, the other person may be less likely to reciprocate with a verbally aggressive response, thus reducing the likelihood of escalating the aggressive exchanges. Infante also noted that marital partners’ hostile dispositions could also work to their advantage or disadvantage, depending on the level of tolerance of each partner (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989). The argumentativeness trait plays a crucial role in whether individuals are able to keep exchanges from escalating. The more someone is inclined to be argumentative, the more likely they are to have the necessary skills to talk through disagreements in a calm, rational fashion. The reverse is true for individuals having low levels of argumentativeness. These individuals are not only less skilled at arguing, they are likely to shut down attempts at talking through disagreement (Infante & Rancer, 1982). These ideas run counter to the myths suggesting that violent couples engage in a great deal of arguments. Yet, Infante, Chandler, and Rudd (1989) found spouses in nonviolent relationships were more likely to demonstrate argumentativeness strategies, such as attacking positions on issues, as opposed to demonstrating verbally aggressive strategies, such as attacking someone’s self-concept with insults or critical remarks. Additional research by Infante et al. (1990) found that verbally aggressive exchanges occurred in both violent and nonviolent relationships. However, the frequency with which verbally aggressive comments were used significantly differed (Husbands: violent marriages 34.48, nonviolent marriages 4.52; Wives: violent marriages 18.75, nonviolent marriages 3.51). One explanation may be the marital partners’ abilities to discern when to refrain from further verbally aggressive exchanges (Infante et al., 1990). In other words, nonviolent marital partners may know “when to say when” before disagreements escalate towards physical aggression. These findings were supported by Sabourin (1995), who found that marital partners in abusive relationships were more likely to demonstrate increased one-upmanship as their conversations continued. In effect, there was a degree of competitive symmetry taking place, with escalating negative remarks being exchanged during conversations between marital partners. Whether this was because both parties sought control, or because both lacked skills necessary to address their problems, their inability to demonstrate constructive argumentative strategies was problematic (Sabourin, 1995). Rudd, Burant, and Beatty (1994) and Rudd and Burant (1995) looked at the role of compliance-gaining strategies in violent as well as nonviolent relationships. In the first study, Rudd, Burant, and Beatty (1994) looked at how battered women attempted to acquire some type of compliance from their abusers. They found that when battered women reported higher levels of verbal aggressiveness and lower levels of argumentativeness, battered women were more likely to utilize indirect power-based strategies (e.g., guilt, bargaining, ingratiation)

Aggressive Expression within the Family

323

when attempting to gain compliance from their abusers. Battered women reporting higher levels of argumentativeness and lower levels of verbal aggressiveness indicated using different types of compliance that incorporated more of shared power-oriented bases (e.g., direct request, allurement, aversive stimulation). Thus, battered women’s perceptions of their argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness may contribute towards the strategy selection battered women use to get their abusers to comply with their goals (Rudd, Burant, & Beatty, 1994). Rudd and Burant (1995) then compared the compliance-gaining strategies of women in violent and nonviolent relationships. They found that women in violent relationships were more likely to report using either submissive/indirect compliance-gaining strategies or aggressive strategies. Women in nonviolent relationships utilized compliance-based strategies that emphasized a shared power base. The Rudd, Burant, and Beatty (1994) and Rudd and Burant (1995) studies identified further connections between power, argumentative, and verbally aggressive messages, suggesting that the fundamental principles of the Argumentative Skills Deficiency Model remain a viable framework for which to assess the complicated role aggressive communication plays in marital exchanges. Marshall (1994) suggested that the primary determinants of whether or not spouses respond to verbally aggressive remarks by inflicting serious physical harm or transitory hurt to their partners may be associated with the physiological and/or psychological thresholds of the target, their own sense of self, the relational context, or other personality variables. “Behaviors that are subtle and difficult to identify may have as least as much association with distress as do overtly harmful acts” (Marshall, 1994, p. 305). Sabourin and Stamp’s (1995) examination of dialectical tensions in routine marital interactions underscores how difficult it can be to talk calmly and constructively to one another when it appears the abusive tendencies of either or both marital partners are embedded into the relational dynamics. In particular, abusive partners encountered greater difficulties managing relational tensions associated with cohesion and adaptability. Partners didn’t know how to stay connected to one another while still maintaining their individual identities, nor were they successful managing relational change. Sabourin and Stamp (1995) surmised that abusive partners may be more likely to resort to old, unsuccessful patterns of interactions. Yet individuals most in need of acquiring effective conflict management strategies have often had limited access to either observe or practice these types of communication messages (Anderson, Umberson, & Elliott, 2004). As a result, whenever individuals feel their skills sets are either insufficient or they lack the ability to defuse verbally aggressive exchanges they may experience feelings of anxiety of being threatened or insecurity which may be manifest in actions that the person could later regret (Anderson, Umberson, & Elliott, 2004). Scholars also noted that argumentative skills deficiencies may manifest themselves in (a) father–son relationships when fathers are ineffective at getting their sons to comply with their requests (Kassing, Pearce, & Infante, 2000) and (b) mother–child

324

Sally Vogl-Bauer

relationships where mothers’ verbal aggressiveness was associated with the risk of committing child abuse (Wilson et al., 2006). The findings regarding hurtful messages generated by Vangelisti and colleagues suggest that hurtful remarks have the potential to behave in comparable ways to verbally aggressive statements in marital couples, even though the participants studied were college students. What remains unclear is whether hurtful remarks, as conceptualized by Vangelisti (1994), would be sufficient catalysts to lead to physical aggression by, and toward other family members as proposed by the Skills Deficiency Model of Interspousal Violence. JOHN GOTTMAN, COMMUNICATION AND A SOCIAL PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO MARRIAGE RELATIONS

Gottman and colleagues’ work has enhanced understanding of marital couples’ communication, and in particular, when marital couples’ communicative difficulties were likely to lead to physical violence and/or relational dissolution. The approach taken to study marital relations in much of Gottman and colleagues’ body of work was often rather unconventional: examining physiological linkages associated with affect in marital exchanges. Some of the findings examining aggressive communication in marriages are highlighted below. “Interaction seems to us to be the litmus test of a marriage. On a day to day basis, the quality of interaction defines the quality of a marriage” (Levenson & Gottman, 1985, p. 91). In some of the earlier research, marital couples had four different physiological systems monitored: heart (measurement of heart rate), vasculature (measurement of pulse transmission time), sweat glands (measurement of skin conductance), and muscles (measure of general somatic activity) (see Levenson & Gottman, 1983, for a detailed explanation of the procedures and methodology). In future studies, other physiological indicators have also been used. Levenson and Gottman (1983, 1985) found the physiological linkages present during marital conflict interactions accounted for approximately 60 percent of the variance in marital satisfaction. Specifically, the greater the physiological linkage, the more likely the couple was in a dissatisfying marriage. These results exceeded the variances accounted for by questionnaire data (less than 10 percent) or observational studies (approximately 25 percent). Interesting communicative patterns also emerged. Specifically, declines in marital satisfaction were predicted by two things: (a) less positive affect demonstrated by husbands and more positive affect displayed by wives; and (b) less negative affect displays by husbands. The quantity of wives’ negative affect remarks did not predict reductions in marital satisfaction (Levenson & Gottman, 1985). One explanation provided suggests that men in dissatisfied marriages may be more likely to emotionally withdraw from their wives, regardless of whether positive or negative affect was displayed by husbands. Wives were then left in a predicament, since their efforts at inserting additional positive affect did not appear to improve marital satisfaction. Ironically, husbands may simply

Aggressive Expression within the Family

325

have wanted to be left alone after a disagreement, while wives may have wanted to engage their partners to reduce their angst. This leaves both parties in a potential quagmire; getting the opposite type of response from their mates than what they had been seeking or needing (Levenson & Gottman, 1985). Research findings continued to report a significant relationship between negative affect and physiological arousal for husbands, but not for wives (Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994). It is difficult to ascertain whether husbands’ awareness of their physiological triggers reduced negative affect or simply encouraged husbands to disengage from uncomfortable conversations with their wives. Wives’ failure to recognize physiologically based indicators during conflicts may mean that they could have missed their bodies’ signals to disengage or back down from disagreements (Levenson, Cartensen, & Gottman, 1994). In other words, the same physiological indicators indicating heightened arousal in husbands may either (a) not be at the same physiological levels in wives, or (b) not be interpreted by wives as messages that should be addressed. As a result, a vicious cycle could ensue, creating potential havoc both physiologically and/or psychologically in husbands and wives. Gottman et al. (1995) examined physiological responses, aggressive patterns, and general violence indicators of two types of physically abusive males. Gottman et al. (1995) classified batterers as either Type 1 or Type 2 based on a physiological marker: heart rates during the first five minutes of marital interactions. Type 1 batterers had lowered heart rates while Type 2 batterers had increased heart rates. Changes in heart rate had been an important physiological indicator in earlier studies and these physiological differences in Type 1 and Type 2 batterers proved to be significant in numerous ways. In earlier studies increases in physiological linkages tended to lead to disengagement in physically aggressive husbands. This was what occurred with Type 2 batterers. This group of abusive husbands had increased heart rates when their wives were verbally aggressive, and the husbands themselves would become more aggressive over time. Increased heart rates are correlated with anger, so this response seemed reasonable. Furthermore, if Type 2 batterers were unable to disengage when experiencing heightened physiological responses, physical agitation may have also played a role in enhanced aggressive communicative exchanges. Type 1 batterers responded very differently. As indicated, their heart rates decreased. In fact, Type 1 batterers appeared to have some degree of control over their physiology (Gottman et al., 1995). In addition, Type 1 batterers tended to be more antagonistic and verbally or even physically aggressive in their relationships with strangers, friends, co-workers, or bosses. In other words, Type 1 batterers demonstrated antisocial tendencies in virtually all of their interpersonal relationships. Type 1 batterers also tended to respond more with disgust during marital conflicts than with anger. Type 1 and Type 2 batterers were not different in the aggression they displayed in their marriages, just in the relational dynamics that occurred prior to violent acts. Not surprisingly, wives of Type 1 batterers were more likely to suppress expressions of anger (Gottman et al., 1995). This seemed reasonable, since any

326

Sally Vogl-Bauer

insertion of verbal aggression or even argument could have provided sufficient means for serious verbal or physical altercations. Some women married to Type 1 participants were also antisocial, but they appeared to be interpersonally sensitive enough not to engage in aggressive exchanges with their partners. The divorce rates for Type 1 and Type 2 batterers and their relational partners also provides an interesting glimpse into the interactions practiced in both types of marriages. When Gottman et al. (1995) performed a two-year follow-up for all couples, they found that the divorce rate for Type 2 batterers and their wives was 27 percent; the divorce rate for Type 1 batterers and their wives was 0 percent. Gortner et al. (1997) wanted to learn whether or not wives stay with their abusive husbands. Several myths were dispelled as a result of their two-year longitudinal follow-up analysis. First, Gortner et al. (1997) found that abused women were more likely to leave their abusive partners, and did not later return to re-establish these relationships. Second, when women were courageous enough to consider leaving their physically aggressive partners, they tended to be assertive and intolerant of the verbally and physically aggressive behaviors demonstrated by their husbands. Finally, emotional abuse was the strongest predictor of exiting an abusive relationship for wives. When verbal aggression was used to facilitate social isolation or degrade wives, abused wives were more likely to consider leaving their marriages. “Once emotional abuse becomes associated with physical abuse, it can subjugate, intimidate, and control women just as effectively as physical abuse, and may actually become more prevalent over time as physical abuse, which becomes less necessary, decreases” (Gortner et al., 1997, p. 351). These findings supported the findings of Gottman et al. (1995) showing negative correlations between marital satisfaction and emotional and physical abuse. The correlation between marital satisfaction and emotional abuse was strongly negative (r = −.62); the correlation between marital satisfaction and physical abuse was not statistically significant (r = −.21). Parent–Child Relationships and Aggressive Communication Ironically, there is more government screening associated with the purchase of pseudoephedrine and obtaining a driver’s license than there is for people to bear their own biological offspring. As a result, parents often receive little, if any, training on how to be effective parents. This is with the exception of prenatal courses, which are voluntary. After that, parents appear to (a) model their parenting style after their own parents; (b) read self-help books on childrearing; (c) ask questions of family or friends; or (d) learn through trial and error. Therefore, it is not surprising that parents’ trait predispositions may significantly shape parent–child exchanges. In 1992, Bayer and Cegala did the first study exploring the relationship between parenting styles and aggressive communication. They found distinct differences in tendencies toward argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness and parenting styles. More specifically, argumentativeness was positively and

Aggressive Expression within the Family

327

verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to the Authoritative parenting style whereas verbal aggressiveness was positively and argumentativeness was negatively related to the Authoritarian parenting style (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). As a result, Bayer and Cegala (1992) indicated that “It may be that a parent’s predisposition to argumentativeness portends more favorable outcomes than currently recognized, particularly if the influence of a parental personality trait upon children may be both direct (in dyadic interaction) and indirect (through parents’ interactions with other persons with whom the child comes into contact)” (p. 308). Booth-Butterfield and Sidelinger (1997) found that as parents’ verbal aggression increased, their child’s perceptions of family openness decreased. As a result, these children were reluctant to discuss things with their parents. Although Booth-Butterfield and Sidelinger (1997) did not assess parenting styles, their findings support the argument that families’ communication dynamics are related to parents’ communication tendencies. Parents’ verbal aggression has continued to be related to other forms of unsupportive messages from parents to their children. Beatty and Dobos (1993) found adult sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ sarcastic and critical remarks contributed to whether sons felt confirmation from their fathers. In a follow-up study, Beatty et al. (1994) assessed how fathers’ trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness influenced sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ sarcastic, critical, and verbally aggressive statements. When controlling for fathers’ argumentativeness levels, fathers’ trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness accounted for approximately 40 percent of the variance in sons’ perceptions of their fathers’ sarcasm, criticism, and verbally aggressive remarks. In other words, “men’s perceptions of fathers’ verbal aggressiveness, sarcasm, and criticism are significantly based in their fathers’ verbal aggressiveness” (Beatty et al., 1994, p. 413). Additional findings from this body of research by Beatty and colleagues revealed: (a) fathers’ verbal aggressiveness was negatively related to the appropriateness and effectiveness of their interaction plans when sons opposed their fathers’ requests (Beatty et al., 1996); (b) fathers’ perceptions of the appropriateness and effectiveness of their interaction strategies were in large part related to fathers’ levels of verbal aggressiveness (Rudd et al., 1997); and (c) parental anger generated as the result of a noncompliant child was the result of an interaction between parents’ verbal aggression and situational frustration (Rudd et al., 1998). In an earlier study Wigley, Pohl, and Watt (1989) found that trait verbal aggression was negatively related to verbally praising others. Although Wigley, Pohl, and Watt (1989) did not study family relationships, this finding could shed light on why parents and children, and fathers and sons in particular, encounter difficulties in their relationships. Parent–child relationships are not immune from physical aggression. Parents want, and often need their children to comply with their verbal requests. When children fail to respond in timely and appropriate ways, parental reactions could range from increased parental frustrations to inflicting physical harm

328

Sally Vogl-Bauer

(deTurck, 1987). It was surmised that the more strenuously the child refused to comply with their parents’ requests, the greater the likelihood parental responses could escalate to physical aggression (e.g., hitting, slapping, spanking). When Kassing et al. (1999) examined children’s recollections of corporal punishment during their childhood and perceptions of their parents’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, their findings indicated that perceptions of argumentativeness did not vary based on past recollections of corporal punishment as children. Yet, as recollections of corporal punishment increased, children’s perceptions of their parents’ verbal aggression also increased. However, children’s self-perceptions of their own verbal aggressiveness did not change with the degree of corporal punishment received (Kassing et al., 1999). When Kassing, Pearce, and Infante (2000) studied father–son dyads they found that as higher levels of verbal aggressiveness and lower levels of argumentativeness were reported, the likelihood that corporal punishment would be used as an influential tactic to get sons to comply increased. Not surprisingly, Kassing, Pearce, and Infante (2000) found that father–son relationships suffered a loss in perceived success, communication competence and credibility. Scholars have recently begun exploring how aggressive communication is related to child abuse potential. The preliminary findings suggest (a) that there are relationships between child abuse potential and mothers’ trait verbal aggressiveness (Wilson et al., 2006); and (b) that the familial and psychological backgrounds of male abusers could serve as indicators in identifying parents at greater risk for abusing their children (Herron & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2002). Sibling Relationships and Aggressive Communication Unlike marital relationships, often perceived by those in western cultures as relationships of choice, sibling relationships are involuntary (Vogl-Bauer, 2003). Sibling relationships have the potential to take on elements of voluntary relationships over time; however, at the onset, this is not the case. The expression “forced relationships” is sometimes used in conjunction when describing sibling relationships (Martin, Anderson, & Rocca, 2005; Teven, Martin, & Neupauer, 1998). This relational consideration is important because: (a) sibling relationships are often the longest relationships individuals will have in their lifetime; (b) siblings may spend over a third of their lives engaged in some type of sibling interaction; and (c) siblings tend to have a great deal of prior knowledge/shared history from which to understand each other (Myers & Knox, 1998; Teven, Martin, & Neupauer, 1998). In addition, a point that is often glossed over is the common biological background shared by many siblings (Myers & Goodboy, 2006). The impact of siblings’ personality predispositions with each other, other family members’ aggressive exchanges, and the impact of living in a shared environment is still unknown (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997; Martin et al., 1997). As a result, even though siblings had no choice in selecting their respective sibling(s), they were still likely to be significantly impacted by the communicative exchanges that occurred in these relationships.

Aggressive Expression within the Family

329

Understanding how aggression operates in sibling relationships can become rather complicated; the potential for conflict could begin at the onset of the new sibling’s arrival (Stafford & Dainton, 1994). The addition of a new family member permeates into all pre-existing family dyads (Gano-Phillips & Fincham, 1995). How parents navigate relational changes with each other, as well as with other children already in the household, could directly influence how older children perceive the new addition. Is this new child a positive addition to the family, or is this new sibling perceived as a threat or competitor for family resources? Early on in sibling relationships, emotions of jealousy or envy could surface between siblings if parents provide preferential treatment toward particular children. This can occur even if the siblings themselves were not actively engaged in conflict (Gano-Phillips & Fincham, 1995; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993). These dialectical tensions for parents are not limited to the first few months of acclimating to a new family member. Rather, parents need to remain cognizant of how fair their exchanges are with all of their children throughout childhood and adolescence. Admittedly, this is a tall order and parents are not likely to remain completely impartial throughout childhood and adolescence, even if they want to. Yet each individual parent–child relationship impacts sibling relationships and parents may unintentionally lay the foundation for animosity between their children (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993). This animosity could fuel aggressive communication between siblings. Teven, Martin, and Neupauer (1998) noted that “Conflict and aggression among siblings during childhood is so common that it is often taken for granted” (p. 179). Verbally aggressive messages occur with the greatest frequency when siblings reach adolescence. Yet it may be difficult for parents or others to detect if these exchanges occur, or the frequency at and degree to which they occur. This lack of aggressive communication detection is further complicated by the fact that there is no physical evidence to indicate their existence as well as the fact that parents may expect siblings to criticize, make degrading comments, or verbally harass one another. Martin et al. (1997) found that sibling teasing was positively correlated with verbal aggressiveness. But how many of us have heard the expression “they wouldn’t tease you if they didn’t love you?” Therefore, parents may actually think the verbal jousting that often occurs when siblings tease each other is a positive thing. Parents may actually join in and participate in these conversations, thinking positive family communication interactions are occurring, even though the relational intent of the teasing remarks was negative. Another concern is that teasing remarks from one sibling have the potentiality to encourage verbally aggressive comments and retaliatory teasing comments from the other sibling. When exchanges lead to reciprocal comments that escalate over the course of the conversation, it makes it difficult to ascertain whose remarks instigated the verbally aggressive escalation (Martin et al., 1997). Because verbal aggression is psychological as opposed to physical in nature, this type of communication becomes more gender neutral as it affords both males and females equal opportunity to craft messages designed to inflict harm

330

Sally Vogl-Bauer

on others. Such opportunities are not readily available in the physical realm as males tend to be more physically aggressive as well as physically larger than females. Therefore, anyone is eligible to participate. However, males and females appear to respond differently to verbally aggressive comments in sibling relationships. Martin et al. (1997) found that the sex composition of the sibling dyad played an important role in the relationship between teasing and satisfaction. Specifically, Martin et al. (1997) found same-sex female siblings had lower self-perceptions of verbal aggressiveness than opposite-sex sibling dyads. Females also reported greater levels of hurt from receiving verbally aggressive comments. Finally, same-sex female siblings reported teasing their siblings less and noted more relational satisfaction than same-sex male or opposite-sex sibling pairs. Interestingly, in both instances, opposite-sex sibling pairs experienced the greatest levels of hurt, the greatest amounts of teasing, and reduced relational satisfaction of all the sibling pairs. Whether these perceptions change over the lifespan of sibling relationships is unclear. As the frequency of verbally aggressive messages increased between siblings, satisfaction and relational trust with the sibling relationship decreased (Martin et al., 1997; Martin, Anderson, & Rocca, 2005; Teven, Martin, & Neupauer, 1998). In addition, siblings were less likely to interact with one another (Martin, Anderson, & Rocca, 2005). Just because siblings may avoid one another does not necessary indicate a lack of closeness between parties, but the involuntary nature of sibling relationships could encourage some degree of disengagement (Pawlowski, Myers, & Rocca, 2000). There have also been numerous findings suggesting that sibling communication changes over the course of the lifespan (Martin, Anderson, & Rocca, 2005; Myers & Knox, 1998; Pawlowski, Myers, & Rocca, 2000). Myers and Goodboy (2006) found that sibling use of verbally aggressive messages decreased over the lifespan. In addition, they noted that as siblings get older, the focus of their interactions was likely to shift away from their relationship and move more towards other life events (e.g., children, health, future plans). These findings are consistent with work done by Myers and Knox (1998) in that when siblings are younger (under the age of 22) they are less likely to demonstrate referential skill usage (using clear and concise messages) than between the ages of 22 and 41. In fact, this age bracket appears to be the time period in which referential skill usage is the highest, with referential skill usage declining as individuals became older than 41. Other life events appeared to be the primary reason for this change in communication. This, in addition to reduced physical access to each other, may make it easier for siblings to peacefully co-exist. This is especially true if siblings were no longer living in the same physical environment. Finally, Myers and Goodboy (2006) suggested that as siblings get older, their own parent–child relationships were also likely to change. As these changes trickle down to sibling interactions, siblings were less likely to have as much animosity towards one another based on any fallout surfacing from the respective parent– child dyads. In sum, (a) as life events and relational dynamics within parent– child relationships changed; and (b) sibling relationships were realigned to

Aggressive Expression within the Family

331

account for other life events, individuals were able to move forward in their sibling relationships, becoming less hostile or cruel to one another. Although inferences have been made for why individuals might utilize verbally aggressive messages with their siblings, how siblings interpret these messages when they receive them is still unclear. Myers and Goodboy (2006) argue that “The interpretation of message use may be attributed by siblings to the sibling’s personality, the nature of the relationship, or the situation” (p. 8). As a result, it is difficult to know how many “get out of jail free” cards siblings give to one another when one (or both) of them makes a verbally aggressive statement. If siblings are able to excuse or justify the exchange as “that’s just who they are,” “my sibling can criticize me, but you better not,” or “they wouldn’t have said that if they weren’t under so much stress,” individuals may overlook or endure verbally aggressive exchanges from siblings until their tolerance levels are maxed out. Another explanation could be that some childhood memories are so strong they continue to impact future sibling interactions (Martin, Anderson, & Rocca, 2005). Myers and Goodboy (2006) noted that some verbally aggressive messages could have greater potential to be hurtful or cause greater psychological damage than others. This could explain why some sibling relationships never move to relationships of choice in later years. Same-Sex Couples and Aggressive Communication One relationship often overlooked when taking a traditional perspective on families is same-sex couples. In the majority of instances, these individuals lack the official capacity to be “married” (Barnes, 1998; Patterson, 2000). Yet, many same-sex couples interact with their partners in ways that are comparable to heterosexual marital couples. Thus, it is both appropriate and worthwhile to include them in this review. Little is known about aggression in same-sex couples, yet virtually all indicators suggest that the type and prevalence of verbal and physical aggressive exchanges occurring in same-sex couples is comparable to, or even greater than heterosexual couples (Barnes, 1998; McKenry et al., 2006). Unfortunately, problems are associated with getting comprehensive statistics on the number of same-sex partners experiencing aggression. Some difficulties are associated with how state laws identify victims of domestic abuse. Historically, many states only considered individuals to be potential victims of domestic violence if they were in heterosexual relationships. In fact, the sodomy laws in some state statutes made it virtually impossible for same-sex partners to come forward as domestic violence victims unless they had acknowledged the crimes associated with being in their same-sex relationship (Barnes, 1998). As a result, same-sex domestic aggression problems tended to be avoided by government, law enforcement, and society well into the 1990s (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). While there have been significant changes since then, struggles remain concerning how to best assist victims of same-sex aggression. However difficult such data is to obtain, we do know that same-sex domestic violence is occurring.

332

Sally Vogl-Bauer

Scholars have estimated that approximately 25 to 33 percent of same-sex partners experienced some form of verbal, physical, or both forms of aggression in their relationships (Barnes, 1998; McKenry et al., 2006). Several communicative elements of same-sex aggression are highlighted to identify unique factors facing same-sex partners. To begin, there are stereotypes that need to be addressed. These stereotypes pertain to the likelihood of same-sex partners engaging in aggressive acts in the first place. In Peterman and Dixon’s (2003) review of domestic violence between same-sex partners, they reported that straight men were not more violent than gay men. In fact, it was noted that “domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing gay men today, second to substance abuse and AIDS” (Peterman & Dixon, 2003, p. 40). There is a slightly different stereotype surrounding domestic violence in the lesbian community. This stereotype contends that women are not violent or abusive. However, this stereotype becomes particularly problematic if abuse is occurring in lesbian relationships. If it is not plausible for females to be violent or abusive, yet these behaviors are regularly demonstrated in lesbian relationships, victims are more likely to be ignored or remain silent (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). More complicated misperceptions embedded in same-sex aggression occur when trying to identify victims. Because partners are the same sex, they are more likely to be comparable in size and physical stature than in heterosexual relationships. As a result, there is the perception that mutual battering could be occurring. This conclusion can make it difficult to determine which party is being abusive, and which party may be acting in self-defense (Peterman & Dixon, 2003; Stanley et al., 2006). To complicate matters further, the lesbian community tends to encourage participation in self-defense awareness programs. Therefore, while reports have indicated that lesbian women are more likely to fight back than heterosexual females, cultural factors in the lesbian/ feminist community could be playing a role in how females respond to aggressive acts directed at them (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). Consistent with heterosexual couples, same-sex couples reported experiencing more verbally aggressive messages than physical abuse (Stanley et al., 2006). In fact, when asked, same-sex partners incorporated verbal aggression into their definitions of abuse along with physical aggression. Thus, in this way, there do not appear to be any distinctions between same-and opposite-sex couples in their perceptions of aggressive exchanges in intimate relationships. However, there were differences in the motives underlying the aggressive actions. In the literature on abusers in heterosexual couples, one of the primary motivations highlighted is the need for control (Stamp & Sabourin, 1995). Although this could be a contributing motivation for abusers in same-sex relationships, there were other motivations proposed as well. Stanley et al. (2006) studied intimate violence in male same-sex relationships and found the participants in this study were motivated more by anger and frustration than by control. This explanation is particularly valid when considering the potential power distributions in same-sex relationships. Many same-sex relationships are per-

Aggressive Expression within the Family

333

ceived to be more egalitarian in nature. Therefore, dominance may not play a significant role in the relational dynamics of same-sex couples. Others have found that the motivations could be linked to attachment issues (McKenry et al., 2006). This argument was comparable to other perspectives identifying a cycle of violence (Walker, 2000) or a demand-withdrawal explanation (Anderson, Umberson, & Elliot, 2004). One fundamental factor impacting gays and lesbians revolves around the fact that they are homosexual. This variable, in and of itself, complicates exchanges gays and lesbians may have in regards to aggressive communication. First, simply being homosexual could be used against same-sex victims by their abusers if they have not disclosed their sexual orientation to family members and close friends. Essentially, same-sex abusers may threaten to share this information if their partners talk about the abuse or attempt to leave the relationship. This creates a form of social isolation for victims (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). Second, some same-sex partners, especially males, may have difficulty viewing themselves as victims. Same-sex partners may think some exchanges were not necessarily indicators of aggression (McKenry et al., 2006). For example, when does swearing or pushing or shoving your partner become a sign of domestic violence? If individuals are unable to label these behaviors as aggressive acts, it may be difficult to determine how aggression progresses in these relationships, let alone how to provide assistance to de-escalate the aggressive interactions. This issue was further compounded because the majority of gay relationships do not end because of violence. As a result, it is hard to ascertain the role aggression played in these relationships (Stanley et al., 2006). Third, many support services presently available to help victims and abusers of aggression are often targeted towards victims and abusers in heterosexual relationships (Barnes, 1998; McKenry et al., 2006; Stanley et al., 2006). For example, one male victim in the Stanley et al. (2006) study noted that “One man’s comment that he felt like a ‘gay guinea pig’ when he participated in a domestic violence program for husbands indicates the inadequacy of applying treatments used for heterosexual men to gay men” (p. 40). Peterman and Dixon (2003) also noted that some female same-sex partners felt some level of discrimination when staying at women’s shelters that were established for heterosexual female victims. Finally, some same-sex partners may unconsciously try to protect the homosexual community from additional criticism by society. Peterman and Dixon (2003) wrote: “Many persons who are gay or lesbian do not want anyone to know of the abuse for they fear society thinking that the homosexual community is ‘sick,’ ‘violent,’ or ‘uncontrollable’ ” (p. 43). As a result, same-sex victims are often left to rely on those in the gay and lesbian community. However, this strategy may also contribute to the very things it seeks to avoid in that the homosexual community may have difficulty accepting that one of their own could be an abuser.

334

Sally Vogl-Bauer

Underlying Themes of Family Aggression Stafford and Dainton (1994) noted that “Normal family interaction is a paradox of conflicting messages of support and hurt” (p. 260). After examining the role of argumentative and verbally aggressive messages in numerous family relationships, the preliminary conclusion is that serious difficulties ensue when family members disagree with one another. Furthermore, virtually all of the research findings conclude that dysfunctional communication, in the forms of verbal and physical aggression, between family members is a fundamental component in the breakdown of virtually all of the family relationships examined. Granted, different vocabulary was used to identify verbally aggressive interactions. The words ranged from verbal aggressiveness to hurtful messages to emotionally abusive messages. Yet, regardless of the semantics, the intent behind the words was to inflict pain on the recipient (consciously or otherwise). Scholars continue to underscore the bidirectional nature of family relationships (Ambert, 2001; Gottman, 1994; Stafford & Bayer, 1993). Clearly, the interconnectedness across family dyads cannot be stressed enough when studying aggression and family communication. In this spirit, I would like to highlight two different themes that appear in the scholarship of aggressive messages across marital, parent–child, sibling, and same-sex family relationships. These two themes are: (a) the degree to which verbal aggression is embedded in family relationships; and (b) the need to examine connections between physiological indicators, cognitive indicators, and social interaction when studying aggressive exchanges in families. When a person is given the label “Teflon Bob” or “Teflon Mary” this implies that whenever problems are directed at Bob or Mary, they are able to deflect the criticism; essentially Bob or Mary are able to overcome difficulties because they simply slide the problems off themselves onto someone or something else. In some respects, verbal aggression, and to a significantly lesser extent, physical aggression has elements of a Teflon coating. In virtually all of the family relationships studied, it was noted that family members may say something mean, cruel, or critical to each other. While verbally aggressive messages are not likely to be considered “socially acceptable,” they are often granted “socially tolerable” or “socially forgivable” status. It’s as if family members, in particular, need to endure one another’s verbally aggressive remarks, since it comes with the territory of being a family member (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994). Take, for example, the work done by Martin et al. (1997) on teasing and verbal aggressiveness in sibling relationships. In many families, teasing is part of the daily exchanges between family members. Literally everyone gets involved in the volley of remarks that go back and forth from parents to children, between siblings and marital partners. Therefore, virtually no one in the family is off limits from getting at least some gentle ribbing. It is hard to say how some teasing patterns grow into verbally aggressive messages across family relationships. But if teasing is part of family members’ daily rituals, it is not a stretch to believe that poking fun at or ridiculing others would take on a normative part of individuals’ other social interactions.

Aggressive Expression within the Family

335

Other types of verbally aggressive exchanges occur throughout family interactions. Family members often yell at and critique one another when things go wrong; in fact, many family members expect some type of verbal onslaught when problems or disagreements surface. Again, this is not necessarily socially acceptable—just tolerable or forgivable. One possible explanation as to why family members’ verbal aggression is continually excused by other family members is that verbal aggression has somehow managed to permeate through to family members’ basic expectations of one another. Call it a quirky kind of value system: family members often regulate one another’s behaviors, and verbally aggressive messages provide a means with which to keep family members in check. Physical aggression may also be embedded in families in different ways, often serving as a form of disciplinary correction. The most classic example is spanking. There are serious disagreements about the merits or detriments of parental spanking. Regardless of perspectives, it appears that individuals who have been spanked (within moderation) seem to be the stronger advocates of this method of punishment. Parents’ prior experience with spanking as children appears to be a strong predictor of whether or not they will choose to continue this pattern (Kassing et al., 1999). This leads to the question of whether or not there are forms of “competent violence” in families. Others have addressed this very controversial notion (Cupach & Canary, 1997). But perhaps the more telling subtext is that by even considering the notion of competent violence, this suggests that perceptions about both verbally and physically aggressive actions in families may have deeper roots than previously acknowledged or understood. Furthermore, if individuals don’t label spanking or other physical behaviors as physical aggression, then family members may feel justified in engaging in these behaviors more frequently given the more socially acceptable term. Rancer and Avtgis (2006) remind us that “Verbal aggression is not necessarily a cause for physical violence, but it is always present when physical violence is present” (p. 107). As family members become more accustomed to dealing with verbally aggressive exchanges, they may unwittingly be setting the stage for future physical altercations. Although scholars may be able to identify verbally aggressive remarks in conversations, if the average person on the street is (a) unable to do so; or (b) does not view the sentiments as verbally aggressive, it is difficult to assess whether training will be sufficient to change these embedded perceptions. Furthermore, the debate over whether argumentativeness and/or verbal aggressiveness are genetic or socially learned in families is a topic scholars should no longer emphasize. Although this chapter did not focus on the genetic predispositions or cognitive structures associated with aggressive communication, the findings indicate that genetic predispositions do influence individuals’ aggressive messages (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). But genetic predispositions are not the only important factors to consider. The work by Gottman and his colleagues discussed earlier suggests that individuals’ physiological reactions during conflict are telling indicators of how our

336

Sally Vogl-Bauer

body responds prior to and during aggressive exchanges. Some physiological responses may be less voluntary than others. However, the physical changes experienced by individuals could provide them with important cues indicating that they may or may not be more susceptible to responding in an aggressive fashion, given that they are able to identify the signals their bodies are sending. Research findings suggest males may already be cognizant of some of these physiological cues. Females, on the other hand, may have to learn to identify and sensitize themselves to these biologically-based messages. It is unclear how the cognitive structures in the brain responsible for aggressive communication interact with the physiological responses generated during conflicts. But as more is learned about the specific brain systems operating when demonstrating verbal aggression, these answers should be forthcoming. Furthermore, when family members share similar genetic material, such as between parents and their biological children, and between siblings with the same biological parents, more will be revealed about the similarities as well as potential differences in parent–child and sibling aggressive communication patterns. So where does social interaction fit into all of this for families? Martin and Anderson (1997) found correlations between mothers’ trait argumentativeness, assertiveness, and verbal aggressiveness for sons and daughters, but not between fathers and their children. One explanation is that children may be more inclined to model behaviors of the parent they spend the most time with, but they did not differentiate among biological, step, or adoptive parents. In addition, neither genetic predispositions nor physiological indicators actually select our words or actions. Genetic predispositions and physiological responses may shape when we select more diplomatic as opposed to more critical or attacking words, but much more goes into how family members communicate with one another. Only by examining connections between physiological indicators, cognitive indicators, and social interaction during aggressive exchanges in families can the most robust explanations be generated.

References Ambert, A. (2001). The effect of children on parents (2nd ed.), New York: Haworth Press. Anderson, K. L., Umberson, D., & Elliott, S. (2004). Violence and abuse in families. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 629–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50. Barnes, P. G. (1998). “It’s just a quarrel.” ABA Journal, 84 (2), 24–25. Bayer, C. L., & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness: Relations with parenting style. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 301–310. Beatty, M. J., Burant, P. A., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1996). Trait verbal aggressiveness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction plans. Communication Quarterly, 44, 1–15.

Aggressive Expression within the Family

337

Beatty, M. J., & Dobos, J. A. (1993). Direct and mediated effects of perceived father criticism and sarcasm on females’ perceptions of relational partners’ disconfirming behavior. Communication Quarterly, 41, 187–197. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460. Beatty, M. J., Zelley, J. R., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1994). Fathers’ trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness as predictors of adult sons’ perceptions of fathers’ sarcasm, criticism, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 42, 407–415. Booth-Butterfield, M., & Sidelinger, R. J. (1997). The relationship between parental traits and open family communication: Affective orientation and verbal aggression. Communication Research Reports, 14, 408–417. Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. deTurck, M. A. (1987). When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliancegaining strategy. Communication Monographs, 54, 106–112. Duck, S. W. (1992). Human relationships (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gano-Phillips, S., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Family conflict, divorce, and children’s adjustment. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 206–231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gortner, E., Berns, S. B., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). When women leave violent relationships: Dispelling clinical myths. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34, 343–352. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M., Jacobson, N. S., Rushe, R. H., Shortt, J. W., Babcock, J., La Taillade, J. J., et al. (1995). The relationship between heart rate reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior, and general violence in batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 227–248. Herron, K., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2002). Child abuse potential: A comparison of subtypes of maritally violent men and nonviolent men. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 1–21. Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163–177. Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 73–84. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality and Assessment, 46, 72–80. Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Kassing, J. W., Pearce, K. J., & Infante, D. A. (2000). Corporal punishment and communication in father-son dyads. Communication Research Reports, 17, 237–249. Kassing, J. W., Pearce, K. J., Infante, D. A., & Pyles, S. M. (1999). Exploring the communicative nature of corporal punishment. Communication Research Reports, 16, 18–28.

338

Sally Vogl-Bauer

Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). The influence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of long-term marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 56–68. Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 587–597. Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 85–94. Marshall, L. L. (1994). Physical and psychological abuse. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 281–311.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1997). Aggressive communication traits: How similar are young adults and their parents in argumentativeness, assertiveness, and verbal aggressiveness. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 299–314. Martin. M. M., Anderson, C. M., Burant, P. A., & Weber, K. (1997). Verbal aggression in sibling relationships. Communication Quarterly, 45, 304–317. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Rocca, K. A. (2005). Perceptions of the adult sibling relationship. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 107–116. McKenry, P. C., Serovich, J. M., Mason, T. L., & Mosack, K. (2006). Perpetration of gay and lesbian partner violence: A disempowerment perspective. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 233–243. Myers, S. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2006). Perceived sibling use of verbally aggressive messages across the lifespan. Communication Research Reports, 23, 1–11. Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1998). Perceived sibling use of functional communication skills. Communication Research Reports, 15, 397–405. Noller, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052–1069. Pawlowski, D. R., Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000). Relational messages in conflict situations among siblings. Communication Research Reports, 17, 271–277. Payne, M. J., & Sabourin, T. C. (1990). Argumentative skill deficiency and its relationship to quality of marriage. Communication Research Reports, 7, 121–124. Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 40–47. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Amato, P. P. (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3, 28–32. Rudd, J. E., Beatty, M. J., Vogl-Bauer, S., & Dobos, J. A. (1997). Trait verbal aggressiveness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction plans II: Fathers’ self-assessments. Communication Quarterly, 45, 379–392. Rudd, J. E., & Burant, P. A. (1995). A study of women’s compliance-gaining behaviors in violent and non-violent relationships. Communication Research Reports, 12, 134–144. 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 Research Reports, 11, 13–22.

Aggressive Expression within the Family

339

Rudd, J. E., Vogl-Bauer, S., Dobos, J. A., Beatty, M. J., & Valencic, K. M. (1998). Interactive effects of parents’ trait verbal aggressiveness and situational frustration on parents’ self-reported anger. Communication Quarterly, 46, 1–11. Sabourin, T. C. (1995). The role of negative reciprocity in spouse abuse: A relational control analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 271–283. Sabourin, T. C., & Stamp, G. H. (1995). Communication and the experience of dialectical tensions in family life: An examination of abusive and nonabusive families. Communication Monographs, 62, 213–242. Stafford, L., & Bayer, C. L. (1993). Interaction between parents and children. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stafford, L., & Dainton, M. (1994). The dark side of “normal” family interaction. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 259–280.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stamp, G. H., & Sabourin, T. C. (1995). Accounting for violence: An analysis of male spousal abuse narratives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 284–307. Stanley, J. L., Bartholomew, K., Taylor, T., Oram, D., & Landolt, M. (2006). Intimate violence in male same-sex relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 31–41. Teven, J. J., Martin, M. M., & Neupauer, N. C. (1998). Sibling relationships: Verbally aggressive messages and their effect on relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 11, 179–186. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.) (2004). Handbook of family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L., Maguire, K. C., Alexander, A. L., & Clark, G. (2007). Hurtful family environments: Links with individual, relationship, and perceptual variables. Communication Monographs, 74, 357–385. Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–424. Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it hurt?: The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443–477. Vogl-Bauer, S. (2003). Maintaining family relationships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication (pp. 31–49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Walker, L. E. A. (2000). The battered woman syndrome (2nd ed.), New York: Springer Publishing. Wigley, C. J. III, Pohl, G. H., & Watt, M. G. S. (1989). Conversational sensitivity as a correlate of trait verbal aggressiveness and the predisposition to verbally praise others. Communication Reports, 2, 92–95. Wilson, S. R., Hayes, J., Bylund, C., Rack, J. J., & Herman, A. P. (2006). Mothers’ trait verbal aggressiveness and child abuse potential. The Journal of Family Communication, 6, 279–296. Zillman, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zillman, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychology: A sourcebook (pp. 215–240). New York: Guildford Press.

Chapter 19

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication Rachel L. DiCioccio

Teasing is a pervasive communication behavior that significantly impacts interpersonal relationships. Individuals experience being teased as well as being the perpetrator of teasing from childhood through adulthood. We are exposed to teasing in our families, with our friends, and at work. Through personal experience, we know that teasing is central in shaping and testing our self-perception and our perception of those around us. Although the ubiquity of concerns about, and ambiguity around the use of teasing communication make it a topic of great importance, comprehensive theoretical modeling about teasing remains relatively underdeveloped. The extant literature recognizes teasing as both positive and negative communication behavior. Predominantly, teasing has been examined as negative relational communication. Research has labeled teasing as a means for individuals to demean, embarrass, and damage a target. However, there is substantial research that defines teasing as a positive way to bond, connect, and affirm an interpersonal relationship. The numerous definitions and variance in empirical investigation warrant a more comprehensive conceptualization of the teasing construct. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce an interactionist model of teasing communication that integrates the multiple perspectives and wide range of behaviors that have been associated with teasing. An interactionist model of teasing communication recognizes the individual qualities, situational characteristics, and relational conditions that together explain teasing. In the pages that follow, the integral perspectives and extant research on teasing are discussed and a precise definition of teasing communication is afforded. Then the interactionist model of teasing communication is presented and explained.

Perspectives of Teasing Communication One general contention is that the nature of teasing communication represents a form of verbal aggression (Infante, 1987a; Infante et al., 1990; Infante et al., 1984; Infante & Wigley, 1986). This body of literature regards teasing behavior as a negative communication message that can be destructive to relationships. Verbal aggression researchers recognize teasing as one type of self-concept

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

341

damaging message (Infante, 1987a; Infante et al., 1990; Infante et al., 1984; Infante & Wigley, 1986). Consistent with Infante and Wigley’s (1986) conception of verbal aggression, Mottet and Thweatt (1997) defined teasing as an “intentional aggressive form of verbal communication that is directed by an agent toward a target with the intent of psychologically hurting the target” (p. 242). From this perspective, teasing represents one means of expressing hostile intentions. Similarly, researchers have defined teasing messages as a type of aversive interpersonal behavior (Kowalski, 2000; Kowalski et al., 2003). Kowalski et al. (2003) define aversive behaviors as negative, mundane acts such as criticizing, embarrassing, and teasing. These behaviors regularly occur in intimate relationships and cause distress and hurt feelings between partners. The verbal aggression and aversive behavior research legitimize teasing as a negative and damaging type of communication. Incongruent with this negative conception is the research that examines idiomatic communication. This body of literature defines teasing as a type of message that contributes positively to interpersonal relationships (Alberts, 1990; Baxter, 1992; Bell & Healey, 1992; Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981). Idiomatic communication includes the intimate codes which reflect the values, rituals, vocabularies, and traditions unique to a relationship (Baxter, 1992). Among these codes lies the personal idiom; a word, phrase, or gesture that has evolved distinctive meaning within a relationship (Bell & Healey, 1992). Baxter (1992) identified teasing as one type of playful personal idiom that is demonstrated between same-sex friends and opposite-sex romantic couples. Similarly, Hopper, Knapp, & Scott (1981) found the friendly teasing insult to be a form of play among married and cohabitating couples. This playful teasing is central to building intimacy and maintaining relationships. Bell and Healey (1992) identified teasing insults as a type of idiom in friendship relationships that allows partners to communicate “in the spirit of play” (p. 313). In a study of college students, Beck et al. (2007) found that teasing was primarily used as a prosocial communication strategy. Students reported “teasing for fun,” “to bond,” and “to cheer the person up” as the most frequent reason for teasing others. Thus, teasing has been established as prosocial and positive. This position might then be viewed as contradicting the negative perspective, or as revealing teasing as a more complex continuum or dimension within relational communication. One explanation for these independent and discrepant definitions of teasing is that various researchers have identified teasing as a communication message, but have not thoroughly explored and fully defined the conceptual domain of teasing. Both aggression and idiomatic communication researchers classify teasing as a communication message demonstrative of these respective areas. The criteria to include teasing as a message type, however, are based on theoretically limited definitions. These two bodies of literature underscore the complexity of teasing and merit further examination. Interpersonal researchers have recognized the possibility that teasing communication can have positive (affectionate) and/or negative (aggressive) expressions in interpersonal communication.

342

Rachel L. DiCioccio

Establishing a conceptual model of teasing allows for a more complete understanding by accommodating both perspectives. Teasing Defined One major concern about the investigation of teasing resides in the nature of existing definitions. To develop a construct, a precise conceptual definition is crucial. Most others have used context- and research-specific definitions to explain and study teasing; definitions that are created to study particular behaviors or populations (Keltner et al., 2001). For example, in a study of first through eleventh graders, Warm (1997) defined teasing as “a deliberate act designed by the teaser to cause tension in the victim, such as anxiety, frustration, anger, humiliation, etc., and it is presented in such a way that the victims can escape if they ‘catch on’ ” (p. 98). To examine how children engage in cross-gender teasing, fighting, and playing, Voss (1997) described teasing as “humorous taunts” (p. 241). Finally, Roth, Coles, and Heimberg (2002) defined teasing as “the experience of receiving verbal taunts about appearance, personality, or behavior” (p. 152). They used this conceptualization in their study of the relationship between childhood teasing memories and adulthood depression. Such daily use definitions, as illustrated here, are limiting. Several definitions prompt a more technical explanation of teasing that not only recognizes the variability of teasing, but offers more utility to study teasing empirically. Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991) characterized teasing as a “personal communication, directed by an agent towards a target that includes three components: aggression, humor, and ambiguity” (p. 460). This definition identifies a continuum of behaviors that can potentially serve as teasing communication. Keltner et al. (2001) further expand what encompasses teasing through defining teasing “as the intentional provocation accompanied by playful markers that together comment on something of relevance to the target of the tease” (p.229). Although these definitions broaden what has primarily been a narrow focus of teasing, it is still difficult to operationalize teasing interactions. This chapter introduces the definition of teasing as the purposeful selection and use of social knowledge in order to position the other as the focus of amusement or jocularity. This conceptual definition attends to the multifaceted, complex nature of teasing (prosocial and antisocial interactions), and provides a means to operationalize teasing across contexts. Most importantly, it suggests and works in conjunction with a conceptual model of teasing. Interactionist View Only limited research has tested any theoretical explanation of teasing. Because teasing is posited as a type of aggressive verbal message, DiCioccio (2001) employed Infante and Wigley’s (1986) aggressive communication model to establish a personality trait framework for understanding the communication

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

343

predisposition toward and the possible outcomes of teasing. DiCioccio (2001) presented a model of teasing following a trait-based approach which suggested that specific personality traits serve as the origin from which the constructive and destructive communication predispositions of teasing are derived. Mixed and inconclusive results suggest that the explanation for teasing communication is not solely grounded in a trait perspective, but also influenced by situational and relational issues. An interactionist model of teasing recognizes the relevance of both source intentions (i.e., the trait aspect of the model) and receiver perceptions (i.e., the situational and relational components of the model). Taking an interactionist approach to conceptualizing teasing communication provides a more complete representation of how and why teasing occurs in relationships. Because a vast array of moderating factors can be applied to personality traits, understanding the origins and significance of different moderating factors should stipulate those that are meaningful in defining teasing from those that are not. Verbal aggression research has employed the interactionist perspective in explaining behavior (Infante, 1987a). Although grounded in personality theory, Infante’s (1987a) model of symbolic aggression takes situational factors into account. Infante (1987b) identified several reasons why there will not always be extremely high cross-situational consistency with regard to verbal aggressiveness trait behavior. First, aggressive cues may be less intense or even absent in a given situation. Second, aggression inhibitors could be present, which would suppress an individual’s motivation to become verbally aggressive. Third, other personal needs may dominate the situation. This suggests that situational components have a direct impact on if, and to what degree, an individual predisposed to verbal aggressiveness will demonstrate such behavior. Both trait and psychodynamic models focus on the measurement of personal factors as the determinants of behavior. Situationism, on the other hand, centers on the influence of the environment in determining a person’s behavior. In an attempt to further the traditional personality research, the interactionist model was introduced to take both personal traits and situational factors into accounting for human behavior (Endler, 1976; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Mischel, 1977). Magnusson (1990) incorporated the three fundamental psychological perspectives of mental, biological, and environmental approaches in explaining the interactional perspective. The premise of these three perspectives suggests that aspects of all three perspectives must be examined simultaneously to provide the most comprehensive explanation for human behavior (Magnusson, 1981, 1984, 1990). Previous psychologically oriented research retains the disciplinary lens centered on the individual with less importance given to other potentially important contributing factors. This perspective tends to reduce interactional components such as nature of the situation, relational connections, and social/ cultural norms. Interactionism implies that not only is a person’s behavior influenced by the situation, but moreover, the person actively seeks situational aspects to serve as

344

Rachel L. DiCioccio

cues for his/her actions (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1977). For example, a person’s stable tendencies toward teasing are influenced by the qualities of the situation and the culture of the relationship. Traits determine a person’s perceptions based on the influence of situational stimuli (Allport, 1937; Berkowitz, 1962). Infante (1987b) also acknowledged that when traits are “energized” by situational factors, they serve to catalyze behavior. That is, “How the situation is perceived interacts with traits to provide behavior in the situation” (Infante, 1987b, p. 308). Burgoon and Dunbar (2000) reiterate this point in their theoretical conceptualization of interpersonal dominance. They suggest that “Contextual features may serve as triggers or release agents that cause predispositions to become behaviorally manifested, or they may suppress tendencies to enact certain behavioral messages” (Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000, p. 98). This view suggests that the behavior in the situation reflects both the individual and the situation-specific variables. Together, their influence can predict the demonstrated behavior more accurately. These considerations, tied to the mixed empirical results from testing a trait model of teasing, led to adopting interactionism as a more forceful theoretical basis to investigate teasing communication.

An Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication To enhance explanatory power, DiCioccio proposes an interactionist model of teasing communication (TCM) (see Figure 19.1). In earlier work, DiCioccio (2001, 2008) noted the limitations of a trait perspective of teasing and suggested moving to a more encompassing interactionist view. The TCM addresses some omissions and limitations of previous models and empirical research by incorporating individual and message process elements, situational characteristics, and relational properties. The first component of the TCM explains source intention. Grounded in personality theory, source intention reflects a person’s stable tendencies toward teasing. The constructive dimension of source intention is composed of the personality trait, attachment, and the communication predisposition, affectionate teasing. The model indicates that affectionate teasing derives from an attachment personality type. The destructive dimension of the model is composed of hostility and aggressive teasing that are the personality trait and communication predisposition respectively. Similarly, aggressive teasing is derived from hostility. This conceptualization identifies attachment and hostility as major personality traits, and affectionate and aggressive teasing as subsets of the traits. Simply put, all affectionate teasing is considered attaching whereas all aggressive teasing is considered hostile. The second aspect of the model represents situational and relational variables that explain receiver perception of teasing communication. Situational norms, expectations as well as relational type, history, and quality all regulate the appropriateness of teasing communication. Considering issues such as the goals of an interaction or perceptions of intimacy and closeness help predict why the act of teasing can be both prosocial and antisocial.

Figure 19.1 Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication.

346

Rachel L. DiCioccio

The last part of the model identifies relationship satisfaction as one outcome of teasing communication. The combination of the source intention and the receiver perception determines the interpretation of the teasing interaction and subsequently influences the relationship. Understanding the impact of teasing communication on the relationship helps to forecast future interactions and the direction of the relationship. The next sections elucidate the specific TCM components.

Source Intention: Communication Predispositions Constructive Dimensions: Attachment and Affectionate Teasing Attachment Attachment represents one facet categorized under the extroversion trait dimension. Attachment is characterized by a strong sense of security and trust in the responsiveness of others (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995). The concept of attachment as an aspect of adult interpersonal relationships emerged from an earlier body of literature focusing on childhood relationships. Attachment theory stems from the melding of biological and social science perspectives on child development (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Attachment is conceptualized as a form of behavior that is part of a drive-system that is essential for survival in early childhood (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Attachment theory explains the bond or relationship that develops between infants and their primary caregiver. Bowlby (1988) defined attachment behavior as “any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the world” (p. 27). Bowlby (1969) conceptualized attachment theory as a trait-based construct. Seeking to explain infant distress, Bowlby (1969) suggested that infants can demonstrate three types of attachment behavior: (a) secure; (b) anxiousresistant; and (c) avoidant. He also suggested that the attachment experienced at infancy and early childhood will serve as the prototype for future adult relationships. Incorporating this basic assumption, researchers have applied attachment theory to adult relationships. The majority of relationship research on attachment employs a trait-based view of attachment style. Scharfe and Bartholomew (1995) suggested that people express their willingness to trust, and openly communicate to maintain close relationships in prototypical ways. Attachment research has been conducted in conjunction with a variety of communication and relationship constructs. The majority of this research focuses on the types or styles of attachment. Hazen and Shaver (1987) examined attachment styles in the context of romantic relationships. They translated the infant attachment process into adult relationships. They maintained that attachment is manifest in three styles: (a) secure;

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

347

(b) anxious/ambivalent; and (c) avoidant. Although originally conceived as a framework for mother/child relationships, these three styles have been instrumental in identifying the relevance of attachment theory to adult relationships. The secure attachment style is characterized by confident emotional expression and a positive self-concept. The anxious/ambivalent style defines people who are needy and insecure with the relationship and themselves. The avoidant style is characterized by more self-reliance and emotional distance from others. Pistole (1989) examined the relationship between attachment styles and conflict management strategies. The results identified significant distinctions among the attachment styles for the types of conflict resolution tactics. Comparisons revealed that people who were identified as secure were more likely to employ an integrated strategy than people with the other two attachment styles. In addition, the securely attached person also reported greater use of the compromising strategy. These findings suggest that attachment is positively related to constructive conflict management strategies such as low verbal aggressiveness and high assertiveness (Pistole, 1989). These conclusions are useful in explaining constructive (affectionate) teasing. Individuals who are high in trait attachment will demonstrate communication that is positive and reaffirming as to the closeness of the relationship. This type of communication includes affectionate teasing. Building on Hazen and Shaver’s (1987) three styles of attachment, Bartholomew (1990) posited four styles to explain attachment more comprehensively. Derived from Bowlby’s (1969) conceptual analysis of internal self and other, Bartholomew (1990) conceptualized attachment according to two underlying dimensions: (a) positive/negative models of self; and (b) positive/ negative models of others. Positive self-models are characterized by a strong sense of self-worth that does not rely on external validation. Positive othermodels demonstrate the expectation regarding the relational partner’s availability and supportiveness (Bartholomew, 1990, 1993). Bartholomew’s model is more comprehensive than the Hazen and Shaver (1987) model for three reasons. First, the model acknowledges that peer/ romantic attachment styles need to be assessed apart from family relationships (Bartholomew, 1993). Second, the model identifies two distinct types of adult avoidance (Bartholomew, 1990). Finally, by incorporating the positivity model of others, the model suggests that an individual’s perceptions influence attachment styles (Bartholomew, 1993). Similar to previous conceptualizations, the model maintains the secure style, but defines three non-secure styles as preoccupied, fearful, and dismissing. Bartholomew (1990, 1993) identified distinct characteristics and qualities that define people for each attachment type. The four attachment styles are distinguished by individuals’ views of themselves and others (Bartholomew, 1993). Secures are people who display high self-esteem and rarely suffer from interpersonal problems. They have great potential for close relationships and are likely to be satisfied with high levels of interdependence between partners. Dismissives lack the motivation and desire to establish intimate relationships.

348

Rachel L. DiCioccio

They maintain their high self-image by distancing themselves from others. Fearful-avoidants shy away from close relationships because they feel too vulnerable. Although they have a strong need to depend on someone, the fear of rejection is overwhelming. The last type is the preoccupied style. People who have a preoccupied attachment style are overly dependent on the relationship and suffer from a high need to gain others’ approval. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) tested the four-category model in the context of adult friendships. Through the use of self and other reports, the four attachment styles were validated. This study also underscored the versatility of the model because it was applicable to both family and peer settings. These attachment style conceptualizations are useful because they evince applicability to a variety of relationship domains. The four-quadrant classification of attachment styles has been examined in conjunction with other relationship variables. Simon and Baxter (1993) examined the connection between attachment style and relational maintenance strategies. They found that the prosocial strategies of assurance and romance are more likely to be enacted by securely attached individuals. Feeney and Noller (1990, 1991) found that secure persons have experienced romantic relationships of a longer duration than non-secure attachment types. Guerrero and Burgoon (1996) applied attachment theory as a framework for studying approach/ avoidance behaviors between people. They examined attachment styles in relation to nonverbal involvement. The relationship between reciprocity and compensation and attachment styles revealed that preoccupieds were distinguished from the other attachment styles by their high tendency to consistently reciprocate nonverbal involvement in order to compensate for low involvement in their relationships. This literature has several implications for the Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication. First, the research clearly supports the conclusion that attachment is a constructive personality trait that influences the dynamic of interpersonal relationships. Second, because evidence supports a link between positive verbal behavior (especially in conflict situations) and positive relational outcomes, then affectionate teasing can be justified as a constructive predisposition to maintain secure attachment. Affectionate Teasing Affectionate teasing is defined as a constructive form of verbal communication. The affectionate dimension of teasing is characterized by communication that is positive and playful. In the Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication, affectionate teasing is conceptualized as a subset of attachment. Affectionate teasing is defined as the predisposition to use playful joking, regarding personal and/or relationship issues, as a means of expressing positive affect. Consistent with Alberts’ (1990) definition of teasing as kidding and playful behavior, affectionate teasing reflects communication that is enjoyed by both participants. Derived from the personality trait of attachment, affectionate

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

349

teasing reflects a person’s need to influence positively the relationship. Affectionate teasing can be used to express bonding or closeness, to increase perceived immediacy, and to create a more relaxed environment. The possible conversation topics for this type of teasing can range from public to intimate. Teasing is classified as affectionate based on the norms of the relationship. This suggests that even extremely personal issues can be topics for affectionate teasing if it is deemed acceptable by both participants. The outcomes of the affectionate dimension are beneficial to the relationship. This type of teasing is pleasurable and amusing to both participants, and is used regularly to maintain and enhance a positive relationship. Destructive Dimensions: Hostility and Aggressive Teasing Hostility Hostility is a destructive personality trait derived from the neuroticism dimension of personality in the NEO-3 model. Costa and McCrae (1980) defined it as a “generalized conceptualization of the affect of anger” (p. 93). It manifests itself in aggressive communication and behavior (Buss & Durkee, 1957). It is similar to verbal aggression in that verbal hostility constitutes one of the dimensions of the hostility construct (Buss & Durkee, 1957). Zillmann (1979) characterized hostility as an eagerness to act aggressively toward another. Hostility is distinguished from verbal aggression by recognizing the implicit nature of hostility and the explicit nature of verbal aggression. Hostility is typically less overt than verbal aggression. Although hostility is not necessarily verbalized, verbal aggression is inherently vocal (Buss, 1961). The connection between hostility and verbal aggression is strongly supported. For this reason, it is logical to define hostility as the general personality trait from which aggressive teasing is derived. Although the type of aggressive communication is different, by nature, the relationship between hostility and aggressive teasing is still maintained. Aggressive Teasing Aggressive teasing is defined as a destructive form of teasing communication. In the Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication, aggressive teasing is conceptualized as a subset of hostility. Aggressive teasing is defined as the predisposition to harass a person, regarding personal and/or relationship issues, with the intention of causing psychological harm. Aggressive teasing can be used as an expression of anger regarding a specific issue or overall discontent with the other person or relationship. Similar to verbal aggression, aggressive teasing centers around issues related to the other person’s self-concept. Aggressive teasing includes behaviors that are intended to be negative, and are of an offensive nature. Mottet and Thweatt’s (1997) definition of teasing corresponds to this dimension. The concept of

350

Rachel L. DiCioccio

psychological harm or pain accomplished by verbal aggression is associated with the aggressive teasing dimension. This type of teasing can be interpreted as a way of mocking, badgering, or debasing another person. The outcomes of aggressive teasing can be damaging and detrimental to the relationship.

Receiver Perception: Situational and Relational Variables The second part of the TCM introduces the concept of receiver perception. The degree to which teasing is interpreted as affectionate or aggressive is a function of the receiver’s perception of the teasing communication. In other words, the type of teasing the source intended is insufficient to define the act, but when combined with the receiver’s interpretation of the communication, one determines if teasing is affectionate or aggressive. This interpretation (receiver’s perception of teasing) is guided by the receiver’s schemata or sense of relational and situational appropriateness. Appropriateness Appropriateness has been studied extensively in the context of communication competence (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987, 1989; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). When coupled with effectiveness, appropriateness determines an individual’s degree of communication competence. Appropriateness reflects the suitableness or correctness of communication. The situation or context of an interaction presents a set of conditions that prescribe what is appropriate and inappropriate for a given circumstance. The specific qualities that define a relationship also contribute to perceptions of appropriateness. Circumstances such as the type of interpersonal relationship (i.e., intimate, friendship) and the stage or duration of the relationship designate what constitutes appropriate/inappropriate communication. Relational Appropriateness The dynamic nature of relationships provides valuable insight into teasing behavior. Communication behaviors are deciphered and judged in part, through the lens of the interpersonal relationship of the interactants involved. The act of teasing another is a relational process. People engage in teasing because of a connection or familiarity with the target. In analyzing narrative accounts of teasing, Kowalski (2000) found that none of the 144 accounts of either teasing others or being teased involved strangers. This underscores the idea that “social knowledge” is crucial in driving teasing interactions. Knowledge of both the other person and the relationship is necessary for the teasing act to work or be plausible, as affectionate or aggressive. Relational qualities like closeness and intimacy as well as history and duration collectively establish a set of expectations that dictate how teasing is construed by the target. When there is greater conversance and experience

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

351

between interactants, the target is more likely to perceive teasing as positive and affectionate (Alberts, 1992). According to Aronson et al. (2007), “understanding the boundaries of acceptable teasing is required to engage in playful teasing” (p. 170). These boundaries and awareness of these boundaries develop and evolve with the interpersonal relationship. The developmental stages of a relationship may also contribute to perceptions of teasing communication. Perceptions and attributions impact relationship development (Clark & Reis, 1988). Teasing may be a communication behavior linked to issues of commitment, attraction, and maintenance. For example, affectionate teasing could result in higher commitment and attraction, whereas aggressive teasing diminishes commitment and attraction over the course of a relationship. Situational Appropriateness A communication situation is the composite of physical, temporal, and psychological features linked to a specific instance (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996). Situational factors include norms and rules of behavior, physical setting, and the roles of the interactants. Such situational dimensions potentially influence perceptions of teasing. Aronson et al. (2007) found that students hold distinct prescriptive norms concerning inappropriate topics for playful teasing. They speculate that knowing what is culturally acceptable teasing is “critical social knowledge” (p. 175). Keltner et al. (2001) suggest that the formality of a situation dictates the degree of face concerns. The more formal the situation, the more prominent the face concerns of both participants. They hypothesize that the degree of face concerns associated with the formality of the situation predicts perceptions of teasing. We can infer, then, that in a highly formal situation, such as a business group meeting, both teaser and target will be more conscious whether or not highly personalized teasing would be proscribed. In the model, teasing communication is a function of communication predispositions derived from personality traits, coupled with the relational and situational appropriateness determined via the receiver’s perceptions. The possibility then exists for the source’s teasing intentions and the receiver’s perceptions to be either congruent or incongruent. The incongruence of note occurs when affectionate teasing is relationally or situationally inappropriate and consequently perceived as aggressive teasing. For example, in a newly established romantic relationship, a partner might intend the use of a derogatory nickname to express affectionate teasing. However, due to the receiver’s perception of what is appropriate for this natal stage of their relationship, the message is interpreted as aggressive teasing.

Teasing Communication Outcomes The last component of the TCM proposes that relationship satisfaction is one outcome of teasing communication. Infante (1987a) identified relationship satisfaction as a key communication outcome that is useful in assessing aggressive

352

Rachel L. DiCioccio

communication traits. Unfortunately, the intent to harass and embarrass the other often results in negative and damaging effects for the interactants (Aronson et al., 2007). Aggressive teasing diminishes relationship satisfaction by causing partners to be unhappy with themselves, each other, and the quality of their relationship. This communication outcome explains the influence of affectionate and aggressive teasing in interpersonal relationships. At the same time, relationship satisfaction moderates perceptions of relational and situational appropriateness. In other words, how satisfied partners are in the relationship will influence what is relationally and situationally appropriate. As relationship satisfaction increases, the more likely it is that the breadth and depth of what is appropriate will expand. Relationship satisfaction reflects the perception that a person’s needs are being met by both the partner and the relationship itself (Kelley, 1979). One motivation to develop interpersonal relationships is to experience positive interactions. The greater the amount of positive interactions, the greater the relationship satisfaction (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994). Beck et al. (2007) found that college students viewed teasing as positive and enhancing their social relationships. Relationship satisfaction is the resultant of teasing communication that is intended and interpreted constructively. Specifically, affectionate teasing enhances dyadic perceptions by increasing bonding and intimacy. Integrating outcomes in a teasing communication model enlarges its explanatory and predictive power beyond the locus of the individual.

Conclusions The interactional model of teasing communication presented in this chapter advances our understanding of teasing and provides a stable framework for empirical investigation. The definition of teasing as the purposeful selection and use of social knowledge in order to position the other as the focus of amusement or jocularity encompasses the wide-ranging types of teasing and accounts for the varying intentions that motivate teasing interaction. The TCM synthesizes central bodies of research and integrates multiple perspectives to present a cohesive elucidation of teasing communication. The TCM expands our conceptualization of teasing from the communication behavior that resides in one individual to dimensionalize both of the interactants, the situation, and the relational aspects.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Alberts, J. K. (1990). The use of humor in managing couples’ conflict interactions. In D. D. Cahn (Eds.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 105–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

353

Alberts, J. K. (1992). An inferential/strategic explanation for the social organization of teasing. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 153–177. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Aronson, E., Biegler, H., Bond, B., Clark, R. A., Drogos, K., Garcia, M. A., Gleisner, S. G., Hendee, A., Licciardello, V., Linder, S. C., Mannone, S., Marshall, L., Pham, V., Porter, R., Scott, A. M., Volkmann, J. M., & Yahn, A. (2007). Norms for teasing among college students. Communication Research Reports, 24, 169–176. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–78. Bartholomew, K. (1993). From childhood to adult relationships: Attachment theory and research. In S. Duck (Eds.), Learning about relationships (pp. 30–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 18, 336–363. Beck, S., Clabough, S. E., Clark, R. A., Kosovski, M. C., Daar, R., Hefner, V., Kmetz, T., McDaniel, S., Miller, L., Moriarty, C., Qian, Z., Raja, S., Ramey, M., & Suri, R. (2007). Teasing among college men and women. Communication Studies, 58, 157–172. Bell, R. A., & Healey, J. G. (1992). Idiomatic communication and interpersonal solidarity in friends’ relational cultures. Human Communication Research, 18, 307–335. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGrawHill. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill. Burgoon, J. K. & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominancesubmission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 67, 96–121. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343–349. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). A model of perceived competence of conflict strategies. Communication Research, 15, 630–649. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. In M, R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology. (Vol. 39, pp. 609–672). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Bates & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65–102) New York: Academic Press. DiCioccio, R. L. (2001). The development and validation of the teasing communication scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH. DiCioccio, R. L. (2008). The development and validation of the teasing communication scale. Human Communication, 11, 261–278.

354

Rachel L. DiCioccio

Endler, N. S. (1976). The case for person-situation interactions. In N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Interactional psychology and personality (pp. 58–71). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Personality and person by situation interactions. In N. S. Endler & D. Magnusson (Eds.), Interactional psychology and personality (pp. 1–27). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1991). Attachment style and verbal descriptions of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 187–215. Guerrero, L. K., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Attachment styles and reactions to nonverbal involvement change in romantic dyads. Human Communication Research, 22, 335–370. Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31, 23–33. Infante, D. A. (1987a). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1987b). Enhancing the prediction of response to a communication situation from communication traits. Communication Quarterly, 35, 308–316. Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67–77. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelley, H. H. (1987). Toward a taxonomy of interpersonal conflict process. In S. Oskamp, & S. Spacapan (Eds.), Interpersonal processes (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–248. Kowalski, R. M. (2000). “I was only kidding!”: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231–241. Kowalski, R. M., Walker, S., Wilkinson, R., Queen, A., & Sharpe, B. (2003). Lying, cheating, complaining and other aversive interpersonal behaviors: A narrative examination of the darker side of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 471–490. Magnusson, D. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations: An interactionist perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Magnusson, D. (1984). The situation in an interactional paradigm of personality. In V. Sarris & A. Parducci (Eds.), Perspective in psychological experimentation: Toward the year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Magnusson, D. (1990). Personality: Development from an interactional perspective. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 193–222). New York: Guilford.

The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication

355

Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 1–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the cross-roads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mottet, T. P., & Thweatt, K. S. (1997). The relationship between peer teasing, selfesteem and affect. Communication Research Reports, 14, 241–248. Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 505–510. Roth, D. A., Coles, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2002). The relationship between memories for childhood teasing and anxiety and depression in adulthood. Anxiety Disorders, 16, 149–164. Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment process and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Staford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). New York: Academic Press. Scharfe, E. & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and attachment representations in young couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 389–401. Shapiro, J.P., Baumeister, R. F., & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three component model of children’s teasing: Aggression, humor, and ambiguity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 459–472. Simon, E. P., & Baxter, L. A. (1993). Attachment style differences in relationship maintenance strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 416–430. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Voss, L. S. (1997). Teasing, disputing, and playing: Cross-gender interactions and space utilization among first and third graders. Gender & Society, 11, 238–256. Warm, T. R. (1997). The role of teasing in development and vice versa. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, 97–101. Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Section III

Factors Influencing Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict Communication

Chapter 20

Tolerance for Disagreement Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

One of the most common factors in human communication is disagreement between communicators. It is rare that two people agree on everything. Interactions in dyads and interactions in groups commonly include disagreement. Some scholars who study groups argue that if there are no disagreements, there are no reasons for people in organizations to communicate in groups. Of course this excludes communicating for recreational purposes. Some scholars have viewed disagreement as the same thing as conflict, and a negative element in human communication. Many studies have failed to differentiate between conflict leading to negative interpersonal outcomes and purposeful disagreement which often leads to better decisions and other positive outcomes. Disagreement is common, and its results do not have to be destructive (Coser, 1956). Disagreement can be, and frequently is, constructive (Deutsch, 1973). Disagreement, therefore, should be thought of as a core element of human communication. It is the way we find out that our thoughts are, or are not, shared by others. Disagreement, then, is a positive aspect of communication in everyday life. Hovatter (1997) suggests that disagreement has at least six positive outcomes: generates new ideas, finds better ways of doing things, permits change, generates innovations, leads to better use of resources, and develops new skills. People can disagree on many things. These include facts, the interpretation of facts, the importance of facts, what the facts imply, or what we should do because of the facts. People can also disagree on procedures for making decisions or whether they should even discuss things on which they agree, disagree, or are not sure. Potential disagreement is everywhere. Most of the disagreements in which we engage do not lead to conflict, unless other factors are present. While disagreement can be a very positive aspect of human communication, not all people can tolerate disagreement equally well. In a study reported by Teven, Richmond, and McCroskey (1998) it was determined that tolerance for disagreement (TFD) was normally distributed in the population, much like most other personality and temperament traits. In a more recent study by Katt, McCroskey, Sivo, and Richmond (2009), it was determined that TFD is correlated with several temperament traits; positive with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness; and negative with neuroticism and

360

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

psychoticism. Thus, a high TFD scale score should be viewed as a positive characteristic while a low TFD score should be considered to be a negative one. A moderate TFD score indicates a moderate characteristic.

TFD and Conflict “Disagreement is not conflict” (McCroskey & Wheeless, 1976, p. 247.) Many of the authors in this area in the 1970s did not make that distinction (e.g. Burgoon, Heston, & McCroskey, 1974). Unfortunately, many authors concerned with conflict still make this mistake. They continue to employ the terms “good conflict” and “bad conflict” initiated by Burgoon, Heston, and McCroskey (1974). Knutson, McCroskey, Knutson, and Hurt (1979) challenged the usefulness of the “good conflict”/“bad conflict” approach. After trying to teach students about disagreement and conflict, to both undergraduates and older people with full-time jobs, they dropped that approach. The good/bad conflict distinction confused these people. A theory’s value is inversely related to the degree to which the theory employs “lay language” in ways in which lay people use that language. Clearly, these lay people saw “conflict” as a term that is characterized by negative affect, so referencing “good conflict” did not make any sense to them. Writers do not agree with one another as to what “conflict” actually is. However, an examination of several dictionaries indicates substantial agreement on their part. They define conflict with terms such as “fight,” “combat,” and “struggle.” In contrast, Lewis (1980) defines conflict as “disagreement between two or more people.” Richmond and McCroskey (2009) suggest simply that “disagreement is a difference of opinion between persons.” This definition implies that disagreement and conflict do not even necessarily have to be related to each other. Any amount of disagreement can exist without triggering conflict. McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) employed the concept of TFD to explain the threshold individuals have for dealing with interpersonal conflict. They saw that disagreement does not necessarily lead to conflict. Even when people are strongly disagreeing with one another, many can communicate without going into conflict. They argued that conflict is the product of negative affect between people, not necessarily a product of disagreement. In their view one of the causes which lead people to enter conflict is a low degree of affinity (liking) between the communicators. With an increase in affinity, people become more likely to be able to avoid going into conflict.

What is Disagreement and Tolerance for Disagreement? Disagreement is a Good Thing, Unless Communicators Make it a Bad Thing McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) used the term “disagreement” to refer to “differences of opinion on issues” and “conflict” to refer to communication which

Tolerance for Disagreement

361

includes verbal aggression on the part of one or more people and where the interaction is characterized by “competition, hostility, suspicion, and distrust.” They saw the nature of the relationship between communicators as key to whether interactions which include disagreement escalate into conflict. When people disagree with one another but do not personalize their interaction, they are involved in “disagreement.” However, when disagreement is personalized it becomes verbal aggression and the interaction becomes “conflict.” Employing balance theory, they argued that people who like one another will be slower to introduce verbal aggression into their interaction, but if they have less affinity for each other they are more likely to introduce verbal aggression/personal attacks into their communication which moves them into conflict. Conflict is a bad thing. Knutson et al. (1979) expanded the McCroskey and Wheeless conceptualization. They suggested that disagreements about substantive and procedural matters were just that, disagreements, unless personal issues became involved. When the personal issues are present, according to these authors, we have conflict. Sometimes this is refereed to as “interpersonal conflict.” This view, of course, is much closer to the lay view than the previous theoretical positions which had been advanced. Knutson et al. (1979) recognized that not everyone in an interaction would agree as to when an interaction moves from disagreement into conflict, nor would all observers agree when conflict begins. They posited the existence of an individual difference variable that would produce these differential perceptions. They referred to this individual perception tendency as “tolerance for disagreement (TFD),” and suggested that people would likely be highly diverse in their degrees of TFD. Prior to the work of Knutson et al. (1979), several of these authors had worked on a measure of what was named “Tolerance for Conflict (TFC)” They recognized that it was TFD in which they were interested, not TFC. Several of the items on the measure they had developed included the term “conflict.” Even though the measure generated high reliability, this fact made it clear that the measure was not valid. The measure was discarded and not replaced until Teven, Richmond, and McCroskey (1998) produced the currently employed Tolerance for Disagreement (TFD) scale. We will discuss this new measure later.

The Relationship Between TFD and Conflict McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) argued that TFD, given it is a product of the interaction between people, is essentially a relational variable and should be treated as such. Knutson et al. (1979) viewed the TFD construct to represent an individual difference orientation, not a relational one. They used this approach to help explain why some individuals are prone to become involved in conflict situations while others are not. They defined TFD as “a disagreement of opinion on substantive or procedural matters.” They defined “conflict” as “disagreement plus negative interpersonal affect” (Knutson et al., 1979, p. 4). This was consistent with the McCroskey and Wheeless (1976) view that the

362

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

level of affinity between communicators determines whether conflict is generated or not. They expanded on this view by suggesting that conflict between people can be viewed as the opposite or antithesis of affinity. Interpersonal conflict is the breaking down of attraction and the development of repulsion, the dissolution of perceived homophily, and the increased perception of incompatible, irreconcilable differences, the loss of perceptions of credibility, and the development of disrespect. Ellis and Fisher (1975) suggested a pattern of stages as TFD declines which they refer to as a developmental approach to conflict. The first stage is characterized by interpersonal conflict, followed by a second phase labeled confrontation, and culminating in a third phase labeled substantive conflict. Individuals differ in the extent to which they can tolerate disagreement, and thus, some avoid entering into conflict and some initiate it. When disagreement is taken personally, conflict is created. The likelihood that a person will stimulate a conflict depends on whether the person has low, medium, or high tolerance for disagreement. People with a high tolerance for disagreement are relatively conflict-resistant, whereas those with low tolerance for disagreement are highly conflict-prone. Those with medium tolerance for disagreement will be inconsistent: depending on the context they may or may not stimulate conflict. Thus, tolerance for disagreement can be defined as “the amount of disagreement an individual can tolerate before he or she perceives the existence of conflict in the relationship.”

Why Do People Differ in TFD? At this point one guess is about as good as any other. This is an area in which there has been a lot of speculation but very little solid scientific research basis. Some of the speculations suggest that TFD is something that people learn in their everyday life as a function of parental influence, school instruction, peer influence, religion, culture, etc. To our knowledge there is little scientific data to support this view. However, Lamude and Torres (2000) have reported that a person’s supervisor may influence the TFD of her/his subordinates. In their research they found that supervisors who employ referent, expertise, and reward-based power have subordinates who have higher tolerance for disagreement, while those who employ legitimate and punishment-based power have subordinates who have lower tolerance for disagreement. Unfortunately, this research does not indicate whether the supervisors’ behavior or the subordinates’ behavior is the causal factor in this relationship. Some other speculations suggest that people are just born with their level of TFD—it is genetic. There is scant scientific research recently published that points in this direction. Katt et al. (2009) recently completed a study that was conducted to compare two methods of measuring temperament, one for the Big Three and one for the Big Five. Criterion variables for the test included assertiveness, responsiveness, argumentativeness, and tolerance for disagreement. We report here only the results involving TFD.

Tolerance for Disagreement

363

Findings indicate that the Big Five dimensions of extraversion and openness to experience were positively correlated with TFD while agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were negatively correlated with TFD. As to the Big Five measures, psychoticism and extraversion are positively correlated with TFD and neuroticism is negatively correlated with TFD. The variance accounted for with the Big Five measures is R = .24, and for the Big Three measures is R = .17. It is known that these temperament variables have strong genetic bases. These results do establish that the temperament variables are related to TFD. This suggests that these variables probably have a genetic base also, but these data do not provide for such a conjecture. And even if we can confirm the relationship, it doesn’t explain where the missing variance accounted for rests. It could be learning, it could just be weakness of the measures employed, or it could be some other unknown factor. The answer to our question rests in future scientific research.

The Negative View of Conflict Some people think that conflict can be a positive event. This is an extension of the “good conflict” construct. We do not accept this view because it is really high tolerance for disagreement that is the positive element conceptualized here, not any form of positive conflict. As has been suggested previously, some people view conflict as a very negative element in human communication. We concur with that view. This view was propagated by McCroskey and Wheeless (1976). They described the impact of conflict as follows: “Conflict between people can be viewed as the opposite or antithesis of affinity. In this sense, interpersonal conflict is the breaking down of attraction and the development of repulsion, the dissolution of perceived homophily (similarity) and the increased perception of incompatible differences, the loss of perceptions of credibility and the development of disrespect” (p. 247). McCroskey and Richmond (1996) expanded on that view: . . . conflict is characterized by hostility, distrust, suspicion, and antagonism. If we really like another person in our work environment and that feeling is reciprocal, the incidence of conflict is greatly reduced, and when it looks as if it might occur, one or both of the participants are likely to realize that the relationship is more important than conflict and move to resolve their disagreement. (p. 261) They conclude by suggesting that conflict is simply a combination of disagreement that has the added dimension of negative affect. Conflict is the product of communication. What, when, where, and how we communicate with others is critical in determining the way others respond to

364

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

us. Similarly, what, when, where, and how others communicate are critical factors in determining the ways that we are likely to respond to other people. Each of us is different. One of those differences is in the way we deal with disagreement. Most people are not really sensitive to their own way of dealing with disagreement, much less understanding of why others are likely to communicate in a given way. The way we deal with disagreement depends on various things. The culture in which we were raised, the culture we live in, our previous experiences with others, what we have learned in school/church/home, and even our genetic structures are involved as well as many more elements. It is not likely that people will change others’ tolerance for disagreement, but one can have some control of their own tolerance for disagreement. The key to developing a high level of tolerance for disagreement is the development of good interpersonal relationships with others. The more people like and respect others, the less likely they will find themselves in conflict with those others. However, one should not assume that one can avoid conflict completely. When issues related to major concerns are being discussed, the likelihood of conflict is greatly increased.

Tolerance for Disagreement and Related Communication Traits Research has indicated that one’s level of tolerance for disagreement is related to other communication traits. Many communication traits are likely to impact on our predisposition to have a high, moderate, or low tolerance for disagreement. Scientific research has not yet identified all of these. One that we are sure of is the trait of “argumentativeness,” which is discussed in detail throughout this book. Considering three levels of argumentativeness (i.e., high, moderate, and low), tolerance for disagreement levels should be conceptualized similarly. High argumentatives tend to have high tolerance for disagreement, low argumentatives tend to have low tolerance for disagreement, and moderate argumentatives tend to have moderate tolerance for disagreement. Individuals who are high in argumentativeness enjoy arguing and debating and usually have relatively high argumentative and debate skills. Often these individuals argue as recreation. In contrast, individuals who are low in argumentativeness dislike having to argue or debate an issue. These individuals tend to have low argumentative skills and try to avoid having to argue or debate. Since they have low skills, they are more likely to lose when they attempt to argue or debate. Their lack of these skills may cause them to react to the more skilled individuals with verbal aggression (which also is discussed in detail throughout this book) because they are, or think they are, losing the argument. Verbal aggression leads directly to conflict. This also is likely to occur when high or moderate argumentatives choose to start an argument or debate with those who have less skill (e.g., just for the fun of it). The low argumentative feels he/she is being attacked, and that he/she has only one defense, verbal aggression (or less commonly, physical aggression).

Tolerance for Disagreement

365

In a more recent study, Madlock, Kennedy-Lightsey, and Myers (2007) suggested that people who have lower tolerance for disagreement might tend to dislike working in groups more than those with higher tolerance for disagreement. The result of that study indicated that this is the case. However, the relationship was not strong (r = −.28). In that study the researchers also found that argumentativeness (r = −.21) and tolerance for ambiguity (r = −.21) were negatively correlated with participating in group activities. The cumulative variance accounted for by these three trait variables was 16 percent. The researchers suggest that other factors appear to impact attitudes toward working in groups.

Preventing Conflict Most people think that the most desirable situation is one where everyone has high tolerance for disagreement, maintains this level of TFD throughout every situation, everyone likes everyone else, and no conflict exists. In reality, such a situation is rare if not impossible to find. Figure 20.1 illustrates this idealistic situation. Simply put, the figure describes a state where everyone has very high tolerance for all situations, and everyone has perfect interpersonal relationships with everyone else.

Figure 20.1 Relationships of TFD and Positive Affect with Probability of Conflict.

366

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

With perhaps one exception, which we consider later, we are always going to have at least some people with very low tolerance for disagreement, and some who can’t establish good relations with some or all other people; as a result, some degree of conflict is going to exist. Figure 20.2 illustrates the kind of situation more likely to exist in most situations. While there is some tolerance for disagreement and some good relationships among some people, conflict will still be present. Whether our communication situation is that of a meeting in a business organization, a sports team preparing for competition, or a family discussing potential vacation options, all of these elements are likely to be present. In some situations we may have people interacting who have a “team” orientation. Figure 20.3 illustrates this situation. In this illustration, the person realizes that not everything is going to go their way when decisions are made, they may not have great respect for a team member but recognize the need to work with that person; everyone treats others the way they expect to be treated themselves, and is sensitive to the fact that everyone will benefit if they can all come to rational decisions. Under such situations, conflict will be reduced substantially. The nightmare situation, which is all too common, is when everyone is out to get their own way with no concern for the views or concerns of others. The

Figure 20.2 Relationships of TFD and Positive Affect with Probability of Conflict.

Tolerance for Disagreement

367

Figure 20.3 Relationships of TFD and Positive Affect with Probability of Conflict.

dominant people are those with low tolerance for disagreement, the views of others are disregarded, people don’t care if there are major conflicts, and people dislike one another. Figure 20.4 illustrates this situation.

The Negative Solution to Conflict (Groupthink) Those scholars who focus on the bad conflict versus good conflict dichotomy suggest a very simple model with two extremes or a single continuum ranging from bad conflict (with hostilility and defensive communication) to good conflict (with communication being encouraged and opinions exchanged). If things actually worked that way it would be pleasant. However, in the real world, it doesn’t work that way. In our view there are three, not two, elements on the continuum. Conflict is at one end of the continuum and “Groupthink” is at the other end of the continuum, with Disagreement in the middle. While disagreement is a necessary element in human communication in the real world, particularly when decisions need to be made, it is not always exhibited in positive ways. Not everyone has high tolerance for disagreement, nor do people with moderate tolerance for disagreement always communicate in positive ways. Of course those with low tolerance for disagreement will often avoid

368

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

Figure 20.4 Relationships of TFD and Positive Affect with Probability of Conflict.

disagreeing even when others promote poor ideas. These people simply do not want to argue. And most important, sometimes no one speaks out even when the issue raised has very high negative outcomes which might come about if it is approved. This is when the third step in our continuum dominates. This is known as “groupthink.” The term “groupthink” was coined by Irving Janis (1971). He indicates that groupthink exists when “concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action (p. 43).” More simply, groupthink exists when virtually everyone in a group is unwilling to disagree with others in order to maintain their own status in the group. Our theoretic position is that conflict and groupthink are equally evil and only tolerance for disagreement allows for effective communication and the making of good decisions. When people are mostly working to maintain their status (or improve it) or doing their best to prevent verbalization of disagreement they are working against the best interest of the group or dyad with which they are involved.

Tolerance for Disagreement

369

The Tolerance for Disagreement Scale (TFD) In order to do scientific research on Tolerance for Disagreement, it was necessary to develop a reliable and valid measurement instrument. The Tolerance for Disagreement Scale was developed for this purpose. This scale is designed to measure the degree to which an individual can tolerate other people disagreeing with what the individual believes to be true. Reliability estimates (alphas) for the scale have been around .85 in most of the studies reported. The face validity of the scale is good and it has performed well in several studies, producing expected scores, which also suggests the validity of the scale. The instructions we use with the scale are as follows: This questionnaire involves people’s feelings and orientations. Hence, there are no right or wrong answers. We just want you to indicate your reaction to each item. All responses are to reflect the degree to which you believe the item applies to you. Please use the following system to indicate the degree to which you agree that the item describes you: 5 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Undecided; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Strongly Disagree 1. It is more fun to be involved in a discussion where there is a lot of disagreement. 2. I enjoy talking to people with points of view different than mine. 3. I don’t like to be in situations where people are in disagreement. 4. I prefer being in groups where everyone’s beliefs are the same as mine. 5. Disagreements are generally helpful. 6. I prefer to change the topic of discussion when disagreement occurs. 7. I tend to create disagreements in conversations because it serves a useful purpose. 8. I enjoy arguing with other people about things on which we disagree. 9. I would prefer to work independently rather than to work with other people and have disagreements. 10. I would prefer joining a group where no disagreements occur. 11. I don’t like to disagree with other people. 12. Given a choice, I would leave a conversation rather than continue a disagreement. 13. I avoid talking with people who I think will disagree with me. 14. I enjoy disagreeing with others. 15. Disagreement stimulates a conversation and causes me to communicate more.

370

Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey

Scoring: Step 1. Add the scores for the following items: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15. Step 2. Add the scores for the following items: 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Step 3. Complete the following formula: TFD = 38 + total of step 1 − total of Step 2. Scores above 46 indicate High TFD. Scores below 32 indicate Low TFD. Scores between 32 and 46 indicate moderate TFD.

Conclusion If you are highly aggressive and/or argumentative, and have a moderate or low TFD score, you may need to work hard to have more TFD to avoid conflict. If you are very low on aggressiveness and/or argumentativeness, and have a moderate or high TFD score, you may need to work to be less TFD to avoid groupthink. Remember, it is almost impossible to change other people’s personalities or temperaments. Hence, you are responsible for moderating your own personality and temperament to avoid communication problems with others. If you won’t moderate your communication, and those other people cannot or will not do so, they will lead you into conflict or groupthink which is related to a myriad to dysfunctional consequences.

References Burgoon, M., Heston, J. K., & McCroskey, J. C. (1974). Small group communication: A functional approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1975). Phases in conflict in small group development: A Markov analysis. Human Communication Research, 1, 195–212. Hovatter, D. (1997). Understanding Conflict and Disagreement. Cooperative Extension Service: WL 353, West Virginia University. Janis, I. L. (Nov. 1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 43–46, 74–77. Katt, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Sivo, S. A., & Richmond, V. P. (2009, under review). Big Three vs. Big Five: A Side by Side Comparison. Knutson, P. K., McCroskey, J. C., Knutson T., & Hurt, H. (1979). Tolerance for disagreement: Interpersonal conflict reconceptualized. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Western Speech Communication, Los Angeles. Lamude, K. G., & Torres, P. (2000). Supervisors’ tactics of influence and subordinates’ tolerance for disagreement. Psychological Reports, 87, 1050–1052. Lewis, P. V. (1980). Organizational communication: The essence of effective management. (2nd ed.), Columbia, OH: Grid Publishing. Madlock, P. E., Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., & Myers, S. A. (2007). Employees’ communication attitudes and dislike for working in a group. Psychological Reports, 101, 1037–1040.

Tolerance for Disagreement

371

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina. MN: Burgess International. McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interpersonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press McCroskey, J. C., & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). An introduction to human communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Organizational communication for survival: Making work, work. (4th ed.), Boston: Allen & Bacon. Teven, J. J., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Measuring tolerance for disagreement. Communication Research Reports, 15, 209–217.

Chapter 21

Taking Conflict Personally and its Connections with Aggressiveness Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

Nearly every book that gives people advice on how to manage their personal or professional conflicts urges them not to take the conflicts personally. The very ubiquity of the advice is itself evidence that this dysfunctional emotional reaction is widespread. Oftentimes the advice is rather superficial, amounting mainly to “quit it,” leaving the impression that the dysfunction is also superficial and can be changed as easily as one might reformat a job resume. This simplicity misses a key point, namely that consistent emotional reactions arise from stable personality traits, which may in turn be related to one’s upbringing and perhaps even one’s genetic inheritance. People who ordinarily take conflict personally are reflecting and projecting their whole life experiences onto the episode. We believe that these emotional reactions can be controlled by selfdiscipline in the moment, and perhaps can be more permanently changed by some sort of counseling intervention or deep introspection, combined with a commitment to change. But people who take conflict personally do so for reasons, emotional or autobiographical, and these need to be addressed if a person is to make progress in this respect. The first step in amelioration is knowledge, and the purpose of this chapter is to explore what is known about personalization of conflict. Given the focus of this book, we will concentrate on how personalization relates to aggression. In about 1990, Hample and Dallinger began a program of research on taking conflict personally. Their first step was to conceptualize the idea, and then to operationalize it as a set of self-reports. Hample and Dallinger (1995) dealt with those matters and published the current scales for the first time. They considered that taking conflict personally (TCP) was a complex experience and therefore a multidimensional concept. Certainly it involved affective reactions to conflict, but also some cognitive projections or expectations about it. Both the affective and cognitive experiences of TCP were thought to have different dimensions. In all, they decided that TCP has six elements, and these conceptualizations and operationalizations continue in use. The first dimension is direct personalization, which, as its name suggests, is the most immediate measure of the underlying idea. People indicate the degree to which they agree with items such as “It really hurts my feelings to be criticized,” and “Conflict is a very personal

Taking Conflict Personally

373

thing for me.” The second subscale in the TCP battery is persecution feelings. It is one thing to take conflict personally; it is a more pointed thing to perceive that the very aim of the conflict is to assault you in some way. Sample items include “In conflict discussions I often feel that other people are trying very hard to make sure that I lose,” and “Conflict situations leave me feeling victimized.” The third subscale, stress reaction, is also aimed at an especially focused sort of personalization reaction. This subscale asks people to indicate whether they feel marked degrees of physical or emotional stress. For instance, they say whether they agree with items such as “Stressful discussions make my stomach hurt,” and “After a stressful meeting, my day is usually ruined.” These three subscales have in common that they reference negative affective reactions to conflicts. They are closely associated with one another, and in a few studies have been combined into a single measure called Core TCP. Although they are not the only emotional measures in the battery, they summarize much of what is being advised against in practical books about conflict management. The next two subscales are a pair: positive relational effects and negative relational effects. In the very first versions of the battery, these were part of a single subscale, but those results proved hard to interpret. If someone scored near the middle, did that mean that the respondent felt that conflicts had no relational consequences at all or that the positive and negative possibilities balanced out? So the scales were separated. Positive relational effects are measured by items such as “Conflict can really help a relationship,” and “Sometimes you can discover admirable features in a person who is arguing strongly.” The more pessimistic scale includes “Conflict discussions can really jeopardize friendships,” and “A conflict can really wreck the climate in the workplace.” It is possible for a person to have low scores on both subscales, or high scores on both. Although we suppose that people’s responses to these statements have an emotional element, the items themselves ask for estimates of likely consequences, and we regard these as cooler, more cognitive responses than those given to the first three subscales. The final subscale in the TCP battery is like/dislike valence. This is more general than the other five measures, and is a kind of overall summary of whether a person is inclined to approach or avoid conflicts. Sample items include “I hate arguments,” and “I often enjoy conflicts.” The items in this subscale are similar to some in the argumentativeness instrument (see Infante & Rancer, 1982). The TCP instrument, then, is really a battery of tests rather than a single one. It reflects the idea that personalization involves affective reactions of different intensity and pointedness, as well as expectations about what will happen once a conflict is over. These self-reports obviously involve some projection about how one expects a particular argument to progress—hurtfully? civilly? constructively? empathically? One’s feelings and expectations about a particular conflict are the result of applying one’s general experiences to a particular situated episode. A person who is highly sensitized to the negative possibilities of conflict can still feel good in a particular conflictual interaction, and a person

374

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

who is normally calm and optimistic can become hurt or enraged about the immediate experience. Most of the TCP research treats the battery as reflecting stable personality traits, but several studies have measured it as states brought on (or not) by a particular argumentative exchange. To prepare this chapter, we cumulated all the recoverable TCP data to which we had access and conducted some secondary data analyses. Nearly all these data were provided by undergraduates in the United States. Table 21.1 reports statistics that should be useful to other researchers: means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and correlations among the subscales. The subscale means are routinely calculated by simply averaging the scores on appropriate items. We also undertook a confirmatory factor analysis which generates estimates of the correlations among latent variables, essentially ignoring item variance that does not directly contribute to the unobserved variable. Those correlations also appear in Table 21.1. Our analysis simply constructed all six subscales and permitted the latent variables to covary. Modification indices suggested also allowing two pairs of the errors for scale items to covary, and we did so. The resulting fit was acceptable, but not especially good: RMSEA = .06, CFI = .81, PCFI = .75. Given our conceptual understanding that the dimensions are not orthogonal in the first place—the first three measures are supposed to be highly correlated, and the two relational effects subscales have expectable negative correlations—this outcome is reasonable. With this summary of the conceptualization and measurement of TCP in hand, it is time to begin exploring how it relates to aggressiveness. We have Table 21.1 Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Correlations for the TCP Battery, Along with Correlations Among the Latent Variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Direct Persecution Stress Positive Rel Negative Rel Valence

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Direct Persecution Stress Positive Rel Negative Rel Valence

Mean

S.D.

α

1

2.91 2.35 2.87 3.40 3.04 2.65

.73 .72 .77 .64 .72 .77

.81 .79 .70 .79 .74 .81

Correlations, Standard Calculation – .62 – .51 .47 – −.17 −.25 −.22 – .33 .29 .31 −.30 – −.25 −.09 −.42 .29 −.38

2

3

4

Correlations, Latent Variables – .78 – .69 .73 – −.21 −.31 −.30 – .41 .40 .43 −.45 −.29 −.17 −.47 .37

5

−.51

Note: Means and standard deviations are from Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5 (N = 1161; this is also the N for the top set of correlations). N ranges from 1155 to 1159 for Cronbach’s alpha. Sample size for the latent variable correlations is 1322.

Taking Conflict Personally

375

relevant data that varies in the directness of its connection to aggressive impulses or behavior. The directly relevant information deals with issues such as verbal aggressiveness and the forcefulness of conflict behaviors. The indirect measures include variables such as psychoticism and reactance, which are in turn expressive of, or connected to, aggression. We will organize our review in a rough causal order. First we will present issues that are exogenous to adult behavior, exploring genetic inheritance, the influence of one’s family of origin, biological sex, and one’s cultural surroundings. Next we will explore individual differences that more or less co-occur with TCP, such as argumentativeness. Finally we will review the modest amount of information we have collected on the relationship between TCP and arguing behaviors.

Exogenous Matters Personalization feelings and expectations about conflict are accretions of a person’s life. We inherit inclinations from our biological parents, they raise us to have certain understandings about conflict and other sorts of interactions, and all this takes place in a culture that has its own views about such matters. In this section we examine influential factors present from birth and in early childhood. Despite the fact that interest in the biological bases of communication traits is growing (e.g., Beatty & McCroskey, 2001), our discipline mainly depends on others to do the fundamental work on neurophysiology and genetics. In particular, communication researchers have made use of personality profiles whose underlying neurological systems have been established to be genetically inherited or influenced (Beatty et al., 2002; Eysenck, 1986). In most common use is the Big Three, which intends to summarize a panoply of personality traits by means of three superfactors (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985). These are psychoticism (hostility, lack of feeling for others), neuroticism (anxiety, fearfulness), and extraversion (sociability, being outgoing). The Big Three have been related to communication predispositions that are informative in our context. Heisel, La France, and Beatty (2003) showed that verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986) was directly associated with psychoticism and inversely with extraversion. Argumentativeness was also directly related to psychoticism, but additionally had a positive relationship to extraversion (McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001). This latter study also supported the finding that verbal aggressiveness is positively associated with psychoticism, but only found a nonsignficant negative relationship with extraversion. In that same investigation, assertiveness was positively correlated to extraversion and psychoticism, but negatively to neuroticism. Beatty et al. (1999) found that psychoticism, verbal aggressiveness, and several other measures designed to tap into interpersonal aggressiveness loaded on the same factor. So we have a very general pattern: various aggressive impulses are positively associated with psychoticism, but extraversion distinguishes between the

376

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

constructive predispositions (argumentativeness and assertiveness) and the destructive one (verbal aggressiveness). TCP has also been tested for its connections to the Big Three battery. Our secondary analysis of these associations is summarized in Table 21.2. The most significant findings involved neuroticism, which was positively associated with the core TCP subscales (direct personalization, persecution feelings, and stress reactions). Psychoticism, important to both verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness, had no discernible connection with the TCP battery. Extraversion was negatively associated with both of the relational effects projections, but was not connected to the core TCP measures. The significant correlations in Table 21.2 are large enough to suggest that TCP does have a heritable component, but the patterns do not resemble those of verbal aggressiveness or the other measures mentioned above. The associations with neuroticism suggest that this superfactor is the most important one in explaining conflict personalization tendencies, whereas psychoticism and extraversion are both more important in regard to the other aggression-related traits. It is sensible to discover that personalization should be closely related to a general index of anxiety, which is itself heritable. These TCP results are consistent with Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995) finding that respondents high in neuroticism reported more distress after conflicts. Two other investigations concerned themselves with the possibility that parents and adult children might show similarity in their personalization tendencies. Such correlations would suggest the influence of nature and nurture, but would not distinguish between them: besides providing a genetic inheritance, adults also model conflict behaviors and presumably influence their children in that way as well. The results of the two studies were somewhat uneven. Both used the same basic methodology: adult children were asked to fill out the TCP battery and then solicit one of their parents to do the same. The first study (Dallinger & Hample, 1999), involving 46 parent–adult child pairs, generated no significant correlations across the generations. The second investigation (Dallinger & Hample, 2000) had 77 such pairs, and did show some crossgenerational associations. Of the six TCP subscales, four showed positive direct Table 21.2 Correlations between the TCP and Big Three Batteries

Direct Personalization Persecution Feelings Stress Reactions Positive Relational Effects Negative Relational Effects Like/Dislike Valence Note: N = 182 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Extraversion

Neuroticism

Psychoticism

.10 .14 .01 −.17* −.21** .05

.33*** .27*** .28*** −.02 .10 .00

.08 .03 .11 −.08 −.01 −.03

Taking Conflict Personally

377

relationships (the exceptions were direct personalization and positive relational effects). We were not able to cumulate the two studies’ data for this chapter, but inspection suggests that there is an overall pattern of direct association, subscale by subscale, between the generations. Correlations were not especially large, however, being roughly in the range of r = .20. Besides genes and family, two other exogenous factors present in childhood are biological sex and culture. Biological sex was an early interest. Dallinger and Hample (1993) cumulated the results of TCP work to that date (N = 972), most of it using an earlier version of the instruments, and reported that women had higher levels of direct personalization and stress reactions than men. Those two effect sizes were both less than 1 percent, however, suggesting that sex differences are minor. We cumulated our more recent data for this chapter, using only the current version of the TCP battery, and found significant sex effects on all six of the TCP variables (N = 1062). Women had higher scores on four of the subscales: direct personalization (Mf = 3.10, Mm = 2.67, t(1060) = 9.88, p < .001, r2 = .08), persecution feelings (Mf = 2.48, Mm = 2.17, t(1060) = 6.93, p < .001, r2 = .04), stress reaction (Mf = 3.04, Mm = 2.65, t(1060) = 8.54, p < .001, r2 = .06), and negative relational effects (Mf = 3.08, Mm = 2.95, t(1060) = 2.87, p < .01, r2 = .01). Men had higher scores on the other two measures: for positive relational effects, Mf = 3.35, Mm = 3.47, t(1060) = 3.03, p < .01, r2 = .01; and for valence Mf = 2.56, Mm = 2.78, t(1060) = 4.59, p < .001, r2 = .02. Using the improved scales, then, produced significant differences across the board, and the pattern of differences is clear. Women personalize conflict more than men do, are more pessimistic about its consequences for relationships, and are less attracted to the prospect of engaging in conflicts. Several of the effects sizes—especially those for the core TCP measures—are large enough to conclude that biological sex seems to make an important difference, in contrast to the earlier report (Dallinger & Hample, 1993). The sex effects may be due either to biology or to socialization. Very little work has been done to connect TCP to different cultural experiences. We are aware of only one study, Avtgis and Rancer (2004). They discovered that Americans (compared to Australians and New Zealanders) had the lowest scores for direct personalization, persecution feelings, and valence, but higher scores for stress reactions. None of the effect sizes exceeded .03, however. This work is only a beginning for investigations of culture and personalization, and frankly does not suggest many conclusions at this point. Investigating TCP across cultures could be informative for areas such as intercultural communication and conflict management. To some degree, personalization tendencies do seem traceable to factors present at birth. The strongest predictors we have found are for sex and the superfactors, particularly neuroticism. Our evidence for the influence of parenting and national culture suggests that these factors are less important considerations in the etiology of TCP. Although one should not neglect these matters (and both seem to require more extensive research than has been completed to

378

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

this point), it does seem that the tendency to personalize conflicts is formed in one’s inherent predispositions and ongoing experience in such interactions throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood.

Factors that Co-occur with TCP Although TCP is theorized to have the character of either a trait or a state, most of the research to date has dealt with it as a set of enduring predispositions and has often correlated it with other measures of the same sort. Most of the respondents in the studies were young adults enrolled in universities. So in these results we see the accretion of their life experiences and genetic heritage expressed on a number of measures. We have again cumulated data from a number of individual studies (as well as some data sets gathered for pedagogical purposes). Table 21.3 reports results connecting TCP with aggression-related variables, including verbal aggressiveness (Infante & Wigley, 1986), argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), psychological reactance (Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991), masculinity (Bem, 1974), as well as with femininity and two general avoidance measures, communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1978) and alexithymia (the inability or unwillingness to express emotions; Johnston, Stinski, & Meyers, 1993). Table 21.3 makes it clear that TCP’s main connections with aggressive communication predispositions center on argumentativeness, not verbal aggressiveness. Those who prefer to avoid argumentative encounters were high on the core TCP measures and negative relational effects, and low on positive relational effects and valence. Roughly the opposite pattern appeared for people who say they approach arguing opportunities. The very substantial connections between valence and the argumentativeness measures may be due to the similarity in the Table 21.3 Correlations Between TCP Subscales and Measures of Aggressiveness and Avoidance

Arg-Aproach Arg-Avoid Arg-GT VA-Antisocial VA-Prosocial VA Masculinity Femininity Reactance PRCA Alexithymia * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

N

Direct

Persec

Stress

PosRel

NegRel

Valence

291 291 291 277 277 277 239 239 98 179 200

−.15* .31*** −.25*** .06 −.07 .07 −.19** .36*** −.04 .13 .01

.02 .17** −.09 .07 −.07 .08 −.02 .12 .08 .18* −.20**

−.31*** .44*** −.41*** .04 −.01 .03 −.17** .34*** −.36*** .14 .04

.20*** −.25*** .25*** −.05 −.05 −.01 .07 −.04 .15 .01 −.04

−.09 .18** −.15* .00 .05 −.02 −.01 .10 −.19 −.10 .04

.48*** −.47*** .53*** −.10 −.07 −.03 .19** −.30*** .42*** .04 −.16*

Taking Conflict Personally

379

scales’ content. Verbal aggressiveness showed consistently null connections with TCP in Table 21.3. Supplementary measures bearing on aggressiveness showed some connections to TCP. Reactance, for example, revealed some interesting associations. Reactance is the tendency to resist or push back when confronted, and it was negatively associated with stress reactions and positively with valence. Those who say they are aggressive when pressed, then, experience less discomfort in conflicts and have a tendency to enjoy them. Masculinity, a forceful gender orientation, was negatively associated with direct personalization and stress reactions. The last three rows in Table 21.3 refer to measures that are conceptually inconsistent with aggression. Femininity is a gender orientation that valorizes nurturance and empathy. It was quite strongly related to TCP. Feminine people were higher on direct personalization and stress reactions, and reported that they have negative valence for conflicts. Using an earlier version of the TCP instrument, Myers and Bailey (1991) found TCP to be positively related to communication apprehension. Dallinger and Hample (1995) reported that high personalizers preferred avoidant conflict styles. Here, however, communication apprehension (PRCA) was positively correlated with persecution feelings, but had no evident connections to anything else in the TCP battery. Alexithymia, a specific disinclination to express one’s feelings, was higher for those who feel persecuted and dislike conflicts (the lower the score on this instrument, the higher the alexithymia). Feelings of being persecuted or victimized, then, are especially critical for those apprehensive about communicating in general or on emotionally sensitive topics. People varying in aggressiveness might well be expected to have different understandings of what they are doing during a conflict. Several studies have investigated the beliefs about arguing held by people differing in our key aggressiveness measures, verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness (Infante et al., 1992; Johnson, 2002; Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985; Rancer, Kosberg, & Baukus, 1992). In some of our TCP research, we have taken a slightly different tack on this same essential question by studying argument frames (Hample, 2003). An argument frame is an understanding of what arguments are for, what is possible in an argument, and what an argument is. The frames are theorized to be in three sets. The first, the primary frames, refer to the immediate reason for arguing. This set includes utility (getting something by means of arguing), dominance over the other, identity display for the arguer, and arguing for play. The second set of frames takes the other arguer into account. These measures include blurting (a high score implies that the other is not being taken into consideration), cooperation, and civility. The final set of frames includes only one measure, called professional contrast. This assesses the degree to which the respondent’s naive theory of arguing is similar to that of argumentation scholars (e.g., is arguing associated with violence or productive outcomes? with reasoning or loss of temper?).

380

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

Table 21.4 displays the results of these cumulations, with verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness added as a sort of intellectual calibration. People who saw arguing as an especially utilitarian enterprise experienced lower stress during conflict, were more optimistic about the potential outcomes of conflict, tended to enjoy conflicts and approach arguments, and had some tendency to be verbally aggressive. Those sensitive to the domination possibilities in an argument had higher scores on direct personalization and persecution feelings, as well as negative relational outcomes, valence, verbal aggressiveness, and argumentativeness. This pattern is fairly consistent with a set of aggressive impulses and expectations, and contrasts with the results for people who saw arguments as cooperative and civil interactions (except that those with high civility scores were inclined to approach arguments). Identity work correlated positively with optimism about relational outcomes and argumentativeness, but was also consonant with a noticeable level of verbal aggressiveness. Arguing for fun was not an impulse for those who feel a lot of stress during conflicts, but was positively connected to relational optimism, valence, verbal aggressiveness, and argumentativeness. Blurters were verbally aggressive, underscoring the lack of interpersonal orientation involved in both traits. The professional contrast scores showed that those who had the most sophisticated understandings of arguing were low on the core TCP scales, not verbally aggressive, and tended to approach both conflicts and arguments. If we restrict our attention only to the larger effects sizes and consistent patterns in Table 21.4, some pointed conclusions emerge. High verbal aggressiveness was co-occurent with two particular frames: arguing to dominate and blurting. High verbal aggressiveness was also associated with competitiveness (the reverse of cooperation). These results all suggest a lack of interest in the other party’s welfare, and this impression is supported by the lesser correlations with civility and professional contrast. Argumentativeness, an aggressive impulse aimed at the other’s position, was most strongly associated with the utilitarian, identity, and play frames, all of which center primarily on one’s own Table 21.4 Correlations Between TCP Subscales, Frames, Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness N Direct Pers Persecution Stress Pos Relation Neg Relation Valence Verb Agg Argumentv * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Utility

380 .03 380 −.01 380 −.15** 380 .30*** 380 −.04 380 .21*** 192 .15* 192 .40***

Domin Ident

Play

Blurt

.15** .09 .17*** .13* .04 −.01 .03 .28*** .12* .02 .15** .21*** .43*** .24*** .15* .44***

−.07 .10 .04 .13* −.20*** .06 .29*** .15** −.02 .15** .41*** −.07 .24*** .34*** .66*** −.01

Coop

Civil

Prof

.09 .01 .13** .18*** .06 −.18*** −.44*** −.17*

−.08 −.16** −.14** .15** −.14** .09 −.21** .25***

−.17*** −.17*** −.16** .18*** −.15** .12* −.27*** .20**

Taking Conflict Personally

381

goals in the argument. When other people’s needs are permitted to share focal status in one’s behavior, the connections to argumentativeness weaken, as evidenced in the correlations with cooperation, civility, and professional contrast. The most aggressive frames, then, are utility, dominance, identity, and play. All are views of argument that regard the other arguer mainly as a means to one’s preferred ends. These results are consistent with our general understanding of frames. These four are theorized to be the most basic frames, the ones that are only sometimes replaced or supplemented with more sophisticated understandings as people mature. So we can interpret the personalization results in that framework. The core TCP scales had scattered and somewhat inconsistent relationships with the more aggressive frames. Expectations of positive relational results were consistent either with getting one’s way (the first four frames and blurting) or, to a lesser degree, with more coalescent orientations (the last three). Negative relational expectations were not as strongly connected with the frames. Valence was positive when arguments were seen as means to one’s own ends (the first four frames) and inconsistently related to the more advanced views. In other words, the personalization reactions that most lend themselves to aggressive orientations were positive relational expectations and positive valence for conflict. This is obviously problematic: the most aggression is associated with the strongest fundamental impulses to argue. Inclinations to personalize conflicts are not isolated in a person’s social, affective, or cognitive systems. Personalization is associated with avoidant impulses. The TCP battery has few connections to verbal aggressiveness (an inclination to initiate hurtful exchanges) but does show some associations with reactance (a pattern of returning aggression with aggression). Persecution feelings are particularly predictive of apprehension about communicating, especially when the topics are emotional. The frames research shows that people who hold to aggressive understandings of arguing are also typified by optimism about relational outcomes and positive valence toward conflict.

Trait, State, and Behavior To this point we have exclusively considered TCP as a collection of traits. But a person’s predispositions may or may not overrule situational requirements. Only when a person of known predispositions is asked to engage in a conflict can we get any picture of whether trait, situation, or their interaction is most important in predicting behavior. A first question concerns the relationship between trait and state TCP. People’s feelings are, of course, consequential to them, and we should learn whether those feelings are highlighted or changed by contact with an actual argument. The analytical strategy here is straightforward. If trait and state TCP were associated substantially—so substantially that the correlations look more or less like test-retest correlations—we would conclude that the situation did not affect personalization tendencies. If the trait and state correlations were

382

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

near zero, we would conclude that situational demands completely overwhelmed the predispositions, meaning that one’s enduring impulses have little to do with one’s immediate feelings or behavior. Several studies have explored the trait–state relationship. In Hample, Dallinger, and Fofana (1995), respondents filled out the usual trait instrument, engaged in a conflict discussion, and then responded to a reworded TCP instrument referring to how they felt in the argument that just concluded. Each trait–state correlation was significant, ranging from r = .28 to r = .53. These are substantial, but not nearly high enough to represent test-retest results. Dallinger and Hample (2001) used a different method to approach the same question. Their respondents filled out the usual TCP battery and then carried a short form of the state instrument home with them, and filled it out right after having had a conflict. Overall the trait–state correlations were weaker than in the Hample, Dallinger, and Fofana (1995) study. The association for positive relational effects was nonsignificant and the other five ranged from r = .21 to r = .39. Hample (1996) took yet another tack. After filling out the usual trait inventory and participating in a face-to-face argument, participants were shown their own videotapes and interviewed about what was going on from moment to moment. Their interview remarks were coded for expression of any of the TCP inclinations. This study also produced positive correlations between most of the trait and state (interview) measures of TCP. Nonsignificant positive correlations appeared for positive relational effects and valence. The other subscales generated r’s ranging from .27 to .34. These results lead us to several conclusions. First, situation does not erase the effects of trait predispositions on feelings and assessments of conflict. The trait–state correlations are uniformly positive, even the nonsignificant ones. We can still predict state personalization from trait personalization to a degree. Second, situation does interact with predisposition to generate temporary reactions. If that weren’t so, the correlations would be much higher, approaching the reliability estimates in Table 21.1. In fact, considering that the “retest” in one of the studies occurred only a few minutes after the trait battery, we might even expect correlations higher than those implied in Table 21.1 (Nunnally, 1967, pp. 214–215). The second main issue in this section concerns behavior. People who personalize conflict are theorized to become defensive (Hample & Dallinger, 1995). Only a few studies have been done to estimate the effects of TCP on interaction, but they do show some connection to aggressive actions. Hample, Dallinger, and Fofana (1995) coded arguing behaviors for several characteristics, aggressiveness among them. The aggressiveness of one’s behaviors was not well predicted by trait TCP, but was strongly associated with the state measures, particularly core TCP (a positive association) and positive relational effects (an inverse relationship). Hample, Dallinger, and Nelson (1995) used only trait measures of TCP. They found a negative correlation between one’s aggressiveness during an actual conflict and one’s positive relational effects scores, but no other significant relationships. Both of these studies found very strong associations between

Taking Conflict Personally

383

one’s own aggressiveness and the partner’s, suggesting that the situation (i.e., the other person’s actions) has more influence over behavior than TCP. Hample (1996) coded messages and interviews for aggressiveness and avoidance. Neither trait nor state TCP was very predictive of message behaviors, but state (interview) TCP was strongly associated with the amount of aggressiveness expressed during the interviews. Correlations for direct personalization, persecution feelings, stress reactions, and valence ranged from r = .46 to r = .70. (The correlations for the relational effects subscales were nonsignificant.) The evidence for a connection between TCP and aggressive behaviors is therefore uneven. These studies make clear that trait TCP is not well correlated with the aggressiveness one displays during a particular face-to-face argument. State TCP, however, showed some clear associations. Correlations were substantial in the Hample, Dallinger, and Fofana (1995) study. And when one considers the interviews in Hample (1996) as messages, very high associations appeared between one’s expressed aggressiveness and one’s display of personalization. The lack of significant correlations between state TCP and message aggressiveness in this latter study suggests that the effects are more substantial in an information-seeking interview than during an actual conflict. This is consistent with the finding in two studies (Hample, Dallinger, & Fofana, 1995; Hample, Dallinger, & Nelson, 1995) that partner’s aggressiveness is very important in predicting one’s own aggressiveness. These results show some interesting contrasts to the trait associations reported in the previous section. Core TCP was positively correlated with several avoidance measures, and not at all with verbal aggressiveness. This might suggest that since personalizers wish to avoid conflict, they are quiet when they must engage. That isn’t always what happens, however. The behavioral studies show that high personalizers actually tend to be more aggressive than low personalizers. One of our friends refers to this as the “cornered rabbit” syndrome. A more formal explanation can be generated from the literature. Once personalizers are forced to participate in a face-to-face argument, they become defensive and their feelings and expectations apparently cause them to project the conflict as hurtful. So they respond in such a way as to defend themselves aggressively. Cupach and Carson (2001) discovered that core TCP was positively associated with the amounts of both hurt and anger one feels after being criticized, and this may be an important clue as to why personalizers—who wish to be avoidant—are actually at least as aggressive as others during conflicts and perhaps even more. Avtgis’ (2002) finding that personalizers were more likely to have external loci of control during conflicts suggests that, besides being more sensitive to hurt during conflicts, they are also more likely to relinquish selfcontrol and respond reactively. This interpretation would in turn explain the finding that those with external loci of control were more verbally aggressive (Copstead, Lanzetta, & Avtgis, 2001). Though speculative—no one study contains all these associations in the same data set—this explanation is a plausible one for why people with avoidant impulses might argue fiercely when they find themselves engaged in conflict.

384

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

Conclusions The project of drawing all these findings together for a review paper has generated some useful conclusions, and also revealed some areas that need further investigation. Several sorts of evidence indicate that personalization can be traced back to the conditions of early childhood. Neuroticism, a heritable supertrait, is important to the etiology of personalization, as is biological sex. Parenting and culture also have some effects. The relationship of TCP to the Big Three is clearly distinct from the patterns associated with verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. The implication of this last observation is that any connections among these traits are developed via life experience and are not foreshadowed in early childhood. Personalizers have predictable inclinations on several other individual differences measures. They express the desire to avoid arguments and conflicts, but this inclination does not result in their having lower verbal aggressiveness impulses, as one might suppose. Valence, the most general subscale in the battery, is particularly revealing in its connections to other matters. People who especially dislike conflict want to avoid arguing, lack masculine gender orientation to some degree, have feminine orientation to a marked degree, are not reactive, and have trouble expressing their feelings. This is the pattern of a quiet person, one inclined to withdrawal and avoidance. This pattern changes abruptly when personalizers are engaged in conflict, however. They are neither quiet nor passive. In fact, some evidence indicates that they are actually more aggressive than those with lower personalization scores. It may well be that they are more sensitive to hurt, possibly even seeing it when an observer might not, and their external locus of control makes it easy to give themselves up to what they perceive as a nasty person-centered episode. In reviewing all this material, certain lacunae in the literature became evident. Most obviously, the TCP work needs to be carried into other cultures and into walks of life other than the undergraduate experience. Research into the influence of early family life on people’s emergent views of conflict is very limited, and it would be quite valuable to have a better understanding of how people grow into constructive or dysfunctional understandings of face-to-face arguing. Finally, too little work has held TCP scores up against actual conflict behavior. We have good reason to suppose that states of personalization will be more important than trait predispositions, but not much behavioral evidence has yet been generated.

References References preceded with * contributed to one or more of the secondary data analyses Avtgis, T. A. (2002). Adult-child conflict control expectancies: Effects on taking conflict personally toward parents. Communication Research Reports, 19, 226–236. Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2004). Personalization of conflict across cultures: A comparison among the United States, New Zealand and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33, 109–118.

Taking Conflict Personally

385

*Barch, S. L., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995, May). Assessing HMO CEOs’ communication competence and propensity to take conflict personally. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM. Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Hall, A. E., Levine, T. R., & La France, B. H. (2002). What can we learn from the study of twins about genetic and environmental influence on interpersonal affiliation, aggressiveness, and social anxiety?: A meta-analytic study. Communication Monographs, 69, 1–18. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The biology of communication: A communobiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Beatty, M. J., Valencic, K. M., Rudd, J. E., & Dobos, J. A. (1999). A “dark side” of communication avoidance: Indirect interpersonal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 16, 103–109. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902. Copstead, G. J., Lanzetta, C. N., & Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Adult children conflict control expectancies: Effects on aggressive communication toward parents. Communication Research Reports, 18, 75–83. Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2001, November). Face-threat sensitivity: The role of personality in explaining the aversive consequences of interpersonal criticism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1993). Do women take conflict more personally than men? In C. A. Valentine (Ed.), Seeking understanding of communication, language and gender (pp. 176–188). Tempe, AZ: Cyberspace Publishing. *Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1995). Personalizing and managing conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 6, 273–289. *Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (1999, May). Passing communication orientations across the generations: Relational maintenance strategies and conformity/conversational orientation, but not personalization of conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. *Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (2000, June). Parents and their adult children: Taking conflict personally together. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. *Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (2001, November). Taking conflict personally: Trait and state measures, and the effects of relationship type, sex, and self-monitoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. *Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (2003, November). Taking conflict personally: Is it inherited? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL. Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 541–545. Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality study ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 3–20. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Difference, 6, 21–29.

386

Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea

Hample, D. (1996, May). A theoretical and empirical effort to describe message production. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago. Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. *Hample, D., Benoit, P. J., Houston, J., Purifoy, G., VanHyfte, V., & Wardell, C. (1999). Naive theories of argument: Avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 130–139. *Hample, D., Benson, E., Gogliotti, L., & Jeong, J. (1997, November). Ego defense and taking conflict personally. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago. *Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1993). The effects of taking conflict personally on arguing behavior. In R. E. McKerrow (Ed.), Argument and the postmodern challenge (pp. 235–238). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. *Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1995). A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument. Communication Quarterly, 43, 297–319. *Hample, D., Dallinger, J. M., & Fofana, J. (1995). Perceiving and predicting the tendency to personalize arguments. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values (pp. 434–438). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. *Hample, D., Dallinger, J. M., & Nelson, G. K. (1995). Aggressive, argumentative, and maintenance arguing behaviors, and their relationship to taking conflict personally. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. III: Reconstruction and application (pp. 238–250). Amsterdam: SicSat. *Hample, D., Dean, C., Johnson, A., Kopp, L., & Ngoitz, A. (1997, May). Conflict as an MOP in conversational behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal. *Hample, D., Han, B., & Payne, D. A. (in press). The aggressiveness of playful arguments. Argumentation. *Hample, D., Memba, B., & Seo, Y-H. (1999, May). Taking conflict personally and personal expressiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. *Hample, D., Thompson-Hayes, M., Wallenfelsz, K., Wallenfelsz, P., & Knapp, C. (2005). Face-to-face arguing is an emotional experience: Triangulating methodologies and early findings. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 74–93. *Hample, D., Warner, B., & Norton, H. (2006). The effects of arguing expectations and predispositions on perceptions of argument quality and playfulness. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 1–13. Heisel, A. D., La France, B. H., & Beatty, M. J. (2003). Self-reported extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism as predictors of peer rated verbal aggressiveness and affinity-seeking competence. Communication Monographs, 70, 1–15. 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. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook 19, 319–351. Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126.

Taking Conflict Personally

387

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Johnson, A. J. (2002). Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments. Communication Reports, 15, 99–112. Johnston, D. D., Stinski, M., & Meyers, D. (1993). Development of an alexithymia instrument to measure diminished communication affect. Communication Research Reports, 10, 149–160. *Lewis, S.B. (1995). The relationship between managers’ propensity to take conflict personally (TCP), their subordinate work groups’ TCP, and the effect on organizational climate. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Western Illinois University. McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Validity of the PRCA as an index of oral communication apprehension. Communication Monographs, 45, 192–203. McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V. P. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68, 360–366. Myers, K. A., & Bailey, C. L. (1991). Conflict and communication apprehension in campus ministries: A quantitative analysis. College Student Journal, 25, 537–543. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37–47. Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management. Communication Education, 41, 375–387.

Chapter 22

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors of Aggression Charles J. Wigley III

A number of researchers have discussed five possible primary causes of verbal aggressiveness as an individual difference, including genetics (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997), disdain for other, psychopathological basis, social learning, and argumentative skill deficiency (Infante et al., 1984). Some causes of verbal aggression (Wigley, 2006) might include situational variables such as chemical influences (e.g., alcohol or medicines) or verbal utterances by other (i.e., Verbal Trigger Events). However, few studies have actually examined situational or “event” variables that might lead just about anyone to engage in verbal aggression. The focus of this chapter is on Verbal Trigger Events, other catalysts and precursors of state verbal aggression. Although the crosssituationally consistent nature of verbal aggressiveness as a personality trait helps predict the degree to which an individual will engage in aggression on some occasion, this chapter explores situational conditions or events most likely to lead to aggression. Some connections in the research literature will be identified that help clarify the nature of Verbal Trigger Events, other catalysts and precursors of aggression. Initially, this chapter will explore verbal trigger events and reactive verbal aggression.

Verbal Triggers Verbal Trigger Events (VTEs) are “statements that lead to explosive verbal responses” by others (Wigley, 2006). Verbal Trigger Events consist of a statement or statements that lead to Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA). Reactive Verbal Aggression occurs when the initial use of verbal aggression by a communicant occurs in response to some statement(s) by another person. Accordingly, four elements define the existence of a Verbal Trigger Event: 1) it is comprised of one or more statements by an individual (I); 2) made to another person (O); 3) where the other person (O) reacts with verbal aggression; 4) but would not have so reacted without the initial statement or statements of the first individual (I). Such statements (by I or O) might be the result of traits, states, or a combination of both forms of influence. While verbal aggressiveness refers to the personal tendency to attack, symbolically, the self concept of others (Infante & Wigley, 1986), the behavior of

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

389

expressing a symbolic attack is verbal aggression. Accordingly, verbal aggressiveness describes an individual difference that may or may not manifest itself, while its manifestation through behavior is called verbal aggression. Because verbal aggression might occur without some situational trigger (e.g., when someone is psychopathologically mean), only some of these manifestations of verbal aggression occur following a verbal trigger event. However, it may be that more than half of all verbal aggression consists of reactive verbal aggression, especially from verbal trigger events. Verbal aggression is always the result of volition (Infante, 1995), so it is possible to train individuals to use better forms of symbolic expression (see Wigley, 2008), thereby mitigating reactive verbal aggression and reducing the number of verbal trigger events.

The Nature of Verbal Trigger Events Durbin (2008) developed the first taxonomy of Verbal Trigger Events. In his master’s degree thesis under the direction of his advisor, Andrew S. Rancer, Durbin asked participants to identify individual hurtful messages that they had received from five different communicants including 1) bosses, 2) family members, 3) friends, 4) significant other, and 5) strangers. Participants were instructed to report messages that “would cause you to respond in a verbally aggressive manner” (Durbin, 2008, pp. 58–62). Participants were then asked to identify, on a five point Likert type scale, the degree to which each message was considered hurtful. A panel of two trained coders then classified (inter-coder reliability, Kappa, was .073, p < .001) each of the identified messages as one of 16 different types of hurtful messages. Durbin based these 16 types of messages on previous research concerning the nature of “verbally aggressive and of hurtful messages” (p. 15). Specifically, his sources included Infante (1987), Infante and Rancer (1996), Infante and Wigley (1986), Rancer and Avtgis (2006), Vangelisti (1994, 2007), and Young and Bippus (2001). These categories included 1) behavior criticism, 2) blame, 3) character attacks, 4) command, 5) competence attacks, 6) de-escalation/avoidance, 7) personality attacks, 8) physical appearance attacks, 9) maledictions, 10) negative comparisons, 11) profanity, 12) sexual harassment, 13) stereotypes, 14) teasing, 15) threats, and 16) other (which was later dropped from analyses). The mean level of hurtfulness was then calculated to identify the eight most hurtful messages across each of the five categories of communicants. The ranking was based not on a statistical protocol, but on the averaged raw mean scores. Results indicated that the top eight most hurtful items across the five categories were as follows (listed from most hurtful to least hurtful): 1 2

bosses: character attacks, de-escalation/avoidance, blame, negative comparisons, command, competence attacks, behavior criticism, and threats; family members: competence attacks, negative comparisons, appearance attacks, personality attacks, character attacks, behavior criticism, command, and profanity;

390

3

4

5

Charles J. Wigley III

friends: de-escalation/avoidance, negative comparisons, profanity, stereotypes, physical appearance attacks, command, character attacks, and behavior criticism; significant other: de-escalation/avoidance, negative comparisons, character attacks, physical appearance attacks, profanity, competence attacks, command, and behavior criticism; and strangers: competence attacks, profanity, physical appearance attacks, stereotypes, behavior criticism, command, character attacks, and personality attacks.

Durbin (2008) “found a plethora of utterances that might cause individuals to respond using verbal aggression including over 100 verbal triggering events for each of the five source categories” (p. 19). Durbin concluded that individuals’ “choice of VTEs, and also their relationship they hold with the recipient [have] a combined affect on the degree of hurt [that] they inflict upon the individual” (p. 21). This potential for a synergistic effect between source and type of utterance is especially interesting in light of the fact (based on Durbin’s findings about the top eight VTEs for every category) that only two of the types of utterance appeared in all five categories, viz., 1) character attacks, and 2) behavior criticism.

Provocation and Frustration Can Cause Reactive Verbal Aggression Durbin’s findings suggest that the situational variable that sparks a verbal trigger event is, often, a perceived verbal attack by the individual on the other person. In other words, the response by other (O) to the statement(s) of the individual (I) is one of verbal aggression because other (O) perceives the statement by the individual to be some form of personal attack on other, i.e., a source of provocation. Such an event is referred to as reciprocal verbal aggression. Early evidence of this phenomenon can be found in the writings of Infante (1989). Infante found that when males thought that another person would respond to them with verbal aggression, the males would select a verbally aggressive response (i.e., response in kind). However, when females thought that another person would respond to them with verbal aggression, the females would more likely (compared to men) choose an argumentative mode of response. Hence, the verbal trigger event would, hypothetically, result partially from the selection of a verbally aggressive remark by the other (O) (i.e., a source of provocation) and the fact that the individual attacked (I) is male. These results are hypothetical in that the participants in the investigation did not react to other but, rather, indicated by way of a survey response the type of response that they would provide if attacked by other (O). It may be, however, that high levels of resistance to a request for compliance might result in verbal aggression (Lim, 1990), i.e., the persuader uses verbal aggression because he or she is frustrated. In these situations, an individual

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

391

showing intense resistance to a request for compliance will, at the outset, be subjected to lower levels of verbal aggression than individuals showing weak resistance. Lim explains that the person meeting intense resistance may be trying to achieve some de-escalation in an attempt to mitigate resistance. Soon after de-escalation fails, however, the persuader resorts to higher levels of verbal aggression (i.e., more intense verbal aggression). Here, the verbal trigger event is the expression of resistance to a request for compliance and, according to Lim, the verbally aggressive response is even more likely to manifest itself in situations where the target of aggression is perceived to be unfriendly. Infante et al. (1984) also found that obstinate opponents in a controversy were more likely to receive verbally aggressive messages. Specifically, low and moderate argumentatives were more likely to prefer use of verbal aggression with stubborn as opposed to adaptable opponents. Research on general forms aggression (i.e., physical and verbal aggression) has investigated the nature of triggering events. Generally, the overriding key factors in determining whether an aggressive response will occur include 1) provocation, 2) frustration, and 3) self-focused attention. This conclusion, though not specifically stated by them, is derived from the writings of Ito, Miller, and Pollock (1996). The first issue is provocation. Ito, Miller, and Pollock (1996) suggest that provocation can trigger an aggressive response because target might hold the “cognitive . . . belief in eye-for-an-eye” and individuals, therefore, “respond in a tit-for-tat fashion” (p. 63). Alternatively, they suggest that the response may not be based on a cognitive belief but emotion (i.e., the provocation may “elicit angry or emotional aggression” (p. 63)). According to their reasoning, provocation may operate as a“suitable external justification” (p. 63). The authors conclude that “[p]rovocation can, therefore, serve the dual roles of instigation and excuse for aggression” (p. 63). The second key factor in determining whether a person will react with an aggressive response is frustration. Ito, Miller, and Pollock (1996) define frustration and its role: “Frustration, defined as blocking an ongoing goal-directed behavior, may operate in a manner similar to provocation and serve both as an instigator and an external justification for violating normative constraints against aggression” (p. 63). It is worth noting that this factor, as well as provocation, serve as justification. Of course, the idea that justification can serve as an excuse for aggression is not new. Examination of the verbal aggressiveness scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986) reveals that 18 of the 20 scale items include “if” and one other item includes “when.” The scale was specifically written by the authors to internally reflect an element of justification because it was thought, at the time of scale construction, that individuals would more likely self-report their verbally aggressive nature. Specifically, Dominic Infante posited at that time (personal communication with author, 1983) that if research participants thought that the research investigator administering the scale perceived justification as an acceptable excuse for verbal aggression, then participants would more likely report their aggression when it could be considered justified. Examination of

392

Charles J. Wigley III

the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale’s ten “affirmatively worded” items indicates that five items, viz., 6, 7, 11, 13, and 16 reflect situations involving provocation (e.g., item 11, “when individuals insult me . . .”), whereas the other half of the 10 items, viz., 2, 4, 9, 18, and 19 reflect existence of frustration (e.g., item 2, “When individuals are very stubborn . . .”). Durbin’s (2008) taxonomy of Verbal Trigger Events is comprised of 15 categories that indicate provocation. Although frustration is not included in the categories, this is probably because subjects were to report messages that “would cause” an aggressive response (Durbin, 2008, pp. 58–62). Durbin’s focus was on the most likely probable causes for Verbal Trigger Events. Followup research could investigate which utterances of resistance or stubbornness would lead to frustration and, thereby, serve as Verbal Trigger Events. Durbin explains the limitation of his study resulting from the wording that he used. He indicates that “[b]y rewording the questions for future studies . . . it may prompt participants to reflect on general utterances rather than verbally aggressive utterances” (p. 23). Read in light of each other, the Durbin (2008), Infante (1989), Infante et al. (1984), and Lim (1990) studies are interesting. Durbin’s study highlights that it is reasonable to believe that messages perceived as more hurtful (rather than less hurtful) would more likely arouse a response of verbal aggression (cause of the VTE is provocation). Thus, those identified message categories of greater hurtfulness would more likely serve as verbal trigger events. Messages perceived as hurtful pose a threat to the receiver and, therefore, are likely to trigger a defensive reaction. It seems reasonable that the aroused level of defensiveness leads to the use of verbal aggression. The research by Infante (1989), Infante et al. (1984), and Lim (1990), on the other hand, suggests that sex differences, difficulty in overcoming resistance to persuasion (a problem of frustration), and lack of friendliness of persuadee (a problem of provocation) may, as well, operate as catalysts to verbal aggression by other. Thus, Verbal Trigger Events occur not only when the individual (I) seems to be attacking other (O) (situations involving provocation) but, as well, when other (O) perceives some characteristic of the individual (I) (e.g., aggressive-male, unfriendly, or stubborn) in a negative way and is, therefore provoked (unfriendly), frustrated (stubborn) or both frustrated and provoked (stubborn aggressive-male). The third key factor in determining whether an aggressive response will occur is self-focused attention. Ito, Miller, and Pollock (1996) explain: “Selffocus refers to a state in which a self regulatory process is initiated, personal standards of appropriate behavior become salient, and attempts are made to comply with these standards (Carver, 1979; Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990; Duval & Wicklund, 1972)” (p. 64). Individuals maintaining higher levels of selffocused attention are, theoretically (according to Ito, Miller, and Pollock, 1996), less likely to resort to verbal aggression as a response to another person because of the generally accepted norm that verbal aggression should be avoided because it is destructive.

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

393

Possible Trait Component to Reactive Verbal Aggression? Do provocation, frustration, and self-focus combine influences with a reactive verbal aggressiveness trait to result in an aggression response? Lawrence (2006) reports an initial effort to develop a measure of individual difference with respect to situational triggers. Her research attempts to explain the variability among people with respect to responding to identical stimuli. Her research focuses on general aggression (i.e., physical and verbal). Lawrence (2006) reports “development of the Situational Triggers of Aggressive Responses (STAR) scale.” STAR “is a self-report instrument measuring the extent to which different events make individuals feel aggressive” (Lawrence, 2006, p. 242). The goal of Lawrence’s research was identification of “differences in the ways in which individuals are triggered by situations” (p. 242). Lawrence (2006) claims that her efforts are the first reported attempts at measurement of such an individual difference, although other researchers have tried to identify state-like conditions that lead to aggressive responses (see, esp., O’Connor, Archer, & Wu, 2001). Lawrence (2006) found that “frustrations” and “provocations” accounted for 35 percent of the total variance in trigger situations. Lawrence cautions, however, that her investigation did not classify triggering events, but, rather, it classified individuals’ perceptions of their “own perceived triggering events” (p. 251). O’Connor, Archer, and Wu (2001) sought to identify triggers of reactive aggression for men by developing the Aggressive Provocation Questionnaire (APQ). This self-report questionnaire consists of 12 scenarios and asks men to indicate on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from “Not at All” to “Extremely” ) how they would feel on three different variables (viz., “Angry,” “Frustrated,” “Irritated”) in the presence of such a situation. Participants were then asked how they would respond (based on a specific list of five different behaviors for each scenario). These five behaviors generally reflected behaviors ranging from avoidance to “direct verbal or physical aggression.” Participants also completed a modified version of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) (as a measure of trait aggressiveness). O’Connor, Archer, and Wu (2001) found that as men aged, the correlation between subscales of the AQ and APQ were different. For younger men, AQ’s subscales of “physical,” “verbal,” and “anger” (p. 91) correlated (point biserial correlations were .57, .30, .26, respectively) with APQ’s “aggressive action” subscale (but failed to correlate with APQ’s “assertive action” subscale). For older men, AQ’s subscales of “verbal” and “anger” failed to correlate with APQ’s subscales, but AQ’s subscale of physical aggression correlated (point biserial correlation was .46) with APQ’s “assertive action scale.” These results imply that as men age, their response mode tends to shift from one of aggression to one of assertiveness. However, O’Connor, Archer, and Wu (2001) do not distinguish between reactive aggression (physical or verbal) and reactive verbal aggression. Their study provides a model that could be modified to focus on reactive verbal aggression. Some previous

394

Charles J. Wigley III

research on verbal aggressiveness as a trait used such scenarios (Infante & Wigley, 1986) and similar scenarios could be used for measuring state aggression. O’Connor, Archer, and Wu’s (2001) results could lead one to hypothesize an age difference for reactive verbal aggression: Younger males are significantly more likely than older males to engage in reactive verbal aggression. If confirmed, then a distinguishing element of Verbal Trigger Events would be age of other (O). Research on Argumentative Skill Deficiency (ASD) suggests that insufficient arguing skills might serve as a source of frustration leading to verbal aggression. Strong empirical support for this conclusion can be found in the research reported by Infante et al. (1984). Further support for ASD can, according to Infante (1987), be found in the writings of Bandura (1973) and Toch (1969), “both of whom have concluded that violent persons do not have the verbal skills for dealing with normal frustrations and thus feel that violence is their only alternative. They respond to a frustration, for example, with an insult, and this increases the likelihood of physical aggression” (Infante, 1987, pp. 184–185). While this chapter focuses on causes rather than solutions, it might be tempting to think that training in arguing would be a simple solution to ASD. Some interventions to mitigate verbal aggression work to reduce it a considerable amount (Wigley, 2008). However, solutions to such problems are complex and involve more than mere training in argument, or, perhaps, something other than training in argument. For example, Hamilton and Mineo (2002) report metaanalyses indicating “. . . that verbal aggressiveness has a positive correlation with argumentativeness” (p. 304) (thus, such training might increase the level of the verbal aggression). Any planned interventions to reduce levels of ASD probably require training individuals to focus (to a considerable extent) on satisfactory handling of their interpersonal relationships (Infante, 1988, 1995; see Wigley, 2008).

Other Catalysts and Precursors of Verbal Aggression Defensiveness Whether higher levels of defense arousal provoke verbal aggression is an interesting question. Almost 50 years ago Jack Gibb (1961) identified in his seminal work “Defensive Communication” six types of communication that would likely lead to a defensive reaction by others. These categories included 1) certainty, 2) control, 3) evaluation, 4) neutrality, 5) strategem, and 6) superiority. The individual who perceives the presence of such messages is likely to respond in a defensive manner. According to Gibb, defensiveness escalates and the quality of the communication breaks down. The main reason for the individual’s defensive reaction is that the defense-arousing communication is perceived as a risk to the safety of the individual. Considerable research supports Gibb’s conclusions (i.e., that there are numerous negative

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

395

communication climates that can lead to arousal of defensiveness). It is reasonable to hypothesize that individuals experiencing heightened levels of defensiveness will use verbal aggression as a means of self-protection. While a number of writers have alluded to this connection, there is, quite surprisingly, a lack of empirical evidence demonstrating that heightened levels of defensiveness result in verbal aggression. So, while the available empirical evidence suggests that verbal trigger events are real and that “defensiveness” is real, there is only limited empirical evidence to support the conclusion that it is defensiveness that directly triggers verbal aggression. Maybe, for example, defensive individuals run out of arguments and, in frustration, they resort to verbal aggression. If so, then the existence of the reactive verbal aggression stems more directly from argumentative skill deficiency or frustration-aggression than from some impression that defensive communication is a desirable conversational strategy. Further, it should be noted that no reported research has identified methods for assessing either “degree of” or “likelihood of” verbal aggression resulting from different forms of VTEs, but efforts are being made in that direction (Wigley, 2009). Anger Rumination, Negative Urgency, and Hypersensitivity Although factors related to reciprocity of aggression and defense-arousing communication statements may explain reactive verbal aggression, there may be other precursors of verbal aggression. As precursors, these variables may not actually serve as the specific cause (i.e., the causa sine qua non) of a verbally aggressive reaction, but, rather, as inducements of reactive verbal aggression. Figuratively, they are variables, perhaps among others, that “set the stage” for a reaction involving verbal aggression. Three of these precursors are especially noteworthy, i.e., 1) anger rumination by other (O), 2) tendencies toward negative urgency by other (O), and 3) hypersensitivity of other (O). Anestis et al. (2009) explain that rumination refers to (p. 192) “the tendency to brood about negative experiences and feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991).” They examined the role of a specific kind of rumination, i.e., anger rumination, in predicting trait verbal aggression (by the ruminating individual). Participants in the study completed a measure of anger rumination (i.e., “the degree to which individuals tend to focus on angry moods,” p. 193) as an independent variable. One dependent variable was comprised of four subscales measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger (“chronic” anger), and hostility. The verbal aggression construct was measured by the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). While that particular variable is the one of greatest interest in this chapter, it should be noted that the Buss-Perry verbal aggression scale includes some argumentativeness items (e.g., “I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them”), thereby confounding verbal aggression and arguing. Anestis et al. (2009) statistically controlled for potential moderators that could confound the measurement of the possible influence of rumination on verbal aggression.

396

Charles J. Wigley III

These moderators were depression, anxiety, negative urgency (“the degree to which individuals act rashly in the face of negative affect,” p. 194), sensation seeking, “lack of” premeditation (“the degree to which individuals act without first considering the potential consequences of their actions,” p. 193), and “lack of” perseverance (“the degree to which individuals find it difficult to persist in activities that are or become difficult or boring,” pp. 193–194). Two other moderators were cognitive emotion regulation (“the degree to which individuals utilize various cognitive approaches towards regulating negative emotions,” p. 194) and general rumination (i.e., rumination about things not necessarily involving anger, specifically, “the degree to which individuals focus on their emotions and thoughts directly associated with negative events,” p. 194). The authors (Anestis et al., 2009) found that the independent variable (anger rumination) significantly predicted the dependent variable (verbal aggression) while holding the potential moderators constant through statistical controls. The coefficient of determination (square of r) was .18 (t = 2.74, p < .007, n = 200). Another notable statistical result of the study was that two other variables significantly predicted verbal aggression (even after inclusion of anger rumination in the regression model). These were biological sex (square of r = .20, t = 3.08, p < .02, n = 200) and negative urgency (square of r = .26, t = 3.97, p < .001, n = 200). The authors describe verbal aggression as a “maladaptive behavior” (p. 196) that can be predicted by anger rumination and suggest that future investigations should try to assess whether anger rumination is “a risk factor or possibly even a cause of” aggression. Further evidence that anger rumination elicits aggression can be found in the writings of Infante (1987). Infante describes Berkowitz’s (1973) “brooders” as people that dwell on “previous insults, mull over injuries, and ponder previous attacks” thereby “stimulat[ing] anger” (Infante, 1987, p. 179). The Anestis et al. (2009) study did not examine verbal aggression as a reaction (i.e., as a state) but only as a trait. Accordingly, measurements of the variables were based on cross-situationally consistent trait measures and no stimulus (i.e., no trigger event) was provided. However, the study has important implications for understanding VTEs. If an individual has experienced high levels of anger rumination (trait or state), then it would seem to make the expression of reactive verbal aggression more likely than if the anger rumination had not occurred. Zuckerman’s (1983) reasoning offers support for this conclusion because, as he indicated, states and traits are distinct, but a trait should correlate with its related state. There is some empirical evidence for this assertion that state anger rumination (of other (O)) and negative-urgency (of other (O)) serve as precursor to reactive verbal aggression by other (O) in the face of the stimulus event, i.e., one or more statements by an individual (I). In other words, empirical evidence supports the idea that the rumination is precursor, but not necessarily causa sine qua non, of the reaction. Based on the reasoning of Anestis et al. (2009), anger rumination might make statements by others appear to be ones of provocation. As well, negative urgency and

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

397

hypersensitivity of others might turn a seemingly innocuous statement or series of statements into verbal trigger events.

Refocusing and Future Research Conceptually, verbal aggressiveness as a trait probably accounts for a great deal of the behaviors called verbal aggression. When trigger events act as stimulus to the trait, the result is state-like reactive verbal aggression. It seems unlikely that a trait of reactive verbal aggressiveness exists in that the very key factors of reactive verbal aggression (viz., provocation, frustration, and justification) are inextricably linked with the verbal aggressiveness construct (and, as well, with its operationalization in the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale). Research in social psychology has made substantial progress toward studying aggression triggering events, but most of that research has either confounded verbal aggression with argumentativeness or failed to study specific triggers of verbal aggression. Communication research has largely focused on the causes, correlates, shortterm effects, long-term consequences, and remedies for verbal aggressiveness. Existing research, reported in this chapter, provides a foundation for extending this research to determine situational or event-specific factors that, when interacting with various degrees of trait verbal aggressiveness, serve as trigger events for reactive verbal aggression. This will improve our understanding of the likelihood that verbal aggression will occur and its degree of intensity. As researchers continue, on a macrolevel, to investigate the precise causes of the trait, we can continue to study, at a microlevel, the situational influences of reactive verbal aggression. What kind of verbal utterances are provoking? What kind of verbal utterances serve to frustrate? What kinds of provocation and frustration justify abandoning social norms against verbal aggression? What factors lead to diminishment or abandonment of self-focused attention? Studying the two constructs, trait verbal aggressiveness and state verbal aggression, as well as their interaction, should provide us with a much better understanding of the functional roles of provocation, frustration, justification, self-focused attention, and reactive verbal aggression in the structuration of Verbal Trigger Events. Infante (1987) noted that in communication scholarship, “our approach is decidedly, but not exclusively, from a trait perspective, as situational influences are both acknowledged and included in theoretical statements” (p. 162). The goal of the present chapter was to highlight some of the broad conceptualizations (viz., provocation, frustration, self-focused attention, argumentative skill deficiency, defensiveness, anger rumination, negative-urgency, hypersensitivity) that will help us to identify and understand situational influences more fully. The emphasis, here, is not on a paradigm shift but, rather, toward refocusing efforts to examine the triggers of everyday reactive verbal aggression.

References Anestis, M. D., Anestis, J. C., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2009). Anger rumination across forms of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 192–196.

398

Charles J. Wigley III

Bandura, A. (1973). Social learning theory of aggression. In J. F. Knutson (Ed.), The control of aggression: Implications from basic research (pp. 201–250). Chicago: Aldine. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460. Berkowitz, L. (1973). Words and symbols as stimuli to aggressive responses. In J. F. Knutson (Ed.), The control of aggression: Implications from basic research (pp. 113–143). Chicago: Aldine. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Carver, C. S. (1979). A cybernetic model of self-attention processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 1251–1281. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Durbin, J. M. (2008). Toward the development of a taxonomy of verbal trigger events. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Akron. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(4), 141–149. Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (2002). Argumentativeness and its affect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta-analytic review. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through metaanalysis (pp. 281–314), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Infante, D. A. (1989). Response to high argumentatives: Message and sex differences. Southern Communication Journal, 54, 159–170. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A. & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A., Trebing, D. J., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67–77. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Ito, T. A., Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1996). A meta-analysis on the moderating effects of inhibitory cues, triggering events, and self-focused attention. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 60–82. Lawrence, C. (2006). Measuring individual responses to aggression triggering events: Development of the situational triggers of aggressive responses (STAR) scale. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 241–252. Lim, T. (1990). The influences of receivers’ resistance on persuaders’ verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 38, 170–188.

Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

399

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569–582. O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F.W.C. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-reports, partner reports and responses to provoking scenarios, Aggressive Behavior, 27, 79–101. Rancer, A. S. & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Toch, H. (1969). Violent men. Chicago: Aldine. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.), (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (2007). Communicating hurt. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.), (pp. 121–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wigley, C. J., III (2006). The research contributions. In A. S. Rancer & T. A. Avtgis (2006), Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application (p. 243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wigley, C. J., III (2008). Verbal aggression interventions: What should be done? Communication Monographs, 75, 339–350. Wigley, C. J. (2009, November). Verbal Trigger Events (VTEs) and the measurement of Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Young, S. L., & Bippus, A. M. (2001). Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way? Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 35–52. Zuckerman, M. (1983). The distinctions between trait and state scales is not arbitrary: Comments on Allen and Potkay’s “On the arbitrary distinction between traits and states.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1083–1086.

Chapter 23

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, and Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

Verbal aggression is bad. “Verbal aggression is viewed as an exchange of messages between two people where at least one person in the dyad attacks the self-concept of the other person in order to hurt the person psychologically” (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 67). “Research has been unequivocal in suggesting that verbal aggression is a highly destructive form of communication” (Infante, 1995, p. 51). “Evidence indicates that receiving verbal aggression can destroy one’s physical and psychological well-being” (Kinney, 1994, p. 189). “Dysfunctional relationships associated with verbal aggressiveness are found in all contexts of communication” (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, p. 240). “The communication discipline has championed rational discourse since Plato and Aristotle, most notably, and that mission will be furthered by an investigation of verbal aggression aimed at the control of its occurrence” (Infante & Rancer, 1996). But is it possible, to paraphrase Gordon Gekko, that “verbal aggression is good”? We propose that verbally aggressive messages may be used instrumentally to be effective, with the source or receiver benefiting, both parties benefiting, and/ or others benefiting. This is not to say that verbally aggressive messages should be encouraged or promoted, or even considered constructive. Infante (1987) stated that an aggressive behavior is constructive “if it facilitates interpersonal communication satisfaction and generally enhances a dyadic relationship by increasing understanding, empathy, and intimacy” (p. 163). An aggressive behavior is destructive “if it produces dissatisfaction, if at least one person in a dyad feels less favorable about himself or herself, and if the quality of the relationship is reduced” (p. 163). Accepting these descriptions, clearly most occurrences of verbal aggression are going to be destructive. While Infante (1987) argued that “Verbal aggression is behavior aroused and energized by frustration” (p. 183), we believe that at times, verbally aggressive messages are planned messages with the source having a specific goal that may not always have negative consequences. The idea that verbally aggressive messages may be used instrumentally or that verbally aggressive messages can lead to positive outcomes, while not promoted or researched extensively, has been acknowledged (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). In presenting his argument for constructive and destructive aggressive

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

401

communication traits, Infante (1987) acknowledged that constructive occurrences of verbal aggression were conceivable. Hample and Dallinger (1987) reported that people will select effective strategies instead of appropriate strategies, when the choices are one or the other. They added that effective strategies that are not appropriate would include verbally aggressive messages. Baron and Richardson (1994) agreed, arguing that people will intentionally use verbally aggressive messages when people believe the outcomes are rewarding. Infante, Hartley, et al. (1992) found that observers found a receiver to be less competent when the receiver failed to reciprocate a source’s use of verbal aggression. Finally, numerous studies have reported that people believe their use of verbal aggression was effective and justified (Infante, Bruning, & Martin, 1994; Infante, Riddle et al., 1992; Martin, Anderson, & Horvath, 1996; Martin, Dunleavy, & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2008). One area of communication studies where individuals refer to the instrumental use of verbal aggression, albeit indirectly, is strategy research, specifically the compliance-gaining literature. Berger and diBattista (1992) stated that people use a variety of strategies to reach their goals. People “use information about the people involved in the goal-direction interaction episode and the social context in which the interaction takes place to specify general plans for reaching interaction goals” (p. 370). Lim (1990) agreed with this view, noting that interpersonal persuasion is a transactional process where the source must consider the receiver, the request, and the context. According to Lim, people will become more verbally aggressive in order to achieve their goals if they face resistance. Compliance-gaining research shows that when people do not reach their goals, they are more likely to use threats and punishment-oriented strategies (deTurck, 1987). People who are high in trait verbal aggressiveness are more likely and quicker to use verbally aggressive compliance-gaining strategies (Hunter & Boster, 1987; Ifert & Bearden, 1998). When people are no longer rational and calm, they are going to be more harsh in their choice of compliance-gaining strategies (Dillard & Burgoon, 1985). Similarly, Wigley (1998) stated that when people are struggling in a disagreement that they perceive as highly relevant and important, they will be more verbally aggressive. We believe that there are some people who refuse to be verbally aggressive with another person no matter how important a goal may be or their level of frustration. Others might only use verbally aggressive messages unintentionally, whether due to frustration or an argument skill deficiency. At times, however, people are intentionally verbally aggressive in order to achieve an advantageous or positive outcome. In the next few pages, we will review several studies that have addressed the instrumental use of verbal aggression. Then we will identify situations or activities where one might use verbal aggression to achieve a desired outcome. First, however, we would like to distinguish between a verbally aggressive message and a hurtful message.1 Research provided on hurtful messages indicates that hurtful messages are distinct from verbal aggressiveness in two central ways (Vangelisti, 1994;

402

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

Young et al., 2005). First, hurtful messages and verbal aggressiveness are distinguishable at a conceptual level. Vangelisti (1994) conceptualized hurt as an emotion blend of sadness and fear evoked by a relational transgression. Hurt is an interpersonal process where individuals perceive they are “vulnerable to harm” and emotionally wounded by another person’s words or actions (Vangelisti, 2006, p. 134). From this perspective, hurt as an emotion can, and should be, differentiated from hurt as an end-state. Specifically, individuals can feel injured without enduring any observable psychological, physical, or relational damage. Individuals can also suffer observable psychological, physical, or relational damage without feeling injured or experiencing the emotion. Second, hurtful messages and verbally aggressive messages have been differentiated according to message intentionality and intensity, as well as the enduring nature often associated with being verbally aggressive (Vangelisti, 1994; Young et al., 2005). Verbally aggressive messages are noted to be intentionally delivered (Vangelisti, 1994), more intensely stated (Young et al., 2005), and more common among those who are predisposed to being aggressive (Vangelisti, 1994). While verbally aggressive messages are delivered with the intent of causing pain to the recipient, hurtful messages can be unintentional or intentional (Leary et al., 1998; Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti & Young, 2000), stated more or less intensely (Young et al., 2005), and delivered by individuals who are or are not predisposed to be aggressive (Vangelisti, 1994) or callous (Vangelisti & Young, 2000). Yet, it should be noted that when hurtful messages are stated more intensely, they overlap with verbally aggressive messages such that both are likely to incite a more negative, destructive, and possibly violent response (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Young et al., 2005). Researchers with interest in hurtful messages have noted that experiencing hurt is never pleasant (Vangelisti, 1994, 2006), such that individuals feel vulnerable, angry, sad, and fearful upon the reception of hurtful messages or events (Vangelisti, 2007). Hurtful messages have also been associated with a number of negative relational outcomes including greater relational distancing (Vangelisti & Maguire, 2002; Vangelisti & Young, 2000) and lower levels of relational quality (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998; Vangelisti et al., 2005). Guided by appraisal theories, however, researchers have discovered that individuals may interpret the outcomes of some of their hurtful experience more positively or constructively (e.g., Vangelisti & Young, 2000) despite the initial, painful reaction. Specifically, Vangelisti and Young (2000) had participants explain why they thought the other person hurt their feelings. Some participants believed that the person inflicting hurt was simply being supportive of the recipient’s needs. As such, these individuals were less likely to engage in relational distancing as a result of the hurtful episode. Yet, when participants perceived the message as intentional and driven by either the source’s selfish interpersonal motives or the source’s enduring, trait-like characteristics, participants reported a greater distancing effect. Obviously there is some overlap in the areas of verbal aggression research and

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

403

hurtful message research. Yet there is a difference that is important to acknowledge in this chapter. Hurtful message research predominantly, if not solely, focuses on the receiver’ perceptions and feelings. While considerable verbal aggression research has been conducted from the receiver’s perspective, aggressive messages (e.g., verbally aggressive messages) can be investigated by considering (a) either party individually; (b) both parties together; (c) from the observer’s perspective; or (d) by a societal standard (Infante, 1987). We are focusing on the source’s view of verbally aggressive messages; what a source views as a successful verbally aggressive message leading to a positive outcome might differ from the receiver’s perspective or from an observer’s viewpoint. Additionally, our attention is on the often maligned behavior of verbal aggression (Wigley, 2008), versus exploring trait verbal aggressiveness. Infante, Bruning, and Martin (1994) were interested in investigating individuals’ positive verbal aggression experiences and justifications for using verbal aggression. They believed that it was possible that people used verbally aggressive messages to energize behavioral changes in others. Receivers would be motivated by the verbal aggression and their performance would improve, leading to greater self-esteem. Infante, Bruning, and Martin (1994) identified athletics, the military, and graduate education as various contexts where verbal aggression is practiced as a motivational technique. They also noted that possibly parents could use verbal aggression to promote positive change in their children. After receiving an explanation of verbal aggression, individuals reported on their favorite memories of their use of verbal aggression as well as when they believed the use of verbal aggression was justified. The most frequently mentioned favorable experience by individuals was the use of verbal aggression when motivating others or in a learning situation (Infante, Bruning, & Martin, 1994). Revenge was another favorable experience: individuals reported enjoying watching others “get what they deserved” by being the recipient of verbally aggressive messages. A third favorable experience category was challenging authority (e.g., parents, instructors, employers). Individuals also reported enjoying teasing others. Additional favorable experience categories included using verbally aggressive messages in competition or in the manipulation of others. While some individuals did not have any favorable memories involving verbal aggression, most were able to report that they did have favorable experiences of either sending or receiving verbally aggressive messages (although most favorable experiences, as expected, involved being the source of the message). Infante, Bruning, and Martin (1994) concluded that when individuals recalled a favorable memory of receiving a verbally aggressive, that possibly the receivers achieved personal insight from receiving the message and were then able to adapt their behaviors. For when verbally aggressive messages were justified, self-defense was the most common response. Individuals believed that using verbal aggression was justified if another person was attempting to harm them either physically or mentally. Reprimanding someone in a disciplinary situation was also noted to be a justified circumstance. Individuals also reported that it was acceptable to

404

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

be verbally aggressive if one was in an argument or if one became frustrated. Two final justifications that individuals offered involved teasing others and manipulating others. Infante, Bruning, and Martin (1994) concluded that if the outcomes of verbal aggression can at times be positive, more attention needs to be paid in identifying the necessary condition for the positive outcomes to take place. Several studies have explored possible conditions in the instructional context where using verbally aggressive messages may lead to positive outcomes. Similar to other contexts, research has consistently shown that verbal aggression in the classroom is related to negative outcomes. When teachers are viewed as high in verbal aggressiveness, students participate less, ask fewer question, report less out-of-class communication and view their classes as having a negative classroom climate (Myers, 2001, 2002; Myers et al., 2007; Myers & Martin, 2006; Myers & Rocca, 2001). Such studies tend to ask students to rate their teachers’ overall use of verbal aggression. Several studies, however, have looked at teachers’ instrumental use of verbally aggressive messages. Heisel (2000) proposed the need to study the instrumental use of verbal aggression in the classroom, stating that “strategic verbal aggression involves the conscious and selective use of verbally aggressive messages to enhance the specific goals and objectives of the source” (pp. 15–16). Heisel believed that a distinction between verbally aggressive messages and trait verbal aggressiveness is that with the former, the source is consciously selecting a goal-directed verbally aggressive message that is believed to be effective. According to this view, whether the receiver is hurt or not by the message is inconsequential. When students were asked if they believed verbally aggressive messages could be effective, they responded that if students want to improve and to realize when they have made mistakes, verbally aggressive messages may be appropriate. Students added that the appropriateness and effectiveness of these messages would be dependent on the students believing that their teachers were looking after the best interest of their students, already had credibility with their students, and that the only reason for using such messages was in order to motivate their students. Hesiel (2000) then conducted a 2 × 2 scenario study where students read a message that was either (a) verbally aggressive or not and where they were told that (b) the teacher was speaking in a calm voice or was yelling. In both of the verbally aggressive conditions, the teacher was perceived as less appropriate and less credible. Students reported the greatest motivation to study in the high intensity/no verbal aggression condition; thus, yelling was perceived as effective, but making the message verbally aggressive lowered students’ motivation. While this study did not support the argument for the instrumental use of verbally aggressive messages, Heisel (2000) speculated that student affect for the instructor might impact the effectiveness of a teacher using a verbally aggressive message with a student. Following this suggestion, Martin and Valencic (2001) studied the impact of teacher caring, teacher sex, and student sex on students’ perceptions of the use

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

405

of a verbally aggressive message. Before reading a verbally aggressive scenario, students were told that they were taking their second class from this teacher, an elective. They perceived the teacher as competent and trustworthy. The teacher was well published, clear in class, knowledgeable in the content area, straightforward, and faithful to the syllabus. They had done poorly on a test and were going to meet privately with the teacher. The name of their teacher was either James Jones or Janet Jones; students were told that the teacher was either caring (e.g., took a personal interest in each student, knew students’ names, spent time interacting with students outside of the classroom) or not caring (e.g., distancing oneself from students and their personal interests, not recognizing students outside of the classroom). A message was created to be viewed by a separate sample of students that was viewed as verbally aggressive and realistic. All participants received the following message: Your effort on this exam was very disappointing. I don’t know if you are stupid or just lazy. The material covered on this exam was rather basic; a high school student would have aced this test. I know you attend class every session, although most mornings it looks like you rolled out of bed only minutes before. You need to decide whether you want to succeed in this course or not. If you want to succeed, you must work harder. I believe you can succeed; you just have to commit yourself to doing better. (p. 10) Male participants in the study viewed the teacher as more credible and more appropriate and found the message to be more motivational. There were no differences for students’ ratings of credibility, appropriateness, or motivation based on whether the teacher was caring or not. There were also no differences based on the sex of the teacher. Martin and Valencic (2001) did note that the teacher was viewed negatively across the board for competence and character, even though students were told before reading the scenario that they found the teacher to be competent and trustworthy. Seemingly, a single verbally aggressive encounter with a teacher trumped students’ previous perceptions of the teacher. The results supported Myers and Martin’s (2006) claim that while teachers might be well intentioned, by their use of verbally aggressive messages, students might not view the messages favorably. Martin and Valencic (2001) concluded that teachers should continue avoiding the instrumental use of verbally aggressive messages with their students unless specific verbally aggressive messages, in specific instances, with specific individuals were found to be effective. Taking a different approach, Martin, Dunleavy, and Kennedy-Lightsey (2008) explored the constructive use of verbally aggressive messages in the classroom. Students were given a definition and explanation of verbal aggression, including the statement that “people send verbally aggressive messages when they want to hurt another person” (p. 7). Students were also told that verbal aggression leads to negative outcomes in every context that has been investigated. Students were then asked to give examples of the use of verbal aggression

406

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

in the classroom, either by the teacher or by a student. Students were also asked specifically if there were times when the teacher’s or student’s use of verbal aggression led to positive outcomes. Students reported that they remembered teachers using verbally aggressive messages. Several students noted that most of their teachers rarely used verbally aggressive messages, but that those that did frequently used verbally aggressive messages. Supporting previous research, teachers attacked their students’ intelligence, laziness, apprehension, inattentiveness, and physical appearance (Martin, Dunleavy, & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2008). At the same time, students were able to provide examples of when verbal aggression in the classroom led to positive outcomes. Some students believed that teachers use verbal aggression to motivate students to increase their participation and effort in class. Others believed that verbal aggression could be used to discipline students, improving the teacher’s overall classroom management, and hence increasing their credibility. Several students believed that disruptive and disrespectful students deserved to be reprimanded by the teacher and that the teacher was justified to use verbal aggression in these situations. A final positive outcome mentioned by students was that a verbally aggressive teacher actually serves as a role model to students on how not to communicate with others. Martin, Dunleavy, and Kennedy-Lightsey (2008) reported that students gave fewer examples of students being verbally aggressive in the classroom towards their teachers. Even in those instances, students believed most of the outcomes were not constructive, e.g., students would only get themselves in more trouble by being verbally aggressive. However, students did give some examples where they felt student verbal aggression caused a positive change or outcome. Some students believed that by heckling bad teachers, telling their teachers that they could not teach, those teachers were then better prepared for future class sessions. Several students mentioned that reciprocating a teacher’s own use of verbal aggression with a verbally aggressive message led to a teacher apologizing and everyone involved becoming less verbally aggressive. Others mentioned that teasing their teachers for not having supplies ready or grading assignments in a timely manner caused their teachers to improve their instructional behaviors. A final example involved disruptive students being verbally aggressive and a teacher viewing that behavior as the final straw and becoming more authoritative in the classroom. Martin, Dunleavy, and Kennedy-Lightsey (2008) noted that while students were able to give examples of the use of verbal aggression in the classroom leading to positive outcomes, students did not state that they enjoyed receiving or witnessing verbally aggressive messages. At times, students legitimized the teachers’ use of verbal aggression in the classroom, saying teachers are in charge of classroom discipline and student learning and that occasionally teachers need to be verbally aggressive to get the class’s attention or to establish authority in the classroom. The authors also reported that students noted that coaches, club leaders, and teachers have all used verbal aggression to demand

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

407

more from their students. Martin, Dunleavy, and Kennedy-Lightsey (2008) concluded by cautioning that they were not advocating an increased use of verbal aggression by teachers, but that their results indicated that there may be situations with certain students where the teacher’s use of verbal aggression could lead to positive outcomes.

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages Wigley (1998) ended his review of verbal aggression research by proposing several hypotheses and research questions that he believed required attention in the future. One of his hypotheses proposed that “as one perceived that the likelihood of desirable consequences increases with verbal aggression, the probability of planned verbal aggression increases” (p. 211). There is some evidence that people recognize that purposely using verbally aggressive messages can be effective. In studying how people internally edit arguments before uttering their arguments, Hample and Dallinger (1987) reported that people eliminate arguments that they view as ineffective, unethical, weak, or potentially embarrassing. They found that people higher in verbal aggressiveness eliminated fewer arguments and expressed a willingness to use verbally aggressive messages in order to achieve their goals. Noting that people have primary goals (i.e., their objective) and secondary goals (i.e., maintaining a relationship), Meyer (2004) found that people higher in verbal aggressiveness did not worry as much about relational implications when using verbally aggressive messages. Rogan and La France’s (2003) results support that finding, in that verbally aggressive individuals used more control-oriented conflict strategies instead of non-confrontational or solution-oriented conflict strategies. While the studies mentioned above deal with trait verbal aggressiveness, the common thread between the studies is the intentional use of communication messages that some would consider verbally aggressive. In these instances, the source is the benefactor. We believe that, at times, it is possible that the source, receiver, or both parties benefit from the expression of a verbally aggressive message. We now address four situations where the instrumental use of verbally aggressive messages could be constructive or lead to a desired outcome: motivation/competition, relationship terminating/interaction avoiding, impression management, and catharsis. Motivation/Competition Infante (1995) noted in his instructional unit on reducing verbal aggression that there are times when the use of verbally aggressive messages is acceptable, even expected. He mentioned competitive activities such as athletics and debates, as well as graduate education, as possible contexts where one might instrumentally successfully use verbally aggressive messages. Individuals could be “spurred to levels of achievement they did not believe possible” by receiving

408

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

verbally aggressive messages (Infante, Bruning, & Martin, 1994, p. 5). While to our knowledge little attention has been paid to the constructive use of verbal aggression in graduate education (beyond anecdotal accounts and personal experiences), others have recognized the potential use of verbal aggression in competition (Infante & Rancer, 1996). In athletics, there are numerous coaches known for being verbally aggressive and for being successful (and often their success is linked in part to their communicator style). Yet there is little empirical evidence to advocate coaches being verbally aggressive. Kassing and Infante (1999) found that when athletes perceived their coaches as being verbally and physically aggressive, they also viewed their coaches as being lower in the credibility dimensions of character and competence. Athletes also reported lower satisfaction with their coaches and displayed fewer sportsmanship behaviors. When playing for a coach who is verbally aggressive, players report less motivation and affect for the coach (Martin et al., 2009) and are more likely to display antisocial fair play behaviors (e.g., attempting to get away with penalties, trash talking) and less likely to display prosocial fair play behaviors (e.g., supporting teammates, respecting opponents) (Hassandra, Bekiari, & Sakellariou, 2007). Several studies have looked more closely at players’ trash talking and fans’ use of verbal aggression. Fans higher in trait verbal aggressiveness have greater team identification (Rocca & Martin, 1998). Wann, Carlson, and Schrader (1999) found a relationship between team identification and instrumental verbal aggression, stating that “instrumental spectator aggression refers to actions intended to harm another person with the goal of achieving a result other than the victim’s suffering. For example, fans may yell at officials and opposing players to increase their team’s chances of success” (p. 279). Involving trash talking, Summers (2007) argued that this behavior may be used instrumentally, constructively, to (a) break a player’s concentration; (b) distract a player from the gameplan; and (c) undermine the player’s determination. Disagreeing with this view, Dixon (2007, 2008) declared that trash talking is never appropriate and is morally indefensible. While the studies mentioned above do not make a strong case for advocating verbal aggression in sports, many coaches, players, and fans still believe that verbally aggressive messages can be used constructively. Whether the instrumental use of verbal aggression is effective in athletics, or in other types of competition, merits further investigation. Infante et al. (1984) stated that when interacting with a high argumentative, disagreements become competitive, which possibly might lead to an appropriate use of verbal aggression. A question that needs answering is whether a behavior (e.g., verbal aggression) that is not normally acceptable in everyday life should be condoned in competitive situations (Dixon, 2008).

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

409

Relationship Terminating/Interaction Avoiding In many communication classes and textbooks, students are given information about how to develop relationships and have more productive and satisfying interactions. While the topic of relationship termination is sometimes addressed, using verbal aggression to end a relationship or avoiding an interaction by being verbally aggressive is not promoted. Yet, Dailey and Palomares (2004) found that people use various strategies to avoid talking about topics and to end interactions, including being offensive, threatening the other person, and attacking the other person’s past wrongdoings and misbehaviors. When ending many relationships, verbal aggression would be inappropriate, unnecessarily hurtful, and potentially physically dangerous. But what about situations where the messages “go away and stay away” and “it’s over, leave me alone” are not effective? For some individuals, in ending a relationship, their primary goal of ending the relationship might far supersede any secondary goal of not hurting the other person. For these individuals to attain their primary goals, verbal aggression could be used instrumentally to be successful. When there is verbal aggression in a dating relationship, people are unsatisfied (Venable & Martin, 1997). It is possible that people communicate verbally aggressively because they are unhappy. Sutter and Martin (1998) found that when breaking up, people high in verbal aggressiveness are more likely to be verbally aggressive, more likely to use a greater number of relationship disengagement strategies, and more likely to reciprocate the use of verbal aggression by their partners. When members of couples decide to disengage and to not remain any type of friend relationship, they are more likely to use disengagement strategies that attack the other person (Banks et al., 1987). Banks et al. concluded that people might not start off using the most verbally aggressive disengagement strategies, but if more prosocial strategies are not effective, people will use verbally aggressive strategies in order to have the other person understand and accept that the relationship is over. An interesting possibility is someone communicating intentionally verbally aggressively to end a relationship, sending a particular message that is a lie. For example, someone has been trying to end a relationship for a period of time, indirectly and unsuccessfully, then more directly but still unsuccessfully, and no matter what she says, her partner will not realize the relationship is over. Finally she tells her partner the following lie. “For the last two months, I have been sleeping with my neighbor Alex regularly. I realized I could never be satisfied with someone as stuffy, boring, and lazy as you are—I would rather never have sex again than have to pretend to enjoy myself with you one more time.” The receiver of this message is hurt and states that their relationship must end immediately. The person sending the lie might actually care about the person she is talking to and it is not her intention to hurt this person. However, after numerous unsuccessful attempts at ending the relationship, she used a verbally aggressive message to achieve her primary goal. While verbally aggressive

410

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

messages might not be the most socially appropriate means to end a relationship or indicate that one is uninterested in an interaction, at times it might be an effective method of achieving one’s goal. Impression Management Infante, Riddle et al. (1992) reported that two reasons people give for communicating verbally aggressively is to appear tough and to appear mean. In these instances, impression management, not causing hurt to another individual, is the primary goal. Infante et al. (1984) added that people who are high in verbal aggression might be unaware that the verbally aggressive messages they are using for other reasons (e.g., to appear to be tough) could be harming someone else. There is also the expectation of reciprocation of verbally aggressive messages in American society. People believe individuals are justified in being verbally aggressive when those individuals are responding to an initial verbally aggressive attack (Martin, Anderson, & Horvath, 1996). When people are on the receiving end of verbal aggression, watching others being attacked, or reprimanding someone who misbehaves, people view the use of verbal aggression as justified. Infante, Hartley, et al. (1992) found that when a receiver did not reciprocate after being the target of numerous verbally aggressive messages, observers viewed that receiver as less credible. Avtgis, Rancer, and Amato (1998) investigated the relationship between trait verbal aggressiveness and self-handicapping. They found that people low in verbal aggressiveness were lower in self-handicapping than people who were medium or high in verbal aggressiveness. They noted that using verbally aggressive messages might be a self-handicapping strategy that people use to protect or build their self-esteem. Sutter and Martin (1998) proposed the possibility that when a relationship is ending, people who are the initiators might respond verbally aggressively towards their former partner during the disengagement process as a means of face saving. Buchanan, O’Hair, and Becker’s (2006) study of marital relationship dissolution supports the aforementioned proposition. People who were left were more likely to use negative strategies to protect their face. These strategies included emotional manipulation, derogation of partner, and jealousy induction. The primary goal for some individuals might very well be face saving, not the feelings of a given receiver or audience. Whether that receiver or audience is hurt by the message they hear might be irrelevant to the source. What is important to the sources is their image; image is everything. Catharsis There might be times when being verbally aggressive can have a catharsis effect, reducing tension and conflict, and preventing physical aggression (Baron & Richardson, 2004; Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001). Catharsis Theory states that aggressive expression leads people to experience psychological release

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

411

and aggressive behavioral reduction (Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, 1999; Doob & Wood, 1972; Gambaro & Rabin, 1969; Verona & Sullivan, 2008). The catharsis effect is stronger when individuals feel little guilt about aggressing toward the person responsible for inducing their frustration (Gambaro & Rabin, 1969) or when they believe that vocalizing aggression will make them feel better (Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, 1999). People are more likely to express their frustration when their previous outbursts were rewarded (Berkowitz, 1970). While being verbally aggressive can cause psychological harm, from the catharsis perspective, venting one’s frustration (i.e., being verbally aggressive) may prevent an increased amount of conflict and verbal aggression, and possibly even physical aggression (Infante, 1995). The initial act of verbal aggression may be perceived negatively by the receiver and observers, but it is possible that there might be a positive outcome. For instance, a receiver might recognize the existence of a problem or the urgency in needing to address a problem. Or it might not be important that change needs to take place; a source might just feel better (e.g., relieved, satisfied) after being verbally aggressive. If this action prevents further damage to a relationship or prevents a physical encounter, the use of verbally aggressive messages can be constructive.

Conclusion Verbal aggression is a destructive communication behavior that predominantly leads to negative relational outcomes. There is no argument. People rarely, if ever, report that they enjoy or benefit from receiving verbally aggressive messages. None of the authors of this chapter want to live, work, or spend leisure time with someone who is regularly verbally aggressive. But could it be possible that there are times when verbally aggressive messages could be effective or constructive? And if the previous statement is possible, should individuals be encouraged and taught to use verbally aggressive messages to achieve their goals? The communication discipline helps people improve their communication skills and lives (Wigley, 1998). Infante (1995) declared that communication scholars have an ethical responsibility to teach others how to be less verbally aggressive. Wigley (2008) concluded that verbal aggression is a societal problem and that “reducing verbal aggression through well-designed interventions (as described) can lead to an improved quality of life” (p. 348). Are the authors of this chapter committing heresy and destined to face ridicule and be ostracized from the communication discipline? Time will tell. But we agree with Infante, Bruning, and Martin (1994), who noted that “if verbal aggression is constructive at times, we need to learn of the conditions for favorable outcomes. This would provide valuable information on the ethical issue of whether certain means justify a particular end” (p. 18).

412

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

Note 1 While this is not the goal of this chapter, we believe it is important to distinguish how we view the difference between verbally aggressive messages and hurtful messages. We believe that the similarities and differences between these two lines of research need to be further explicated.

References Avtgis, T. A., Rancer, A. S., & Amato, P. P. (1998). Self-handicapping orientation and tendencies toward verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 15, 226–234. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943–963. Banks, S. P., Altendorf, D. M., Greene, J. O., & Cody, M. J. (1987). An examination of relationship disengagement: Perceptions, breakup strategies and outcomes. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, 19–41. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (2004). Human aggression (2nd ed.), New York: Plenum Press. Berger, C. R., & diBattista, P. (1992). Information seeking and plan elaboration: What do you need to know to know what to do? Communication Monographs, 59, 368–387. Berkowitz, L. (1970). Experimental investigation of hostility catharsis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 1–7. Buchanan, M. C., O’Hair, H. D., & Becker, J. A. H. (2006). Strategic communication during marital relationship dissolution: Disengagement resistance strategies. Communication Research Reports, 23, 139–147. Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17–32. Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 367–376. Dailey, R. M., & Palomares, N. A. (2004). Strategic topic avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates. Communication Monographs, 71, 471–496. deTurck, M. A. (1987). When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliancegaining strategy. Communication Monographs, 54, 106–112. Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the CodyMcLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52, 289–304. Dixon, N. (2007). Trash talking, respect for opponents and good competition. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 1, 96–106. Dixon, N. (2008). Trash talking as irrelevant to athletic excellence: Response to Summers. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 35, 90–96. Doob, A. N., & Wood, L. (1972). Catharsis and aggression: The effects of annoyance and retaliation on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 156–162.

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

413

Gambaro, S., & Rabin, A. I. (1969). Diastolic blood pressure responses following direct and displaced aggression after anger arousal in high and low guilt subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 87–94. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1987). Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research, 14, 123–144. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1992). The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argumentation & Advocacy, 28, 109–120. Hassandra, M., Bekiari, A., & Sakellariou, K. (2007). Physical education teachers verbal aggression and students fair play behaviors. Physical Educator, 64, 94–201. Heisel, A. D. (2000). Strategic verbal aggression: Attacking the self-concept to enhance motivation in the classroom. Unpublished Dissertation, West Virginia University. Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1987). A model of compliance-gaining message selection. Communication Monographs, 54, 63–84. Ifert, D. E., & Bearden, L. (1998). The influence of argumentativeness and verbal aggression to responses to refused requests. Communication Reports, 11, 145–154. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. Infante, D. A., Bruning, S. D., & Martin, M. M. (1994, Nov.). The verbally aggressive individual: Experiences with verbal aggression and reasons for use. Speech Communication Association, New Orleans. Infante, D. A., Hartley, K. C., Martin, M. M., Higgins, M. A., Bruning, S. D., & Hur, G. (1992). Intitiating and reciprocating verbal aggression: Effects on credibility and credited valid arguments. Communication Studies, 43, 182–190. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319–351. Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126. Infante, D. A., Wall, C. H., Leap, C. J., & Danielson, K. (1984). Verbal aggression as a function of the receivers argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 1, 33–37. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69. Kassing, J. W., & Infante, D. A. (1999). Aggressive communication in the coach-athlete relationship. Communication Research Reports, 16, 110–120. Kinney, T. A. (1994). An inductively derived typology of verbal aggression and its association to distress. Human Communication Research, 21, 183–222. Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237. Lim, T. S. (1990). The influence of receivers resistance on persuaders verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 38, 170–188. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Horvath, C. L. (1996). Feelings about verbal aggression: Justifications for sending and hurt from receiving verbally aggressive messages. Communication Research Reports, 13, 19–26. Martin, M. M., Dunleavy, K. N., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2008, April). Can verbally aggressive messages in the instructor-student relationship be constructive? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh.

414

Matthew M. Martin, Katie Neary Dunleavy, & Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey

Martin, M. M., Rocca, K. A., Cayanus, J. L., & Weber, K. (2009). The impact of coaches use of behavior alteration techniques and verbal aggression. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 227–241. Martin, M. M., & Valencic, K. M. (2001, Nov.). The effect of an instructors caring and instructors and students sex when an instructor is verbally aggressive with a student. National Communication Association, Atlanta. McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31, 1–7. Meyer, J. R. (2004). Effect of verbal aggressiveness on the perceived importance of secondary goals in messages. Communication Studies, 55, 168–184. Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 354–365. Myers, S. A. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113–121. Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 495–208. Myers, S. A., & Martin, M. M. (2006). Understanding the source: Teacher credibility and aggressive communication traits. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical & relational perspectives (pp. 67–88). Boston: Pearson. Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rocca, K. A., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Verbal aggression and team identification: A sport fan’s perspective. Eastern Communication Association, Saratoga Springs. Rogan, R. G., & La France, B. H. (2003). An examination of the relationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Communication Quarterly, 51, 458–469. Summers, C. (2007). Ouch . . . you just dropped the ashes. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 34, 68–76. Sutter, D. L., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Verbal aggression during the disengagement of dating relationships. Communication Research Reports, 15, 318–326. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Hurtful interactions and the dissolution of intimacy. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 133–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (2007). Communicating hurt. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 121–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L., & Crumley, L. (1998). Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs, 65, 173–196. Vangelisti, A. L., & Maguire, K. A. (2002). Hurtful messages in family relationships: When the pain lingers. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), A clinician guide to

The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages

415

maintaining and enhancing close relationships (pp. 43–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Vangelisti, A. L, & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–425. Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it hurt?: The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443–477. Venable, K. V., & Martin, M. M. (1997). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 955–964. Verona, E., & Sullivan, E. A. (2008). Emotional catharsis and aggression revisited: Heart rate reduction following aggressive responding. Emotion, 8, 331–340. Wann, D. L., Carlson, J. D., & Schrader, M. P. (1999). The impact of team identification on the hostile and instrumental verbal aggression of sport spectators. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 279–286. Wigley, C. J., III. (1998). Verbal aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 191–214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Wigley, C. J., III. (2008). Verbal aggression interventions: What should be done? Communication Monographs, 75, 339–350. Young, S. L., & Bippus, A. M. (2001). Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way?: Humorously and non-humorously phrased hurtful messages in personal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 35–52. Young, S. L., Kubicka, T. L., Tucker, C. E., Chavez-Appel, D., & Rex, J. S. (2005). Communicative responses to hurtful messages in families. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 123–140.

Index

In this index tables are indicated in bold; notes are indicated by n. 527 ads 225, 226 abuse 242 acclaims 224 adolescent aggression 52–3, 140, 150, 186 adults, aggression/aggressive communication 53–6 affective/hot aggression 287 affirming communication 247, 295, 298 Agatston, P. W. 208 age, and aggression 393–4 aggression see also verbal aggression appropriate/persuasive 219–22 developmental trends in 46–8 indirect/passive 167–70 justification for 253, 391, 403–4 predicting 51–2 research 309–12 Aggression Questionnaire 190–1 aggressive communication see also communication and authoritarian approaches 244 desirable/less desirable characteristics 220–2 destructive traits 274–5 interpretation of meaning 115 predispositions to 108 research 161 risk factors 246 and TCP 378–9 terms associated with 241–2 aggressive hostility 34 aggressive organizational communication 289–98 see also workplace aggression Aggressive Provocation Questionnaire (APQ) 393

alcohol, and sports aggression 261 alexithymia 379 alienation 49 Anderson, C. M. and Martin, M. M. 310 Anderson, C. A. 189, 191 Andersson, L. M. and Pearson, C. M. 289 Anestis, M. D. 395–6 anger, and aggressive communication 281 anger management 281 anger rumination 395–6 anonymity, and fan aggression 260–1 antisocial behavior alteration techniques (BATs) 168–9 anxiety, public speaking 4 appropriateness 350–1 ARG scale 73–80, 102–3, 104–5 argument, effectiveness at 21 argument frames 379–81 arguments, serial 170–3 argumentative predisposition 132 argumentative skills deficiency (ASD) 17–20, 21, 394 argumentative skills deficiency model (ASDM) 166, 323 Argumentative Skills Deficiency Model of Interspousal Violence 321–2 argumentativeness conceptual foundations of 69–71 one and two dimensional models 71 scales see ARG scale and TCP 380 of teaching assistants 162 training 131, 150–1 trait 130–2, 150–1, 294, 322, 327 Argumentativeness Scale see ARG Argyle, M. 269

418

Index

Aronson, E. 351 Art of War, The 93 “A Survey of Four Continents” 94 asymmetrical activity, prefrontal cortex 30–40 asymmetrical processing model 30, 31, 38–9 asymmetry research 14–15, 30–40 Atkin, C. K. 189 attachment 346–8 attack ads 234 attacks, political ads 225–9 attacks, verbal/nonverbal 222–5 audio recordings, and verbal aggression 189–90 authoritarian approaches, and aggressive communication 244 avoidance, and TCP 378, 383 Avtgis, T. A. 108, 383, 410 Avtgis, T. A. and Madlock, P. 243, 244 Avtgis, T. A. and Rancer, A. S. 105, 106, 107, 133, 293, 295 Ayoko, O. B. 308, 314 Babcock, J. C 320 Bad Blue Boys 258 balance theory 361 Bales, R. F. 308 Bandura, A. 47 Banerjee, S. C. 187, 188 Banks, S. P. 409 Bartholomew, K. 347–8 BATs 168–9 batterers, types 1 and 2 325–6 Baxter, L. A. 341 Bayer, C. L. and Cegala, D. J. 326–7 Beatty, M. J. 6, 7, 8, 8–10, 15–16, 30–1, 33, 75, 168, 327 Beatty, M. J. and Dobos, J. A. 327 Beatty, M. J. and Heisel, A. D. 5 Beatty, M. J. and McCroskey, J. C. 6, 11, 34 Beck, S. 341 Beech, B. and Leather, P. 242 behavioural opposition, students 144 Behm-Morawitz, E. and Mastro, D. E. 178 Bell, R. A. and Healey, J. G. 341 Berger, C. R. and di Battista, P. 401 Berkowitz, L. 189, 287 Big Three/Five measures, and TFD/TCP 363, 375, 376, 376 biological factors 4–5, 6–15, 21, 38, 48–9 Bjorkqvist, K. 49 blank slate approach 4–5

Blogosphere 231 blurting 380 Bonito, J. A. 312 Bonito, J. A. and Hollingshead, A. B. 313 Bookwala, J. 54, 55–6 Booth-Butterfield, M. and Sidelinger, R. J. 327 Bowlby, J. 346 brain laterality research 31 broad heritability 8 brooders 396 Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 223 Buchanan, M. C. 410 Budd, T. 242 bullying see also cyberbullying 52–3, 199–200, 242 in classroom 139–44 and cyberbullying 58, 203, 207 and differences 152 in groups 311–12 and teasing 150 bully-victims 143 Burgoon, J. K. and Dunbar, N. E. 344 Buss, A. and Perry, M. 190–1 Cairns, R. B. 49 Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. 78 catharsis, and verbal aggression 410–11 centricity 125 Chafee, S. H. 111 change, in groups 314 Chen, G-M. and Starosta,W. J. 114 childhood aggression 48–52, 140 children, media exposure 186, 190 China, aggressive communication and Chinese culture 85–9 new developments, China 94–6 strategies for, Chinese culture 90–3 term, in Chinese language 82–4 Chory-Assad, R. M. and Paulsel, M. L. 168–9 Chory-Assad, R. M. and Tamborini, R. 187 Chory, R. M. and Cicchirillo, V. 191 class, and race 113 classroom conflict 144–9, 404–6 classroom environment, and aggression 150, 161–6 coaches, and aggression 255–6, 307, 408 collaborative approach, negotiations 134 collectivist cultures 127, 128 college classroom, aggressive communication 161–6

Index college students, and TV exposure 187, 188 Columbine High School 139 communibiology 34 communication see also aggressive communication affirming 247, 295, 298 distortion 115 idiomatic 341 measurement of 108–9 symbolic aggressive 268 training 248 traits 101–2, 364–5 communication apprehension 32–3, 38–9, 379 communication-related behaviors 31–2 communicator image 295 communicator styles 271, 294–5, 296 competition, and verbal aggression 407–8 compliance-gaining strategies/research 322–3, 401 computer-mediated communication (CMC) 174, 260, 309 computer tailored messages 211 conflict classroom 144–9, 404–6 in groups 308–9 management/resolution 97, 145–8, 309–10, 347 as negative 361, 363–4 negative solutions to 367–8 preventing 365–7 and TFD 360, 361–2 Confucianism 85–6 Confucius 88, 89 construct validity, ARG/VA scales 77–9 constructive/destructive relationships, China 88 consumerism, healthcare 244 control, loss of 244 cooperative principle 220 Core TCP see tolerance for conflict covert/overt aggression 53 Coyne, S. M. and Archer, J. 180 Coyne, S. M. and Whitehead, E. 179 Crick, N. and Dodge, K. A. 47 Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. 77 cross-cultural research 101–11 Cultural Revolution 95 cultural self 116–17 culture(s) aggressive organizational 288 and argumentativeness 103, 110, 127–8 conceptualization of 111–18

419

cross-cultural research 101–11 high/low context 105–6 individual level 109–11 operationalizing 100–1 organizational 293 and political aggression 233 as shared symbol system 115 and TCP 377 term 100 third 135 Cupach, W. R. and Carson, C. L. 383 cyberbullying see also bullying 57–8, 198–9 and bullying 203, 207 channels 206 and communication 210–12 defined 201–2 negative consequences of 208 prevention 209–10 reporting 208–9 research on 204–9 safety strategies 209 in sports 261 types of 203–4, 205 Cyber Bullying: A Prevention Curriculum for Grades 6–12 210 cyberharassment 198, 205 cyberstalking 198, 205 Dailey, R. M. and Palomares, N. A. 409 “Daisy” ad 227–8 Dallinger, J. M. and Hample, D. 377, 379, 382 Dao-De-Jing (Tao-Te-Ching) 86 debt and threats 255–6 decorum, and politically aggressive communication 221–2, 228 decorum principle 224 de-escalation 391 “Defensive Communication” 394 defensiveness 394–5 denigration 205 desensitization, systematic 4 destructive aggressive communication traits 274–5 dialectic exchange 293 DiCioccio, R. L. 342–3 dimensionality 73–6 direct/indirect aggression 56 direct personalization, TCP 372–3 disagreement and argumentativeness 364 constructive/desctructive 359 and tolerance for disagreement 360–1

420

Index

discrimination 242 dispositional approach 32 distrust, experienced by patients 244 Dixon, N. 254, 408 Doctrine of the Mean 86, 87 Dodge, K. A. and Somberg, D. R. 47 Downs, V. C. 232, 269–70 Dukakis, Michael 226 Dumas, J. E. 50 Durbin, J. M. 389–90, 392 Duxiu Chen 94 Eastin, M. S. 192 education see also training conflict resolution 146–8 verbal aggression 166–7 efficiency, interpersonal: and strategic aggression 5–6 Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B. I. 286 Ekman, P. 269 Ellis, D. G. and Fisher, B. A. 362 email communication 28 emotional intelligence 314 environmental influences, and aggression 49–51 environments, social 5 equivalence, cross-cultural measurement 106–9 escalation cycle 289 ethnic differences, and bullying 152 ethnicity 112, 115 ethnocentic approach, negotiation 126 exclusion 205 Expectancy Violation Theory 270–1 Expectation States Theory (ESP) 312 face concerns 90–1, 223–4, 351 fair play behaviors 255 Falconer, D. S. 8 family aggression 49–50, 318, 334–6 communication 111, 320 relationships, and bullying 142 (F)anonymity 260–1 fans and aggression in sport 256–7 dysfunctional 261 and identification 258–9, 408 fantasy sports leagues 261 Federal Election Commission (FEC) 230 Feeney, J. A. and Noller, P. 348 femininity, and TCP 379 Feshbach, N. D. 49 fight-flight system (FFS) 13–14

film, and verbal aggression 178–80 Fisher, R. 134 flaming 205 Flexible Savings Account (FSA) 244 Fouts, G. 183 Frog and the Scorpion 29 frustration 391, 393, 394 frustration-aggression hypothesis 287 functional theory 224 gay men, domestic violence 332 Geer, J. G. 219 gender see sex genetic commonality 5 genetic predispositions tolerance for conflict (TCP) 376 verbal aggression/argumentativeness 6–10, 34, 335, 336 geocentric approach, negotiation 125–8, 126 Gerberich, S. 245 Get Real About Violence 209–10 Gibb, Jack 394 Glascock, J. and Ruggiero, T. E. 180 global communication 127, 133–4 globalization, and culture 125 Glomb, T. M. and Liao, H. 307 Goldwater, Barry 227–8 Goleman, D. P. 314 Goodall, Jane 4 Gortner, E. 326 Gottman, J. 324–6 Greenberg, B. S. 181, 182 Greene, K. and Kremar, M. 179 Grice, P. 220 Grog Squad 257 grouphate 311 groups 305–9, 310, 311, 365 Groupthink 367–8 Gruenfeld, D. H. 310 Guerrero, L. K. and Burgoon, J. K. 348 Gustavsson, J. P. 51 Hample, D. and Dallinger, J. M. 372, 407 Hample, D. 382 harassment 205 hard-bargaining approach, negotiations 134 hardwiring, for aggression 4 Haridakis, P. M. 188 harmony, in Chinese culture 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 Harre, R. and Lamb, R. 47

Index Hartley, K. C. 410 Hazen, C. and Shaver, P. 346–7 health implications, aggressive organizational communication 290 healthcare, and aggression 241–7 heckling, political 232–3 Heisel, A. D. 404 hemispheric laterality 38 Hennig, J. 34 Henningsen, D. D. and Henningsen, M. L. 307 hereditability estimate, aggression 10 high-context communicative transactions 106 high-context cultures 105–6, 107, 129, 131 Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. W. 206, 209 Hobman, E. V. 309 hockey, aggression in 253 Hopper, R. 341 hormone exposure, verbal aggressiveness 10–11 hostile aggression 144 Hostile Attribution Bias 47–8 hostility and teasing 344, 349 and verbal aggression 280 Hovatter, D. 359 Huesmann, L. R. 50, 51 Huesmann, L. R. and Guerra, N. G. 142 Hughson, J. 258 humor, aggressive 114, 179 “Hundred Schools of Thought Contend” 89 hurtful messages 279–80, 320, 324, 389–90, 392, 401–3 see also psychological pain identification, and sport 258–9, 408 idiomatic communication 341 IIA scale 168–9 image, damaging of 219 impersonation 205 implicit ad hominems 270 impression management, and verbal aggression 410 impression management theory 219 independent mindedness 292–6 indirect/direct aggression 56, 167–70 Indirect Interpersonal Aggressiveness (IIA) scale 168–9 individualistic cultures 127–8 Infante, D. A. 17–18, 19, 143, 165, 166–7, 271, 280, 289, 292, 293, 267, 269, 321–4, 343, 390, 391, 400, 403, 404

421

Infante, D. A. and Gorden, W. I. 295–6 Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S. 70, 74 Infante, D. A. and Wigley, C. J. 26, 74–5, 190–1 influence, social 307 injustice, organizational 287, 288 instructor argumentativeness/VA 163–4, 165, 173 see also teachers instructor/student verbal aggression 160, 163, 164 instrumental aggression 253, 260, 407–11 integrated model of aggression 288 interaction Chinese culture 95 and TCP 382 interactionist model of teasing communication (TCM) 342–6, 345, 348, 350, 351 internet campaigning 230–2 and sports fans 260–1 interpersonal conflict 361 interpersonal efficiency, and strategic aggression 5–6 invasive communication 84, 85 inventional system 166–7 Ito, T. A. 391, 392 Janis, Irving 368 Jin-gong xing jiao-liu 84 Johnson, D. W. 148 Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. 131, 147 Joint Programme on Workplace Violence in the Health Sector 241–2 “Journal of Youth” 94 justice, procedural 169 justification, for aggression 253, 391, 403–4 juvenile offenders, and impact of films 179 Kameda, T. 306–7 Kassing, J. W. 328 Kassing, J. W. and Barber, A. M. 256 Kassing, J. W. and Infante, D. A. 255, 408 Katt, J. A. 359–60, 362–3 Kelloway, E. K. 287 Keltner, D. 351 Keyton, J. 305 Kim, M. S. 109, 110 Klopf, D. W. 101–2 Knapp, M. L. and Hall, J. A. 269 Knecht, S. 38

422

Index

Knutson, P. K. 360, 361 Koehn, S. C. and Martin, M. M. 178 Kowalski, R. M. 198, 341, 350 Kowalski, R. M. & Limber, S. P. 203 Lachlan, K. A. and Maloney, E. K. 191 Lamude, K. G. and Torres, P. 362 Landis, Floyd 260 Lanza, M. 247 Lao-Zi (Lao-Tzu) 86, 88 Lawrence, C. 393 leadership, groups 307, 311 Leech, G. 220 lesbians, domestic violence 332 Levenson, R. W. and Gottman, J. M. 324 Levin, D. E. 150 Lewin, K. 305, 314 Lewis, M. 48 Lewis, R. J. 33–4 Leyens, J. 178, 179 lian 90 life span perspective 45–6, 54, 57–9 Lim, T. 391 Limon, M. S. and La France, B. H. 311 Lin, Y. 111–12 Lindeman, M. 52 LoConto, D. G. and Roth, T. J. 255 Longaretti, L. and Wilson, J. 145 low-context communicative transactions 106 low-context cultures 105–6, 129, 131 low-level conflict 144 Lykken, D. T. 7 Madlock, P. E. 365 Magnusson, D. 343 Mao Tse-tung 95 marital aggression 54, 319–26 marital satisfaction 319, 324 marriage relations, psychophysiological approach 324–6 Marshall, L. L. 323 Martin, M. M. 55, 182, 188, 329, 330, 334, 405–7 Martin, M. M. and Valencic, K. M. 404–5 masculinity, and sport 257–8 May Fourth Movement 94 McCroskey, J. C. and Beatty, M. J. 33 McCroskey, J. C. and Richmond, V. P. 363 McCroskey, J. C. and Weeless, L. R. 360, 361–2, 363 measurement, cross-cultural 106–11

measurement validity, basics of 68–9 media, and aggression 16, 50–1, 117, 178–80, 193, 225–30, 230–2 mediated effects model 6 Mehrabian, A. 269 messages hurtful 279–80, 320, 324, 389–90, 392, 401–3 see also psychological pain regret/memorable 256 Meyer, G. 210 Meyers, R. A. and Brashers, D. E. 306, 307 mianzi 90 microtargeting 235 Miczo, M. and Welter, R. 114 Mitchell, J. 218 mobbing 312 modesty, in Chinese culture 87 motivation, and verbal aggression 407–8 Mottet, T. P. and Thweatt, K. S. 341 multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) 78 music, and verbal aggression 189–90 Myers, K. A. and Bailey, C. L. 379 Myers, S. A. 163 Myers, S. A. and Goodboy, A. K. 55, 330, 331 Myers, S. A. and Knox, R. L. 162, 164–5, 330 Myers, S. A. and Rocca, K. A. 163–4 Nansel, T. R. 200 Nathanson, A. I. 51 nationality, and culture 115, 118 nature or nurture debate 6 negative campaigning 229 negative urgency 396 negotiation (s) approaches to 126 global, and argumentativeness 128–33 and relationships 124 networks, social 58 neurobiological systems, and aggression 12–15 neurotic hostility 34 neurotic psychoticism 35 neuroticism 376, 377, 384 New Culture Movement 94 Nicotera, A. M. 115, 116–17 nomological network approach 77 nonaffirming communicator style 271 nonverbal aggression 268–71 degree of hurtfulness 271–4, 273, 278, 279–80, 281, 282 messages, frequency of 281, 279

Index political attacks 224–5 reasons for employing 277, 280–1 trash talk 254–5, 408 nonverbal communication 27, 47 nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors 273 nonverbal “verbal” aggression see nonverbal aggression norms, classroom 143 nursing, and aggressive communication 245 see also healthcare Occupational Safety and Health Promotion Management Guidelines for Workplace Violence and Prevention Programs (OSHA) 246 O’Connor, D. B. 393 Olaniran, B. and Williams, D. 115 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program 209 Olweus Bullying Questionnaire 199–200, 213n. Olweus, D. 53, 141 Opium War 94 Opotow, S. 146 organizational aggression 285–6 see also workplace aggression ostracism 49, 205 outing 205 Palmer, C. and Thompson, K. 257 paralanguage 27 parental influence, on aggression 16, 142, 326–7, 256 Parke, R. D. 179 passive aggression 167–70 Patterson, G. R. 49 Payne, M. J. and Sabourin, T. C. 319 Peacemakers Program 146–8 peer group, norms 143 peers, and aggression 50 Peña, J. and Hancock, J. T. 192 Pence, M. 31, 32 perpetrators, organizational aggression 286–7 persecution feelings, TCP 373 Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) 33 personality development 111 personality traits, measurement of 108–9 personalization, of conflict (TCP) 372–5, 381, 383, 384 personalization, of disagreement 361 persuasion, Chinese culture 91–3, 96 persuasion strategies, and culture 131–2 persuasive argument theory 307–8

423

Peterman, L. M. and Dixon, C. G. 332, 333 Petty, R. E. and Brock, T. C. 233 Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 232 Pew Internet and American Life Project 198 physical aggression 51, 267 families 335 parents 328 and verbal aggression 48, 181–2, 335 physiological reactions, during conflict 336 Pistole, M. C. 347 politeness principle 220 politeness theory 223, 311 political attack ads 225–9 political debates 222–5 political heckling 232–3 politically aggressive communication 217–22, 233–4 polycentric approach, negotiation 126 Potter, W. J. 184 Potter, W. J. and Warren, R. 183, 185 power, and coaches 307 preassualtive tension state 247 predicting aggression 51–2 prenatal effects, verbal aggressiveness 10–12 primates, study of 4 principal component analysis (PCA) 74 private contract, strategy of 92–3 progestin 11–12 prosocial conflict 144 provocation 391, 392, 393 Prunty, A. M. 133 psychological pain, and verbal aggression 27, 29 see also hurtful messages psychological violence 242 psychophysiological approach, marriage relations 324–6 public speaking anxiety 4 Pulkkinen, L. 54 push-polling 230 Putonghua 83 Qin-lue xing jiao-liu 84 race 112, 113, 115, 152 radio, negative attacks 229 Rancer, A. S. 150–1, 319 Rancer, A. S. and Avtgis, T. A. 161 rational choice model 287 Rayner, C. 312 reactance, and TCP 379, 381

424

Index

Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA) 388, 390–4 reciprocal verbal aggression 390 referential skill usage 330 regret messages 256 reinforcement, for aggression 49 Reinisch, J. M. 11–12 relational aggression 58 relational appropriateness, teasing 350–1 relational effects, positive/negative (TCP) 373 relationship(s) development, and negotiations 124, 128 satisfaction, and teasing 352 sport 255–7 termination, and verbal aggression 408–9 relevancy, politically aggressive communication 221, 228 reliability, ARG/VA scales 76–7 religion, China 85–6, 88 remedial skills development 21 research, cross-cultural 101–11 resting alpha asymmetry, and communication apprehension 33 resting anterior symmetry 14–15 rewarding, of verbal aggression 185 Roach, K. D. 162 Roberto, A. J. 212 robo-calling 230 Rocca, K. A. and McCroskey, J. C. 163 Rogan, R. G. and La France, B. H. 407 Rossi, D. 248 Rudd, J. E. 322–3 Rudd, J. E. and Burant, P. A. 323 Rudd, J. E. and Lawson, D. 125, 126 Ruggierio, T. E. and Lattin, K. S. 113, 255 rumination 395–6 Rybak, M. 35 Sabourin, T. C. and Stamp, G. H. 323 Salmivalli, C. 311–12 same-sex couples, aggressive communication 331–3 Sanders, J. A. 103, 104, 133 Sanderson, J. 257, 260 Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 48 Scharfe, E. and Bartholomew, K. 346 Scharrer, E. 181, 182–3 Schat, A. C. H. and Kelloway, E. K. 296 Schilling, Curt 257, 260 Schrodt, P. 162, 163

Schultz, B. 311 Schultz, B. and Anderson, J. 309 Schwartz, T. 222 scientific perspective, verbal aggressiveness 3–4 script theory 48 Seibold, D. R. and Meyer, R. A. 307–8 Seiter, J. S. 232 self-construal 109, 110, 111, 119n. self-focused attention 392 self-handicapping 410 serial arguments 170–3 serotonin 13 sex and aggression 49, 151–2 and aggression in sport 253–4, 257–8 and bullying 152, 200, 207 and political aggression 233–4 and tolerance for conflict,TCP 377 and verbal aggression 396, 404–5 sex-typed behavior 11 sexual harassment 242 Sheridan, M. 243 “shock forums” 258 siblings, and aggression 55, 328–31 Sillars, A. L. and Zietlow, P. H. 54 Simon, E. P. and Baxter, L. A. 348 situational appropriateness, teasing 351 Situational Triggers of Aggressive Responses (STAR) scale 393 situationism 343 skills deficiency model 211–12, 247 skills deficiency model of Interspousal Violence 321–4 Smith, R. E. and Sarason, I. G. 17 social aggression 58 social cognition approaches 47 social environments 5 social influence, groups 305–7 social interaction, and families 336 social interaction theory 48 social learning processes 5 social learning theory 15–17, 47 social science, and culture 116–18 social status, and bullying 141, 312 socialization in groups 310, 311 socially aggressive behaviors 178 socioemotional messages, and video games 192 Spector, P. E. 287 spiral of incivility model 289 sport aggression in 113, 253–62, 408 and identification 258–9

Index and masculinity 257–8 relationships 255–7 sporting coaches, and aggression 255–6 Stafford, L. and Dainton, M. 319, 334 Stasser, G. and Birchmeier, A. 308 Stephenson, P. and Smith, D. 141 story sharing, Chinese culture 92 strategic aggression, and interpersonal efficiency 5–6 strategic verbal aggression 404 Strelau, J. 13 stress reaction, TCP 373 Structuration Theory 308 student/instructor verbal aggression 160, 163, 164 students, and TV exposure 187, 188 Sue, D. 114 Summers, C. 408 Sutter, D. L. and Martin, M. M. 409, 410 Suzuki, S. and Rancer, A. S. 75, 107, 108 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 226 symbolic aggression 85, 267, 268 systematic desensitization 4, 20–1 taking conflict personally (TCP) 372–5 talk radio, negative attacks 229, 258 Tamborini, R. 180, 257 Taoism 86 tax-exempt ads 225 taxonomy of nonverbal “verbal” aggression 270–1, 274, 280 TCP see tolerance for conflict teachers see also instructor argumentativeness aggressive traits of 151 and classroom conflict 145–6 misbehaviors of 170 teaching assistants, argumentativeness of 162 Teaching Students to be Peacemakers Program 146–8 teasing affectionate/aggressive 344, 348–50 and bullying 150 defined 342 family 334–5 interactionist model 340, 342–4 outcomes 351–2 perspectives of 340–4 relational appropriateness 350–1 sibling 329 technologies, new: and bullying 58 Tedeschi, J. T. and Felson, R. B. 48

425

television negative attacks 229 and non-verbal attacks 224 and verbal aggression 180–9 Teven, J. J. 329, 359 texting 28 TFD see tolerance for disagreement theory of independent mindedness 292–6 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 212 third cultures 135 threat 242 threats and debts 255–6 Tindale, R. S. 308 Tokunaga, B. 117 tolerance for conflict (TCP) and aggressiveness/avoidance 378, 383 and Big Three measures 376 core 373 correlations for 374 exogenous matters 375–8 factors co-occuring with 378–81 and frames, argumentativeness, verbal aggression 380 tolerance for disagreement (TFD) 359–60 and affect/conflict 365–8 and communication traits 364–5 and conflict 360, 361–2 scale 369–70 why do people differ in 362–3 Tong-xun 83 training see also education aggressive behavior 246 argument 294 communication 248 reducing aggression 247, 282 trait argumentativeness 150–1 trait, and state TCP 381–2 trait affection 33–4 trait argumentativeness 130, 150–1, 294, 322, 327 trait component, Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA) 393–4 trait verbal aggressiveness 4, 29, 39, 275, 280 and film/TV exposure 179–80, 188–9 organizational context 291–2 student/instructor 162 traits aggressive, teachers 151 communication 101–2, 274–5, 364–5 and TFD 359–60 Trapp, R. and Hoff, N. 171–2 trash talk 254–5, 408 Tremblay, R. E. 45, 48

426

Index

trickery 205 trust, personal: and negotiations 128 Turman, P. D. 307 twins studies, of aggression 6–10 Underwood, M. K. 47, 49 VaezMousavi, S. M. and Shojaie, M. 256 valence 306–7 like/dislike (TCP) 373 and TCP 384 Valencic, K. M. 35 validity ARG/VA scales 77–9 measurement 68–9 Van Erva, J. P. 51 Vangelisti, A. L. 320, 402 Vangelisti, A. L. and Young, S. L. 320 varimax rotation 74 VAS 73, 76–80 veracity, politically aggressive communication 221, 227 veracity principle 224 veracity-relevancy-decorum framework 222 verbal aggression 388–9 biological factors 4–5, 6–15, 21, 38 catalysts/precursors 394–6 and catharsis 410–11 causes of 388 cultural issues 103–4, 128 de-escalating 249 defined 26, 71–3 destructive/constructive 400 explicit/implicit 26–8 high/low trait 280 intent of 26, 27, 29–30 interpretation of 28 intrumental use of 407–11 one and two dimensional models 72 and physical aggression 48, 181–2, 335 as positive/negative 113, 403, 411 reducing 40, 211

and relationship termination 408–9 research, and media 193 scientific perspective 3–4 studies of 34–5 types of 164–5, 268 verbal aggression TV consumption index (VATCI) 187–8 Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) 28, 74–5, 190–1 verbal attacks, political debate 222–4 Verbal Trigger Events (VTEs) 243, 244, 388–90, 392 victims of bullying 142, 206 same-sex partners 332, 333 video games, and verbal aggression 190–3 violence and aggressive organizational communication 289–90 interspousal 321–6 and sport 260 workplace 241 Visek, A. and Watson, J. 253 Walker, S. 56 Wann, D. L. 260 “Willie Horton” spot 226 Woods, S. and Wang, J. 104 workplace aggression 241, 285–91 Wotring, C. E. and Greenberg, B. S. 179 wrestling 257 “Wu Wei” 86 Ybarra, M. L. and Mitchell, K. J. 203, 206 You Tube 231 Yuan Wei 94 Zexu Lin 94 Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J. 182 Zillmann, D. and Weaver, J. B. 16 Zornoza, A. 309 Zuckerman, M. 6, 7, 396