Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict - Theodore A. Avtgis, Andrew S. Rancer

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 nation-
ally 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 Com-
munication 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 Communica-
tion Monographs, Human Communication Research, Communication Education, Com-
munication Quarterly, and Communication Research Reports, among others. He is the
co-author of four books, including Argumentative and Aggressive Communication (2006).
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 x
List of Contributors xiii
SECTION I
Conceptualization and Operationalization
of Argumentative and Aggressive Communication 1
1 Verbal Aggressiveness as an Expression of Selected

Biological Influences 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 100

ANNE MAYDAN NICOTERA AND NICOLE M. ROBINSON
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 137
8 Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom:

Bullying and Conflict 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 267
ANDREW S. RANCER, YANG LIN, JAMES M. DURBIN, AND
EMILY C. FAULKNER
Contents ix
16 The Dark Side of Organizational Life: Aggressive Expression in

the Workplace 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 357
20 Tolerance for Disagreement 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 communica-
tion. 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 aggres-
sive 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 com-
munication 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 meas-
urement 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 com-
munication. 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, recommenda-
tions, 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 perspec-
tives. 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 argu-
ments, 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 com-
munication 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, polit-
ics, 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 com-
munication 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 com-
munication, 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 Communi-
cation 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 Broad-
casting & Electronic Media, Communication Education, Communication
Monographs, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Western
Journal of Communication, Communication Quarterly, and Communi-
cation 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 communica-
tion, 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 undergradu-
ate and graduate courses in conflict management, family communication,
nonverbal communication, personality theory, and communication peda-
gogy. 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 com-
munication 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 Profes-
sor 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 communica-
tion. 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 Com-
munication. 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 Com-
munication 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 Com-
munication at the University of Maryland, College Park. He received his
Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1975. Dr. Hample’s research stu-
dies 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 Communi-
cation 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 character-
istics of communicators manifest in the construction and reception of mes-
sages. 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 publis-
hed 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 Communica-
tion, The Western Journal of Communication, American Behavioral Scien-
tist, 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 com-
munication. 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 compliance-
gaining. 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 num-
ber of countries. Her recent book, Communicating in Global Business Nego-
tiations 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 meas-
urement 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 inter-
personal 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 Com-
munication Education, Communication Monographs, Communication
Quarterly, and the Journal of Intercultural Communication.
James C. McCroskey (Ed.D., Pennsylvania State University) is Emeritus Profes-
sor 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 Cen-
tennial 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 Communica-
tion 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 Communica-
tion 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 instruct-
ional communication, small group communication, and interpersonal com-
munication. 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 par-
ticular 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 the-
ory 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 Uni-
versity. 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 practi-
tioners 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 Communica-
tion in the School of Communication, the University of Akron. He has served
as editor of Communication Research Reports (1999–2001) and the Mas-
sachusetts 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 Educa-
tion, 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 Communica-
tion 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 pro-
motion 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, Com-
munication 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 con-
sulted for more than 100 organizations and businesses in negotiation, stra-
tegic 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 occur-
ring 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 communica-
tion 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 Com-
munication 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 Communi-
cation 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 aggres-
sion 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 Influ-
ence, 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, emphasiz-
ing parent–adolescent and parent–adult child relationships. She has pub-
lished 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 Mono-
graphs, 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 Com-
munication, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Communi-
cation 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 aggres-
siveness. Two accounts dominated the literature for over ten years, one derived
from the principles of social learning theory and the other attributing aggres-
sive 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 predict-
ive 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 aggres-
siveness 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 litera-
ture 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 depict-
ing the phenomenon under study as relatively stable and impervious to modifi-
cation 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 inter-
ested in the treatment of systematic desensitization believed that programs such
as systematic desensitization or visualization reduced communication appre-
hension, 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 desensi-
tization and visualization, which was statistically small to begin with, was most
likely a placebo effect. Examining the studies upon which alternative explan-
ations 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 strat-

egy, 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 con-
struction of theoretical models. For example, some scholars have argued that
any intrafamily similarity between parents and children in terms of assertive-
ness 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 aggressive-
ness is simply more efficient than more complex means of achieving goals and
evolution favors efficiency. As Taylor and Fiske (1978) put it, humans are “cog-
nitive 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 con-
siderable cognitive load as indicated by electrical activity in the cortex when a
target resists influence attempts (Heisel & Beatty, 2006). In short, regardless of
interpersonal skill level, considering another’s perspective and crafting alterna-

tive influence strategies when the persuader’s best argument (i.e., one the
persuader has already judged to be compelling and sufficient to induce compli-
ance) 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 associ-
ated 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 expres-
sions 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 aggres-
sion, 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 aggres-
sion 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 pro-
vides an estimate of the proportion of trait variance attributable to genetic
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: monozy-
gotic 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 esti-
mate the direct path of genetics to traits and, therefore, constitute only indirect
or suggestive evidence about the direct paths proposed in Beatty’s (2005) medi-
ated 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 neuro-
biological 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 com-
prehensive 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.
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 N rmz rdz
Owen & Sines (1970) Self-Report 42 .56 .13

Goldsmith & Gottesman (1977) Self-Report 296 .59 .30
Rushton et al. (1986) Self-Report 573 .68 .30
Ghodsian-Carpey & Baker (1987) Observer Report 38 .78 .31
Tellegen et al. (1988) Self-Report 331 .55 .18
Cates et al. (1993) Self-Report 109 .61 .09
Jang, Livesley, & Vernon (1996) Self-Report 500 .48 .11
Coccaro et al. (1997) Self-Report 300 .42 .10
Jang et al. (1998) Self-Report 998 .54 .23
Eley, Lichtenstein, & Stevenson (1999) Observer-Rating 1551 .75 .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 nonaddi-
tive 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
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 sam-
pling 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 con-
ducted across a twenty-nine-year period, varied in sample age, included both
self-reports and observer ratings as measures of aggression, had items pertain-
ing 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 influ-
ences, e2 = 1 − Rmz, Beatty et al. (2002) calculated the effects of shared environ-
ment 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 stand-
ard deviation on the VAS (Infante & Wigley, 1986) from 9.79, reported in the
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 herit-
ability 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 sys-
tems 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 para-
meter 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 stud-
ies 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 neuro-
biological 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
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 argumenta-
tive 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 devel-
opment 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 aggres-
sion 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 hor-
monal environments have large effects on sex-typed behavior. However, some
studies focus directly on the effects of prenatal hormone exposure to the devel-
opment of personality in general (Reinisch, 1977) and aggressiveness in particu-
lar (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 ges-
tation to synthetic progestins on aggressive behavior. Written responses to
hypothetical interpersonal conflict situations were compared for exposed parti-
cipants and unexposed siblings (age ranged from 6 to 18 years and was roughly
equivalent for the exposed and unexposed groups). Reinisch found that, com-
pared 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 sam-
ple 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 hor-
monal 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 reliabil-
ity 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
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 link-
ing 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 differ-
ence.” 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 pre-
sented 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. Specific-
ally, 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 exten-
sions 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 +)
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 recep-
tors, or sensitivity in their synaptic transmission, the amount of neurotransmit-
ters 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 mid-
brain, 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 ven-
tromedial hypothalamus are necessary for prosocial interpersonal behavior
(Panksepp, 1982). In absence of opiate, lesions of the ventromedial hypo-
thalamus 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
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, epitha-
lamus, 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 dis-
cussed 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 & Siegel-
man, 2001). Overall, resting asymmetry in the anterior cortex accounted for 16
percent of the variance (mean r = .401) in the constructs. There was no
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 phys-
ical 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 differ-
ences 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 bio-
logical 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 argu-
mentative 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 learn-
ing 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 ab-
normal portion of the population. Consider the meta-analyses of that literature
(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 virtu-
ally .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 sensi-
tivity 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 neuro-
biological systems such as the fight/flight system accounts for verbal aggression
quite well, both in terms of variance explained and a comprehensible explan-
ation for the emergence of the trait and behavior.
Similar observations have been made about the parental influence on aggres-
sion (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 par-
ents to children has been replaced by a reciprocal model in which children’s
temperaments affect parents’ behavior toward the children (see Belsky & Von-
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 purport-
edly 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 tempera-
ment 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 aggres-
siveness 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 aggres-
sion 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 associ-
ation 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 argu-
mentative group, not the low argumentative group. With respect to remediation,
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 find-
ings 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 argu-
mentative 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 aggres-
siveness 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 aggres-
siveness 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 argu-
mentativeness, or 70.19 points based on the standard deviation of the argu-
mentativeness 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
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 par-
ticipants 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 partici-
pant ratings of the dyadic partner across a number of dimensions. With respect
to persuasiveness, dyadic members rated the degree to which they were per-
suaded by the other. In addition to the differences being statistically nonsignifi-
cant, 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 mat-
ter 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 pro-
vided 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 communica-
tors, 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 triv-
ial, 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
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 suc-
cess 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 aggres-
sion is suggestive, a biological theory is far from definitive. Therefore, research
directed at alternative theories including social learning and ASD should con-
tinue. Furthermore, attempts to develop programs to reduce verbal aggression
should also continue. However, research designed to test the efficacy of proto-
cols 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 adminis-
tered. 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 psycholo-
gical literature, for example, that anxiety reduction techniques such as sys-
tematic desensitization (SD) were no more effective than an equally credible
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 mechan-
isms 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 hope-
fully 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.
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 tempera-
mental 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 com-
munication: Perspectives, research, and methods (pp. 3–16). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communica-
tion: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Belsky, J., & Vondra, J. (1993). Lessons from child abuse: The determinants of parent-
ing. 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). Herit-
ability 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. Communica-
tion 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.
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 biolo-
gist. 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 asym-
metry 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 argu-
mentativeness. 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.
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 per-
sonality 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 hier-
archical 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 aggres-
siveness. 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, com-
petence, 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.
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 inter-
personal 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 com-
munication.” 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 obser-
vers 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 mean-
ing 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 inter-
preted 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 mes-
sage. 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 pleas-
ant 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 psycho-
logical 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 tech-
nology) for contextual information regarding the meaning of a particular mes-
sage. 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 aggres-
sive messages than others? How does the intent of the source to cause psycho-
logical 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 pre-
cise 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,
people are relatively adept at identifying verbally aggressive behavior and indi-
viduals. 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 con-
ceptualized 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, indi-
viduals 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 bio-
chemical, 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 motiv-
ation 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 them-
selves 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 con-
sciously, 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 estab-
lishing 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 chap-
ter 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 rela-
tively 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 pur-
poseful behavior (e.g., Tanji & Hoshi, 2001). While each of the communication
studies referenced above involved measurement of electrical activity in the pre-
frontal 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
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 pre-
frontal 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 spe-
cific 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 exam-
ined 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 stud-
ies and essays which: (1) did not contain original data (e.g., reviews and editor-
ials), 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) exam-
ined 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 sym-
metrical 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 poten-
tial 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
either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons”

(McCroskey, 1977, p. 78). Because trait communication apprehension, like ver-
bal 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 communica-
tion 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 asym-
metry 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 asym-
metry 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 par-
ticipate 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 anxiety-
inducing, 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 uncor-
rected correlation between communication apprehension and resting asym-
metry 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 experi-
ence 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 pre-
frontal 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 self-
report (e.g., Floyd & Mikkelson, 2004; Mikkelson, Farinelli, & La Valley,
2006), Lewis (2008) conducted the first direct test. Although he utilized a rela-
tively 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 stand-
ard deviation above and below the mean), 100 percent correct classification was
achieved, although the sample size was more than halved. In both cases, how-
ever, 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 pre-
dict 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 con-
ceived, 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-
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. con-
cluded 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) exam-
ination 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 con-
cept 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 com-
pletion of an online survey followed by a lab visit. Two hundred and ninety
students enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at a mid-size Mid-
western 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 ques-
tionnaire, 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 indi-
cated 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 par-
ticipant. 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 solu-
tion 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
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 chlor-
ide (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 imped-
ance values from the technical specifications of the EEG is generally preferable.
Specifically, a simple calculation can be used to determine acceptable imped-
ance 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 elec-
trodes (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 rela-
tive 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 nonsig-
nificant 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 independ-
ent nor dependent variables were impacted. This relationship was also nonsig-
nificant [(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 aggres-
sion. 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 dichot-
omized. 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 pre-
frontal cortex has been associated with communication apprehension (Beatty
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 asym-
metry 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 acti-
vation 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. Indi-
viduals 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 pre-
sumes that an individual’s average level of verbal aggressiveness will be rela-
tively 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 indi-
vidual 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 magni-
tude 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 signifi-
cant potential to enhance our knowledge and understanding of verbal aggres-
sion. 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 pre-
frontal 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 Communi-
cation 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 appre-
hension. 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
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as tempera-
mental 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
as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication

Monographs, 65, 197–219.
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communica-
tion: 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.
Floyd, K., & Mikkelson, A. C. (May, 2004). Human affection exchange: IX. Neuro-
logical hemispheric dominance as a discriminator of behavioral affection responses.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Associ-
ation, 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 com-
petence 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 meta-
analysis (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
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 asym-
metry, 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.), Communica-
tion 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. Communica-
tion 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, com-
petence, 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
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 electroencephalo-
graphic 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 posi-
tron 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. Psycho-
logical Science, 10, 316–320.
Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1994). Patterns of cortical electrophysiology and auto-
nomic 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.
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
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, cogni-
tion, communication skills, relationships, and many other communication-
related phenomena that are typically addressed in the communication discipline
(Pecchioni, Wright, & Nussbaum, 2005; Williams & Nussbaum, 2001). How-
ever, 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 discip-
lines, including communication, psychology, sociology, and human develop-
ment, 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 per-
sist across time and across generations (Farrington, 1986; Huesmann et al.,
1984; Myers & Goodboy, 2006), relatively few studies on aggressive communi-
cation 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 communi-
cation 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 lon-
gitudinal 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 ubiqui-
tous 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 aggres-
sion 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 with-
out 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 ori-
gins 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 aggres-
sion 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 plur-
alism 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 understand-
ing of human communication is dependent on multiple levels of knowledge
that occur simultaneously, current theories of communication can be incorpor-
ated into the life span perspective as long as they are testable and the results are
meaningful, and that unique methodologies are required to capture communi-
cation change across the life span. Finally, these authors argue that communica-
tion 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

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 con-
ducted, 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 &
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 nega-
tively 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 over-
view 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 devel-
opmental 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 provok-
ing aggression in media content are similar to cues in other contexts (Bandura
& Walters, 1963).
Social cognition approaches (Crick & Dodge, 1994) to the study of aggres-
sion 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 pro-
poses that certain children have a tendency to interpret ambiguous acts as
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 through-
out 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 aggres-
sion 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 frustra-
tions, 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.
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, & Kauki-
ainen, 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 Kau-
kiainen (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 ado-
lescence 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
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 chil-
dren 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 com-
petency 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 pro-
social coping skills during the early and middle childhood years as they repeat-
edly 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 pro-
socially tend to use information exchange, behavior management, and problem
solving, whereas children who cope antisocially rely on overt and covert aggres-
sion 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 com-
munication 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).
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 chil-
dren 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 add-
ition, 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 aggres-
sion 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 aggres-
sion tends to decrease with age (Loeber, 1982), while still other studies have
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 pre-
dictors 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 cogni-
tive 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
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 develop-
ment 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. Con-
sequently, 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 physic-
ally, emotionally, and relationally. Prevention programs tailored to address
bullying behaviors in children remain a top priority for parents, school adminis-
trators, 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).
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 phys-
ical and verbal aggression in marriages than older adults. Suitor (1991) found
that the frequency of verbal aggression during conflict situations between mar-
ried 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 previ-
ous marriages, these authors found that younger and middle-age couples were
more likely to engage in verbal aggression than older married couples. More-
over, younger and middle-age married couples reported more incidents of phys-
ical 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 inter-
action effect when examining the conflict resolution styles of each marital partner
in the study. Specifically, older women were more likely to keep their disagree-
ments 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 dis-
cussing marital conflict. In contrast, midlife couples exhibited higher percent-
ages of denial, equivocation, noncommittal styles, and lower frequencies of
direct confrontation. Retired couples exhibited the highest frequency of non-
committal 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, middle-
aged, and older adults when in conflict with their mothers. He found a consist-
ent linear increase in preference for solution-oriented styles of conflict, and a
corresponding decrease in preferences for controlling styles as age increased.
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 par-
ents. 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 con-
flict 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 evi-
dence 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
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 partici-
pants 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 reper-
cussions 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, low-
density 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 emo-
tional benefits from their marriage is by avoiding confrontational or unpleasant
interactions with their partner” (p. 803).
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 net-
work 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 util-
izing 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 communica-
tion 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
(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 cyber-
obsessive 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 mes-
sages (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002). Future research
should examine aggressive communication through the use of instant mes-
saging, 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 out-
comes, 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 relation-
ships 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 communica-
tive 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 con-
verse about the target with other friendship cliques within the extended social
network. Thus, relational aggression becomes a way of communicating solidar-
ity within the social network, and communicating exclusion of a particular
member of the group.
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 aggres-
sion 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 dif-
ferent points in time, longitudinal studies offer clear benefits in terms of observ-
ing 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 com-
munication 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 aggres-
sive 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 com-
munication. 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 communi-
cation 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.
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 contribut-
ing to this important interdisciplinary body of work. The overall trend of aggres-
sion 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 rela-
tionships 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 Psych-
ology, 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. CyberPsychol-
ogy & 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:
Implications for the older patient—younger care provider interaction. Health Com-
munication, 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. Aggres-
sive 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:
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 implica-
tions. 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: Develop-
mental 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.
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 social-
psychological 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
Cynader, M., & Frost, B. (1999). Mechanisms of brain development: Neuronal sculpting
by the physical and social environment. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Devel-
opmental 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 aggres-
sion. In L. D. Enron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reasons to hope: A psycho-
logical perspective on violence and youth (pp. 219–250). Washington, DC: American
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 psych-
ology: 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.
Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1980). Children’s evaluations of retaliatory aggression.

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 meta-
analysis. 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.
Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to cyber-

bullying. Educational Research, 50, 223–234.
Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (1997). Age and gender differ-
ences 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 influ-
encing 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.
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 Uni-
versity 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.), Com-
munication yearbook 25 (pp. 115–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psycho-
logical 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 devel-
opment (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
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 pre-
cursors 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 chil-
dren’s aggression, fantasy, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental
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 inter-
personal 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 fam-
ilies: 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
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
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
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 communica-
tion. 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 meas-
urement 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 con-
struct, 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, measure-
ment 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 dis-
criminant 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 con-
struct 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 there-
fore 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 evi-
dence 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 con-
struct. 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 par-
ticular ways. Both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are conceptual-
ized 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 char-
acteristics of traits mean that people’s communication varies in terms of argu-
mentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Some people are more argumentative
than others. Some people are more verbally aggressive than others. These differ-
ences 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 defin-
ition, people can be arrayed on a single continuum ranging from low in
argumentativeness to high in argumentativeness depending on a person’s ten-

dency 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 argumentative-
ness 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 dif-
ferent. 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 dis-
agrees 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 argu-
mentativeness is depicted visually in Figure 4.1. A conceptualization of approach
and avoidance as opposite ends of the same continuum is depicted in the uni-
dimensional 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
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
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 ego-
supportive. 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 distinc-
tion creates the need to contrast a unidimensional model, where verbal aggres-
sion 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.

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, high-
avoidance 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 con-
trasted 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 two-
factor 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 corres-
pond 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 def-
initions 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
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.
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:
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 pro-
vided 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 reverse-
scored, 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 recom-
mended 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 repli-
cated 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 uni-
dimensional continuum with argument avoidance on the low end and argument
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 ini-
tially intended to be reverse scored instead measures endorsement of an ego-
supportive, 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 remem-
ber, however, that evidence for dimensionality is necessary but not sufficient
for a validity case. Knowing that a set of indicators measure something consist-
ently 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 typic-
ally 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 esti-
mates that are meaningless and seriously misleading. In fact, it is possible that
certain validity problems (e.g., certain types of confounded measurement) can
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
network validation study. The nomological technique, however, does little to

test if the correlation between measures is spurious because of a shared charac-
teristic 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 differ-
ent 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 def-
initions 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 exam-
ined 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. Statistic-
ally significant associations with behaviors ranged in size from r = .11 to
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 argu-
mentative 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 aggres-
sive behavior, these scales do fit within a different well-documented nomologi-
cal 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
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 argu-
mentative and verbal aggressive communication, respectively. That is, the
ARG scale may measure one’s evaluation of advocating positions on contro-
versial 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 ver-
bally 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 influen-
tials: 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, dogma-
tism, 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.
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: Con-
struct invalidity of the Machiavellianism dimension. Journal of Personality and
Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior
in situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265–272.
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. Com-
munication 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
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.
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years
after Spearman’s (1904) general intelligence objectively determined and measured.
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.
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 self-
construals. 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
Chapter 5
Exploring Constructive
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) con-
ceived 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 assertive-
ness, 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 communica-
tion 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 contribu-
tions 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 main-
land 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, func-
tions, 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 contempor-
ary 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 communica-
tion 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 “com-
munication.” 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 transla-
tion 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 com-
munication 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, sev-
eral terms have been adopted: Jin-gong xing jiao-liu (进攻性交流, being aggres-
sive 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 com-
munication), 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 gener-
ally 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 dam-
age 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.
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 sym-
bols 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 com-
munication 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 com-
munication in Chinese culture is conceptually similar to what is symbolic
aggressive communication in American culture which does not involve phy-
sical 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 self-
sufficiency 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
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 Har-
mony 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 inter-
fere with the harmony of the universe which, in its own way, functions harmoni-
ously. One of the major concepts in Taoism is “Wu Wei” (“无为”). “Wu Wei,”
literally translated from Chinese to English, means “without action.” It sug-
gests, “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 non-
aggressiveness 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 regard-
ing 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
involved to identify and understand the key ideas for the purpose of self-
persuasion (Combs, 2005).
All these ideas of harmony, modesty, and restraint in regard to human rela-
tionships have had a profound impact on Chinese society and the Chinese
people for several thousand years. For example, seeking and maintaining har-
mony with family members and neighbors as well as making and keeping peace
with other nations have been a primary goal for the development of relation-
ships (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 par-
ties 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 govern-
ment 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 prac-
tice 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
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 fundamen-
tal 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 polite-
ness 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 “endur-
ing” 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 communi-
cation: 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 des-
tructive 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
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 pro-
fessional 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, mili-
tary 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 symbol-
ize 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 aggres-
sive 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.
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 har-
mony. 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 particu-
lar 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 will-
ing 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
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 confronta-
tion 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, Ting-
Toomey, & 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.
The second strategy focusing on the persuasive aspect of aggressive com-

munication 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 prom-
ised 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 power-
ful 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 event-
ually 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 out-
group, 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
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 writ-
ings 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 junc-
tion 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 oppo-
nent of the consequences and offering necessary compromises, results in achiev-
ing one’s strategic objectives. Simply stated, this strategy of “breaking the
enemy’s resistance without fighting” suggests that the first option for indi-
viduals 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.
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, educa-
tion, 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
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 indi-
viduals 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 mani-
fested 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
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; sec-
ond, 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 pre-
serve 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 com-
munication 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 construct-
ive 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
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 com-
munication 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.
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., & 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 perspec-
tives 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 Psych-
ology of the Chinese people, (pp. 106–170). NY: Oxford University Press.
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 reso-
lution (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 interest-
ing 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 ground-
ing 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 con-
sistently 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 prob-
lems 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 orienta-
tions, 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 cul-
ture 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 prob-
lems 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 communica-
tion 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 orienta-

tion, 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, & Sallinen-
Kuparinen, 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 predisposi-
tions of aggression. Upon close scrutiny, however, the Klopf studies seem
to yield very little useful grounding. No effect sizes were reported, but com-
putations 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 stu-
dents 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, Thomp-
son, 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
= 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 argumenta-
tion 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 eth-
nicity, compounded by its conflation with race, is problematic as evidenced by
small effect size observed. Third, this persistent essentialization of ethnicity/
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 indi-
viduals. 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 gener-
ation. 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 pre-
sumption that cultural differences underlie demographic categories; and its
unselfconscious stereotypical assumptions—again in relation to Asian popula-
tions. 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 repre-
sented a variety of non-reported Asian ethnicities and the non-Asian respondents
were simply referred to as “Caucasians,” which is considered an oversimplifica-
tion of ethnicity according to contemporary intercultural communication lit-
erature. Race is conflated here with culture, an issue we shall discuss at length
later. Asian-Americans scored lower on the argumentativeness scale than “Cau-
casians.” 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
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 oversimpli-
fies 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.
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 per-
sonality, let alone on behavior. Avtgis and Rancer (2002) lead us to the conclu-
sion 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 low-
context 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 measure-
ment. 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 generaliz-
able 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 communi-
cative transactions are characterized by “pre-programmed information that is in
the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmit-
ted 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
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 posi-
tively 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 cri-
terion 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 high-
context 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 soci-
ety 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
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 meas-
urement, 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 investigat-
ing intercultural comparisons of western developed constructs and meas-
ures 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 method-
ological 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 culture-
specific 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 cul-
tural 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
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 communica-
tion 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 cultur-
ally 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 collectiv-
ism/individualism and the dependent variables (e.g., argumentativeness). Specif-
ically, 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 inter-
dependence, 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
addressed (independent η2 = .09, interdependent η2 = .02). Clearly, there are

other, more powerful influences on self-construal than nationality. The orthogo-
nality 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 argumentative-
ness explainable by self-construal. While this is not large, it is consistent, indicat-
ing a general pattern throughout this literature of a small influence of cultural
dimensions on aggressive communication predispositions. Kim et al. (2001) con-
clude that there is large body of cross-cultural research that investigates verbal
communication predispositions. The role that these motivations play in intercul-
tural 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 con-
textual variables, such as type of relationship, age differences between partici-
pants, 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 class-
mate) and to complete a modified version of the argumentativeness scale report-
ing 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-
construal would be negatively related to argumentativeness were upheld, albeit

as usual with rather small effect sizes (high-status independent r2 = .03, inter-
dependent 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 assum-
ing, 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 rela-
tionships; concept-orientation focuses on openly expressing ideas and alterna-
tive 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;
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 identi-
fied, 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 communica-
tion 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 thor-
ough 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 stud-
ies), 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 compar-
isons 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 national-
ity 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 ances-
tral origins (Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003), such as nationality, tribal
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 know-
ledge. 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 African-
American women athletes interviewed relate obscenity-laden insults, name-
calling, 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 stereo-
types. Verbal aggressiveness, in the context of sports coaching, is not seen as
destructive. It is widely believed in competitive sports communities that verbal
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 aggres-
sive 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 char-
acterizing 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 under-
stand 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 mani-
festations 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 indi-
vidual behaviors may be varied, all members within the same operating
environment share important characteristics of the culture.
(Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 25)
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 mean-
ing 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 mem-
bers 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 privil-
ege, and oppression are reflexively part of culture itself” (p. 218). Second,
following Giddens (1979, 1984), through symbolic modes of signification, legit-
imation, 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 meaning-
construction. They observed the visa application interviews of 32 West African
applicants in the consulate office of the applicants’ country. All four inter-
viewers 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
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 con-
ceptualization and operationalization of culture. Culture is both a grouping
variable and an interactive phenomenon of meaning-creation. It is this inter-
active 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 sali-
ent 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 categor-
ies 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 mean-
ings 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
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 atti-
tudes rooted in culture as traditionally understood, but it also includes
individual and group cultural experiences that stem from political mean-
ings 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 indi-
vidualists 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 method-
ological 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 with-
out 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
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 homo-
geneity 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 experi-
ences (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 individual-
level 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 iden-
tify salient behavioral expectations, norms, beliefs, and so on, and to test
whether the sample holds high homogeneity in their own personal value-
systems and in their perceptions of the group-level value-system. This kind of
approach is especially important given the fact that these presumably homo-
geneous 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 influ-
ence of culture on aggressive communication,” but it would be far more fruitful
to conceive of this area as “the mutual influences among culture, communi-
cation, and aggression.” To progress in our knowledge, we must begin to take
seriously the roles of cultural expectations and interpretations rather than
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 groundbreak-
ing 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 cul-
ture 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
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 dif-
ference? 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.
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 character-
istics. 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 appre-
hension 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 Asian-
American student population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 429–432.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradic-
tion 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 communica-
tion: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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.
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 Communi-
cation Research, 27, 382–408.
Kim, M. S., & Raja, N. S. (2003). When validity testing lacks validity. Human Com-
munication 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.
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 argu-
mentativeness: 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 con-
ference of the International Communication Association, New York.
Miczo, M., & Welter, R. (2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects
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
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 inaccur-
ate 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
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.
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 psych-
ology. 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 rela-
tionship must be developed. The negotiations that occur as part of relationship
development strongly influence the outcomes of the negotiation. Thus, under-
standing cultural differences, as well as the role of individual traits in inter-
national 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. Under-
standing 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 predisposi-
tions (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 inter-
actions from a multi-level perspective has grown. Gudykunst (1997) con-
cluded that we need to take into consideration how the individual-level fac-
tors mediate the cultural-level factors in cross-cultural communication. Kim
et al. (2001) concluded that there is growing support for examining cross-
cultural 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 differ-
ences 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 character-
istics 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 inter-
national exchange. As such, the global change we are experiencing requires us
to reflect on the individual characteristics of the negotiator as well as the cul-
tural 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 com-
munication 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 inter-
national 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 intercul-
tural 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: ethno-
centric, 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 inter-
nationally, 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 inter-
national 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 ethno-
centrically 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, experi-
ences, and expertise in the international environment. International nego-
tiators with this level of experience are able to exploit similarities across cultures
while adapting to unique differences that enable them to develop successful

negotiation strategies.
While knowledge and experience are important factors in successful inter-
national 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 differ-
ences in communication may begin to change and cultural generalities may
become less representative of intercultural communication interactions. How-
ever, 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, negoti-
ating team). Strong individualist countries tend to be low-context communica-
tors where words (spoken or written) are more important than the context
within which the communication occurs. With individualist cultures, communi-
cation 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
(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, argumentative-
ness 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 negoti-
ation. 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 negoti-
ation 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, espe-
cially in business settings, when conflict arises and individual differences emerge
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 argu-
mentativeness 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 investi-
gated 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 tradition-
ally higher context, collectivist cultures are also cultures lower in argu-
mentativeness. 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 predis-
position 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 articu-
late one’s view and attack the other’s stance is representative of the type of com-
munication 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 ten-
dencies 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 argumen-
tativeness 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 intercul-
tural negotiations.
Of significance is the fact that becoming a successful communicator in global
negotiations is not determined by an individual’s level of trait argumentative-
ness, but rather by the knowledge of actual argumentative behavior displayed
by the negotiating parties. This argumentative behavior is manifested in
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 con-
sidered 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, Ameri-
cans 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
addition, we must also attempt to know those similar tendencies of the other
party. Their culture, regional influences or subculture, the organizational cul-
ture 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 regard-
ing the other party’s communication and cultural influences, the choice of a
negotiator who has a moderate level of trait argumentativeness would be pre-
ferred. 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 argu-
mentative 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 indi-
viduals’ 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 shar-
ing 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,
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 agree-
ment 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 low-
context 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 (per-
haps 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 high-
argumentative 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 informa-
tion 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 rela-
tionship, not just negotiating. Sung Ah finds Rose’s refusal to accept “no” as
insensitive and feels rather uncomfortable with Rose’s confrontation. Sung Ah
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 argu-
mentativeness 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 intercul-
tural 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 exam-
ined verbal aggressiveness in American subcultures, specifically Asian, Euro-
pean, 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 Zealand-
ers 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 argumentative-
ness. 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 experi-
ence 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
verbal aggressiveness in combination with argumentativeness has in unsuccess-

ful 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 pro-
cess 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 add-
ition, during the negotiation process, as parties move toward agreement, con-
cessions 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 collabora-
tive 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 negoti-
ations, 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 argu-
mentativeness 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
international and global negotiating strategies. Likewise, individuals who inter-

act 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
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 intercul-
tural 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
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.
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 self-
construals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communica-
tion 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
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 argu-
mentativeness across low-context cultural boundaries. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio
University.
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 com-
parison 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 publi-
cized, less isolated, and much more common is other forms of student mal-
treatment. 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 curios-
ity 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 intention-
ally 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 rela-
tionships in order to hurt another person without using physical aggressiveness
(Kuppens et al., 2008) as well as being enacted by individuals or groups (Oster-
man 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 child-
hood aggression is a significant predictor of adolescent aggression, many chil-
dren 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 con-
cealed 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 name-
calling 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 “fol-
lower” 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; Sab-
ourin, 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 deficien-
cies including low levels of positive communication behaviors (e.g., expressing
affection, listening) and an inability to effectively manage conflict. Not surpris-
ingly, 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, Linden-
berg, & Veenstra, 2006) and this heightened social status enables them to con-
tinue 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
susceptible to victimization. Contrary to popular myths, students are seldom

victimized because they are overweight, wear glasses, or perform well academ-
ically. 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. Typic-
ally, 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 explan-
ations 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 connec-
tions 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 spec-
trum, 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 sim-
ple 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 stu-
dents’ 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 aggres-
siveness 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
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 “out-
group-like” norm were less aggressive than those in-groups with an “out-group-
dislike” 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 argu-
mentativeness, forcing them to resort to some form of bullying. This explan-
ation is both supported and refuted by researchers. On one hand, students who
exhibit physical aggressiveness report that they lack confidence in using nonvio-
lent 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 aggres-
sion 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
et al., 2005; Mercer & DeRosier, 2007). Teachers also communicate their disap-
proval of known bullies (Mercer & DeRosier, 2007), with overt bullying becom-
ing 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 con-
flict 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 perspec-
tives on the same issue (Cothran, 2001), as a result of two individuals whose
actions are incompatible (Dykeman, 2003), or when two individuals have com-
peting goals or viewpoints (Noakes & Rinaldi, 2006). Nonetheless, it is essen-
tial 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 play-
ground (“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 turn-
taking (“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
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 stu-
dent 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., socio-
economic 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 stu-
dents 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 gos-
siping 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 nega-
tive 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 (Mar-
tin, 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),
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 stu-
dents; or they may absolve themselves of any involvement in the conflict by
referring the students involved in the conflict to an administrator (e.g., princi-
pal) 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 stud-
ies 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) dis-
covered 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 opportun-
ity 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 pro-
grams, 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 educa-
tion programs also enable the development of student self-esteem and self-
confidence, 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
elementary and secondary classrooms across the country (Johnson & Johnson,
1995; Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Stevahn, 2004). The purpose of the Peace-
makers 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 pro-
gram 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 situ-
ation 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 accur-
ate and unambiguous manner; (c) Describe the reasons for your wants and
feelings; (d) Take the other person’s perspective and summarize your under-
standing 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
end the dispute, determine whether the disputants are committed to participat-
ing 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 for-
malize 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 educa-
tion 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 con-
flict; 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 pro-
grams, 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 pro-
cedures 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;
(c) apply the negotiation and mediation procedures, both short- and long-term,
at a higher rate; (d) use constructive strategies and engage in constructive inter-
ventions 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 & John-
son, 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, John-
son, & Dudley, 1992). Furthermore, teachers have reported that parental inter-
est 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 con-
flict 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 exist-
ent 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.
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 establish-
ing a supportive classroom environment that fosters healthy student norms
(Bucher & Manning, 2005). This environment not only should encourage stu-
dents 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 activ-
ities, 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 environ-
ment 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
the number of arguments generated during a discussion as well as an increase

(albeit unexpected) in their trait verbal aggressiveness. Additionally, the major-
ity of students reported that they perceived the training to be useful and antici-
pated 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 differen-
tiating 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 elem-
entary 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
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 acces-
sories, 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 stu-
dents are below male students in the social hierarchy. Teachers must be cogni-
zant 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 cur-
riculum 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 activ-
ities 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 class-
room, it is essential that teachers adopt an active stance that discourages stu-
dents from engaging in various forms of maltreatment (e.g., bullying, theft,
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 Communica-
Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2008). The relationship between trait verbal aggressive-
ness and teacher burnout in K-12 teachers. Communication Research Reports, 25,
86–89.
Bauman, S. (2008). The association between gender, age, and acculturation, and depres-
sion 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 phys-
ical 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.
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 Manage-
ment, 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-year-
old boys. Communication Monographs, 44, 326–344.
Delia, J. G., Kline, S. L., & Burleson, B. R. (1979). The development of persuasive com-
munication strategies in kindergarteners through twelfth-graders. Communication
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.
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 social-
ecological 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 col-
laborative multimedia conflict resolution curriculum. Education Tech Research
Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. E. (2002). Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anx-
iety 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’ percep-
tions of conflict with young students: Looking beyond problem behaviors. Social
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.
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
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 pro-
grams 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 meta-
analysis. 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.
Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psycho-
logical 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 stu-
dent aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent con-
tributions 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 fight-
ing 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 pre-
dictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School
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: Def-
initions 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., 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 argu-
mentativeness. 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.
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
conflict resolution training integrated into a kindergarten curriculum. Child Devel-

opment, 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
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
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

in Higher Education
Paul Schrodt and Amber N. Finn
College instructors are often faced with the pedagogical responsibility of chal-
lenging 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 aggres-
sive 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 argu-
mentativeness are positive and the outcomes of instructor verbal aggressiveness
are negative.
Although instructional scholars have developed a theoretical tradition exam-
ining aggressive communication in higher education, the bulk of this research
has focused almost exclusively on students’ perceptions of instructors’ argu-
mentative 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 argu-
ment concerning two evaluations Tim had received on classroom presenta-
tions. 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 tradi-
tions 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’ percep-
tions 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 empir-
ical 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 experi-
ence 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 direc-
tions 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 com-
munication 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 mes-
sages. Rather than risk redundancy by reviewing each of these areas in detail
(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) con-
ducted 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 demon-
strated 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,
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 com-
munication 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 influ-
ence a variety of teacher-student outcomes. For example, Myers (1998) found
that competent and aggressive instructors are perceived to be more argumenta-
tive than incompetent or submissive instructors, whereas incompetent and
aggressive instructors are perceived to be more verbally aggressive than com-
petent 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 com-
munication 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 pro-
moting a less supportive classroom climate. Evidently, perceived instructor
argumentativeness was unrelated to perceptions of classroom climate, which
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, consti-
tutes 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 combin-
ation 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 inst-
ructors 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 under-
stood 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 com-
municate 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 with-
out being verbally aggressive typically produce the most supportive class-
room 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, includ-
ing 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
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 aggres-
sive 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 argu-
mentativeness 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
further enhance our understanding of the everyday experience of aggressive

communication in higher education.
The Inventional System and Education on

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 argumen-
tation skills.
According to Infante (1988), the inventional system is composed of four
interrelated topics: problem, blame, solution, and consequence. Each topic con-
tains 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 solu-
tion?” 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 aggres-
sion in undergraduate students. Briefly, Infante’s unit seeks to accomplish three
fundamental goals: (1) to help students understand the nature of verbal aggres-
sion; (2) to develop students’ strategies for controlling verbal aggression; and
(3) to engage in activities designed to help students internalize both the know-
ledge and the behaviors learned in the training. As summarized by Rancer and
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 internal-
izing 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 sub-
stantial 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 teacher-
student relationship. In effect, this focus has carried with it an implicit assump-
tion 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
conflicting ideas of what constitutes passive aggression in both the communi-

cation and psychology literatures; some scholars classify it as a type of per-
sonality 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 argu-
mentative, 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
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. Con-
sequently, 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 inter-
actional 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 note-
worthy 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 stu-
dents. 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
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 aggres-
sion 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 mis-
behaviors 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 teacher-
student 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 atten-
tion 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 epi-
sodes 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 resolv-
able 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.
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 incompatibil-
ity, 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 deci-
sion 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
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 relation-
ships. 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 environ-
ment, 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 non-
traditional 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 pro-
cesses 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 under-
standing, 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 mat-
ters, however, may lead to more frustrating and/or aggressive communication
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 argu-
mentativeness 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 argumenta-
tion 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, self-
report 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 communica-
tion 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
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 med-
iums 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 aggres-
sive 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
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.
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 aggressive-
ness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126.
Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determin-
ants 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 involve-
ment. 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.
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.
Roach, K. D. (1992). Teacher demographic characteristics and level of teacher argu-
mentativeness. 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’ percep-
tions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52,
106–121.
Schrodt, P. (2003b). Student perceptions of instructor verbal aggressiveness: The influ-
ence 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 activ-
ity. In contrast, the effects of verbal aggression are not as readily observable
(Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Media industry executives have been more con-
cerned with physical media violence than verbal aggression because physical
violence affects the ratings assigned to media offerings, advertisers’ willing-
ness to “sponsor” them, and the public’s response to media content and
advertisers.
Although the public, advertisers, and the media entertainment industry con-
tinue 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 por-
trayals and effects of verbal aggression in the media?” In advocating the inclu-
sion 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 Verbal aggression is easier to imitate than physical aggression.

2 There are fewer legal and social sanctions against verbal aggression than
there are against physical aggression.
3 Given points 1 and 2, it is more likely that media consumers will imitate
verbal aggression than physical aggression.
4 Verbal aggression has the potential to cause psychological and emotional
harm.
5 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 sys-
tematic 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 her-
oes 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 be-
haviors (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 aggres-
sive 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
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 prime-
time U.S. TV featured 38 acts of verbal aggression (insults, yelling or arguing,
threats, sarcasm, name calling, etc.) per hour (Glascock, 2008). Content analy-
ses 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) exam-
ined 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 Rug-
giero (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 confronta-
tional. 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.
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 com-
mercials 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 phys-
ical 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 aver-
age 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 physi-
cal, 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), fol-
lowed 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
corresponding ratio of 3.5 to 1 (Glascock & Ruggiero, 2004); and British ado-
lescents’ 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 prime-
time 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 action-
adventure 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 analy-
ses. 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
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 communi-
cated on TV has also been examined. Williams, Zabrack, and Joy (1982) found
that sarcasm comprised 39 percent of the verbal aggression on sitcoms, fol-
lowed 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, fol-
lowed 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 com-
petence 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), dis-
like (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 approxi-
mately three times as frequently as intimidations (threats meant to coerce) did.
On non-comedies, hostile remarks occurred about twice as frequently as
intimidations.
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 aggres-
sion (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 communi-
cated 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,
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 non-
fictional 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 aggres-
sion, 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 hate-
ful), 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.
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 con-
tent 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 inter-
personal 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 fre-
quent 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 aggres-
sion (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
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 uni-
versity 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 con-
sidered 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 self-
regulated 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) con-
ducted a more basic study of responses to sitcom verbal aggression. Participants
watched an episode of the verbally aggressive sitcom Titus or coherent seg-
ments 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 indi-
cated 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 signifi-
cance (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 aggres-
sion in 33 TV programs popular among university students and then created
a verbal aggression TV consumption index (VATCI) based on students’
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 con-
sumption, 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 fre-
quent 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 fre-
quently than physical aggression. Verbal aggression sources and receivers are
generally white, middle-aged men who are regular major characters. The con-
text 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
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 aggres-
sive media content that was not confounded with physically aggressive content
was conducted by Berkowitz (1970). At a time when stand-up comedians’ rou-
tines were readily available and enjoyed in the form of vinyl record albums,
female college students listened to an audio performance of a comedian per-
forming aggressive humor (Don Rickles) or a comedian performing non-
aggressive 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
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 asso-
ciated 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 con-
trolled 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 nega-
tively 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 prefer-
ence 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 con-
text 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,
& 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 (argumentative-
ness 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, narcis-
sism, and emotional susceptibility were controlled. Based on these results,
Anderson et al. (2004) asserted that the violent video game play-verbal aggres-
sion/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 vio-
lence, which led to more verbal aggression/aggressiveness. Along the same lines,
Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis (2005) observed that male college students’ self-
reported violent video game exposure was positively correlated with Buss and
Perry’s verbal aggression/aggressiveness. Like Gentile et al. (2004), their medi-
ation 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’ self-
reported 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 demograph-
ics, 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
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 aggres-
sion that is expressed during play and the effects of such verbal aggression on
the subsequent interactions among game players is an area that requires investi-
gation. 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 socioemo-
tional (e.g., messages expressing agreement or solidarity), negative socioemo-
tional (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 play-
ers 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 immedi-
ately after play. Although Eastin did not analyze the verbal aggression com-
municated 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
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 aggres-
sion, 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 ver-
bal aggression affects individuals is also recommended. Consideration of vari-
ables 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 con-
sistent 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
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 con-
tinue 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
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 Communica-
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 dif-
ference 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
Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
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.
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 aggres-
sive 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 Associ-
ation, 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 perform-
ance. 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 prime-
time 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., 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
Joy, L. A., Kimball, M. M., & Zabrack, M. L. (1986). Television and children’s aggres-
sive behavior. In T. M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natural experiment
in three communities (pp. 303–603). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.
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.
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
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 relation-
ships 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 psychol-
ogy (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communica-
tion 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 program-
ming? 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.
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.
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 Broad-
casting & 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 tech-
nologies have the potential to positively impact many aspects of human com-
munication by providing easy access to valuable information and increasing
connectivity. However, like many other forms of communication, such com-
munication 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 tech-
nology by an individual or group to threaten or harm others. Kowalski, Lim-
ber, 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 anec-
dotal 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 (Car-
lyle, 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 under-
stand and respond to cyberbullying. However, nearly all published research
over the past decade was conducted by scholars outside the field of com-
munication, 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 cyberbul-
lying literature for communication scholars interested in bringing their con-
siderable 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 cyber-
bullying, 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 communi-
cation (and related) theory and research might shed on understanding and
preventing this destructive form of communication, then offer some sugges-
tions 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 bully-
ing 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 cap-
ture 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 sec-
tion, 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 bul-
lied. 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
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 defi-
nition 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 inter-
net (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., mes-
sages that attack, insult, spread rumors about, embarrass, or harm the relation-
ships of the cyberbullying victim). It is noteworthy that all of these examples
represent common types of verbally aggressive messages that have been identi-
fied 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 aggres-
sive 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
between individuals who advocate their own positions on controversial issues or

refute the positions which other people take on these issues. However, if some-
one uses communication technology to tease a person in a mean or hurtful way,
such teasing could still be considered cyberbullying. Further, if an online dis-
cussion 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, cyberbully-
ing). 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 mes-
sage; 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 com-
ponents 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).
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 bully-
ing 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 hap-
pen 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 retribu-
tion 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 dis-
seminated 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,
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 middle-
school youth experiencing cyberbullying is closer to 25 to 30 percent (Beran
& Li, 2005; Li, 2006, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Whether these dis-
crepancies 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 elec-
tronically (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 cyber-
bully 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).
Table 11.1 Common Types of Cyberbullying*
Name Definition Examples
Flaming 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).
Harassment 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).
Denigration Publicly sending or posting untrue or cruel After high-school student Casey was overheard saying she could beat up another student, several
statements about a person. 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).
Impersonation Posing as someone else and sending or A high-school student was told about a website called “Kill Kylie Incorporated,” where people left
posting material that makes that person look rude messages about her and made allegations about her sexual orientation. Kylie also discovered that
bad or places them in danger. 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).
Outing and Sharing embarrassing, private, or sensitive After a 17-year-old man revealed secrets about his friend, the friend exacted revenge by creating a fake
Trickery information with others with whom it was profile on a social networking site and luring the man into revealing intimate details about himself. The
never meant to be shared; or, engaging in friend then disseminated those details to people at school, revealed himself to the victim and told the
tricks to solicit such information that is then victim that students and teachers alike were laughing at him. Eventually the stress led the man to
made public. attempt suicide (Rhys, 2008).
Exclusion/ Intentionally excluding a person from an A woman in South Korea did not pick up after her dog on the subway, so angry citizens took pictures
Ostracism online group. (Or, we would add, using of her with their cell phones and posted them online, nicknaming her “Dog Poop Girl”. Her personal
communication technology to exclude a information was soon posted online, leading to people in real life calling her by the nickname. Shamed,
person from a traditional group.) she eventually dropped out of University (Krim, 2005).
Cyberstalking Repeatedly sending threatening or Nicole Williams is the first person in the state of Missouri to be charged with misdemeanor
intimidating messages. 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)
* List and definitions adapted from Willard (2007).

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 mes-
saging and text messaging such that sixth graders reported the least victimiza-
tion 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 technol-
ogy, 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 perpet-
rators, 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 perpet-
rators 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
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 bully-
ing 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 cyber-
bullying. 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 cyber-
bullying 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.
This is an interesting finding as many researchers assert that traditional bully-

ing 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 bully-
ing, whose findings indicate that girls use more indirect forms of verbal aggres-
sion 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 regard-
ing 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 feel-
ings 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 self-
esteem (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, Kowal-
ski, & 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, Kowal-
ski, & 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)
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 per-
cent and 14 percent of cyberbullying victims told parents or teachers, respect-
ively. 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 self-
report, 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,
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 nega-
tive attitude toward verbal aggression than students in the control group. Stu-
dents 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 cyber-
bullying prevention programs. However, we were able to identify one school-
based 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 elem-
entary 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 cyberbully-
ing 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 eti-
quette (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 communica-
tion phenomenon (Ramirez et al., 2008). This section will identify three add-
itional 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.
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 mes-
sages 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 meta-
analyses 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, Har-
rington, & 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 cost-
effective means to provide individualized messages to a large number of users;
can be regularly updated; and provide a high level of control over implementa-
tion 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 par-
ticipation in each of three roles related to traditional bullying (bully, victim, and
passive bystander). Utilizing an experimental design, the program was imple-
mented in 12 middle schools and 13 high schools. Results indicated that the
tailored intervention delivered over the internet “produced significant reduc-
tions 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 com-
munication 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) popu-
lations. Infante (1995) outlines numerous classroom strategies for reducing ver-
bal 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
verbal aggression. Many of these and similar strategies have been incorporated
as parts of traditional violence, bullying, and cyberbullying prevention inter-
ventions. 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 sub-
jective 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 pre-
dicted 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 fre-
quency, 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 con-
sequences of cyberbullying in each of these contexts. Second, although we
discussed or reviewed several relevant communication perspectives more com-
munication 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
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 disci-
pline 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
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., 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., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in
Infante, D. A. & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and
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.
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 Psych-
ology 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 cyber-
bullying. 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 Man-
agement 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 implica-
tions. 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 psycho-
social adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Noar, S. M., Black, H. G., & Pierce, L. B. (2009). Efficacy of computer technology-
based 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 communica-
tion 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.
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/top-
stories/2008/02/19/teenage-boy-attempts-suicide-after-bebo-bully-plays-gay-lover-
prank-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 aggres-
sion. 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 com-
munication (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of inter-
personal 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 assess-
ment. 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 Communica-
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 tar-
gets: 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 advocat-
ing 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 (Jamie-
son, 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 aggres-
sive 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

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 impres-
sion 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 dis-
tinctions 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 predict-
ing 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 appro-
priate and desirable communication in political campaigns. Due to space
limitations, our review is representative, rather than comprehensive. The

“purist” approach finds little room for negative attacks, suggesting that nega-
tive 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, phil-
osophies, and problems, but frowns on attacks that focus on the shortcomings
of an opponent. This approach promotes civility and sees little utility in char-
acter 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 con-
siderations 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 audi-
ence 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 evi-
dence), 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 minim-
ize 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 maxi-
mize 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 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 les-
bian 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 con-
sistent 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
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” frame-
work should be useful for critically examining the desirability of politically
aggressive communication. We realize, of course, that in the “real world,” polit-
ics 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 num-
ber 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 understand-
ing, 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
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 some-
times 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, cre-
ated 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 dis-
cuss 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
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 polite-
ness 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 administra-
tion or political party as a culprit rather than the opponent as the culprit) rather
than directly. In contrast, for incumbents, no relationship between face-
threatening attacks and election outcomes was found. In other words, incum-
bents 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 them-
selves), 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 smirk-
ing, 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
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 indi-
cated 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 mes-
sage.” 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
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 can-
didates 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 African-
American 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
Michael Dukakis as soft on crime. Fourth, the tactic of apposition seeks to

associate an opponent with something negative. For example, in 2008, advert-
isements 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
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 deton-
ation 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, how-
ever, 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 nega-
tive 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 sub-
stantive issues or personal matters, and whether the ads are designed to galvan-
ize 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”
(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 commen-
tators 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, con-
descending 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.
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 land-
scape. 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 demon-
strated the promise of the internet as a method of campaign organizing and
fundraising. In 2008, Barack Obama brought that promise to fruition by mobil-
izing 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).
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 spout-
ing 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,
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 dumb-
ing 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 com-
munication. 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 persuasive-
ness 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 candi-
dates. Downs, Kaid, and Ragan (1990), for instance, found that while verbal
aggression was accepted from a newscaster, it was detrimental to a presiden-
tial candidate. Given such standards, it is one thing for hecklers to ridicule
candidates—as in 1968 when crowds shouted “Sieg heil!” and waved placards
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, manipu-
lation, 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 character-
ized 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 col-
lectivistic 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), polit-
ical 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 com-
munication must be competitive and assertive enough to be taken seriously yet
feminine enough so as not to violate stereotypes of the cooperative and nurtur-
ing 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 candi-
dates who used an oppositional style received warmer ratings than their male
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 cam-
paigns, 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 attack-
ing Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president” (Baram, 2008,
para. 4). Whether disenchantment with negativity carries over to the next elec-
tion 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
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 likeli-
hood 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 advertis-
ing 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
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.
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
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 knowl-
edge, 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 communica-
tion 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:
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-hilton-
responds-to-mccain-ad-from-paris-hilton-adam-ghost-panther-mckay-and-chris-
henchy
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.
Jacobs, S. (2006). Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy Ad.
Argumentation, 20, 421–442.
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 con-
servatism 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.
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 influ-
ence 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
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 pre-
sented 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 communi-
cating 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’ appropriate-
ness 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.
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
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?
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/reigning-
cats-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 psycho-
logical 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
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 con-
cept of healthcare, people generally conjure up an image of a traditional hos-
pital 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 aggres-
sive 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 communi-
cation 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 ver-
bal 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 repeti-
tive 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 embar-
rassed; 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 likeli-
hood to experience violence at work. This equates to nurses being at two times
greater risk than the national average of being verbally assaulted. This predis-
position 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 interact-
ing 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 work-
ers 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 profes-
sions, reported that violence is part of the work milieu for all healthcare work-
ers. 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 aggres-
sor 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 situ-
ations, 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 specific-
ally, interpersonal and communication skills that result in effective informa-
tion 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 grow-
ing 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 med-
ical 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 trig-
gers 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 trig-
gers 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 man-
aged care programs has resulted in medical practices that are targeted at cost-
containment, which, according to some scholars, results in undermining trust
between the patient and provider (Annas, 1997; Mechanic & Schlesinger, 1996).
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, East-
man, & 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 dimen-
sion 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 forma-
tion 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 foreign-
trained 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).
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 annu-
ally 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 environ-
ment 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., com-
pleting lengthy forms, face-to-face interviews, etc.). The aggressive communica-
tion 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 stat-
istics 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 health-
care workers and patients.
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 Administra-
tion is the regulatory division of the U.S. Department of Labor, and has high-
lighted 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 hospi-
talized 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 Pre-
vention Programs (OSHA, 1989) developed five main components that should
be targeted for reducing verbal and physical violence. These consist of: Man-
agement (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); Work-
site analysis (a comprehensive review of all aspects of healthcare delivery
including the physical, psychological, and social factors involved in the health-
care experience; Hazard safety and control (comprehensive crisis plans for
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 reduc-
tion 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 pulsa-
tion). 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.
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 com-
munication 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 signifi-
cant 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 consider-
ably. 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 aggres-
sive 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
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 con-
sidered 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 communica-
tion 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, multidiscip-
linary 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. Communica-
tion 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 profes-
sionals (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 competen-
cies and accreditation in graduate medical education: An antidote to overspecification
in the education of medical specialists. Health Affairs, 2, 103–11.
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 psychoneuro-
immunology. 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.
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, medica-
tion, 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
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.
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 multidimen-
sional health locus of control (MHLC) scale. Health Education Monographs,
6, 5–25.
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 non-
aggressive 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 inher-
ent, 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 masculin-
ity (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 pre-
disposed 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 differen-
tiating 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 sport-
ing 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 & Kass-
ing, 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 recog-
nized 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 funda-
mentally 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 communica-
tion 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 intercol-
legiate female basketball players’ perceptions of their coaches’ verbal aggres-
sion. 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
framing an athlete’s relationship as one of indebtedness to the coach for provid-

ing 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 self-
esteem, 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 high-
school 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 predomin-
antly 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 ideol-
ogy 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 para-
social in nature (Kassing & Sanderson, 2009; Sanderson, 2008a), represents
another relationship that can inculcate an aggressive communication orienta-

tion. 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 culti-
vated 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 hetero-
sexual 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 sup-
porters 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 homo-
sexual or feminine. In addition, fan club members slighted opposing players by
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 oppos-
ing 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 aggres-
sion 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 mascu-
linity 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, participat-
ing 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
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 iden-
tification they often perceive that their self-worth correlates with a team’s
success, which cements their central identity as a team follower (Boen, Vanbese-
laere, & 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, Carl-
son, & 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 perform-
ance 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 contri-
bute 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.
“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 com-
fortable with engaging in anonymous acts of instrumental aggression against
opposing players and coaches compared to anonymous acts of hostile aggres-
sion 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 technolo-
gies 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 partici-
pation and are very popular locations for fans to come together to communi-
cate 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 dissent-
ing 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’ inno-
cence. 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 endorse-
ments. In these instances anonymity afforded fans the opportunity to be exces-
sively 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
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 par-
ticipation 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. Competi-
tion 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 aggres-
sive 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 com-
munication 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 sport-
ing 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 regular-
ity, 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
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
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
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 determin-
ants 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
Farquhar, L. K., & Meeds, R. (2007). Types of fantasy sports users and their motiv-
ations. 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.
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 behav-
ior 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 reproduc-
tion 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 Communica-
tion, 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
Moore, S. C., Shepherd, J. P., Eden, S., & Sivarajasingam, V. (2007). The effect of rugby
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 collec-
tive 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 ado-
lescent 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
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 profes-
sionalization 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 identifica-
tion 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
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
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 orienta-
tion 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
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 aggres-

sion. 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 construct-
ive or destructive in nature (Infante, 1987). As one type of symbolic aggres-
sion, 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 scho-
lars 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 organiza-
tion, 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, non-
verbal “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 indi-
viduals 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 communi-
cation. 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, ver-
bal aggressiveness, and hostility. These traits interact with environmental fac-
tors 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 char-
acter), profanity, teasing (making fun of or playfully mocking another), ridi-
cule (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 examin-
ing 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 mes-
sages 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 com-
plement, and in many cases, override verbal messages. These include repeating
(reinforcing the verbal message), conflicting (nonverbal messages which contra-
dict 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 con-
stitutes nonverbal aggression and the impact it has in interpersonal communi-
cation. 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 import-
ance 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
components of aggressive and argumentative behaviors as much as it iden-

tifies 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”). How-
ever, “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 communica-
tion, a few “nonverbal indicators” of aggressive messages have been suggested
(Infante, 1987, 1988). For example, nonverbal indicators which could be con-
sidered 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 communica-
tion 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 communica-
tion 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 expect-
ations about the nonverbal behavior of others. Violations of these expectations
can heighten arousal, and if these violations are negatively valenced, unfavor-
able perceptions of the interaction usually result. For example, if an individual
thinks that another person is looking at her/him “too much,” this may contrib-
ute to the emergence of verbally aggressive behavior and could indeed stimulate
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 per-
ceptions 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 norma-
tive 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 paraver-
bally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered,
or understood (Norton, 1978, p. 99). A receiver-oriented subcluster of communi-
cator 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 in-
attentive 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” aggres-
sion 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
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 non-
verbal 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 inter-
rater 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, tight-
ened/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 per-
son’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
Table 15.1 Nonverbal Behaviors (Degree of Perceived Hurt)
Nonverbal Behavior Mean* SD Nonverbal Behavior Mean* SD
Look of disdain (FE) 2.58 1.13 Shaking of fist (KB) 2.55 1.13
Frowning (FE) 2.35 1.05 Getting into face/space 3.78 1.19
(KB)
Gritting of the teeth (FE) 2.15 1.14 “Up Yours” gesture (KB) 2.58 1.47
Tightened lips/Pursed lips (FE) 2.15 1.19 Pulling one’s own hair 2.88 1.51
(KB)
Raising the eyebrows (FE) 1.68 0.92 “Slitting the throat” 2.93 1.31
gesture (KB)
Tightening jaw (FE) 2.00 1.06 Running fingers under 1.95 1.20
chin (KB)
Scowling (FE) 2.58 1.15 Tapping objects (KB) 1.75 0.98
Flared nostrils (FE) 1.97 1.06 Hitting fist into palm 2.25 1.15
(KB)
Hard angry stare (EB) 3.03 1.23 Clenching fist (KB) 2.53 1.18
Rolling of the eyes (EB) 2.70 1.22 Turning head away (KB) 3.25 1.26
Averting gaze (EB) 2.28 1.06 Throwing hands/arms up 3.05 1.40
(KB)
Giving the “evil eye” (EB) 2.98 1.25 Throwing objects (KB) 3.78 1.29
Bugged out eyes (EB) 1.63 0.84 Pointing finger (KB) 2.73 1.20
Squinting eyes (EB) 1.83 1.06 Slamming doors/objects 3.23 1.29
(KB)
Snapping/Sharp/Harsh tone 3.70 0.99 Crossing of the arms 1.83 0.96
(VB) (KB)
Sarcastic tone (VB) 2.60 1.19 Hands on hips (KB) 2.13 1.22
Clearing the throat (VB) 1.60 0.84 Tapping of feet (KB) 1.67 0.93
Muttering or grumbling under 2.98 1.27 Turning of back away 3.15 1.23
breath (VB) (KB)
Raising of voice (VB) 3.98 1.10 “Puffing out” chest (KB) 2.18 1.15
Sighing (VB) 2.28 1.11 Pounding of the fist (KB) 2.75 1.37
Laughing in a mocking tone (VB) 4.03 1.10 “Slapping” motion (KB) 2.75 1.28
Growling or grunting (VB) 2.25 1.08 Giving silent treatment 3.40 1.34
(NDB)
Giving the finger (KB) 2.73 1.40 Walking away (NDB) 3.85 0.92
Sticking out the tongue (KB) 1.43 0.78 Stepping back/away 2.50 1.06
(NDB)
Stomping of feet (KB) 1.78 1.03 Storming away (NDB) 3.60 1.08
Shaking head side-to-side (KB) 2.40 1.17
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
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 inter-
action 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 communica-
tion traits.
Table 15.2 A Taxonomy of Aggressive Nonverbal “Verbal” Behaviors
Nonverbal Behavior Mean* SD
Facial Expressions
Look of disdain 2.58 1.13
Scowling 2.58 1.15
Frowning 2.35 1.05
Tightened lips/Pursed lips 2.15 1.19
Eye Behaviors
Hard angry stare 3.03 1.23
Giving the “evil eye” 2.98 1.25
Rolling of the eyes 2.70 1.22
Averting gaze 2.28 1.06
Vocalic Behaviors
Laughing using a mocking tone 4.03 1.10
Raising of voice 3.98 1.10
Snapping/sharp/harsh tone 3.70 0.99
Muttering or grumbling under breath 2.98 1.27
Kinesic Behaviors
Getting into face/space 3.78 1.19
Throwing objects at wall or ground 3.78 1.29
Turning of head away 3.25 1.26
Slamming doors or objects with force 3.23 1.29
Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors
Walking away 3.85 0.92
Storming away 3.60 1.08
Giving someone the silent treatment 3.40 1.34
Stepping back/away 2.50 1.06
* Means represent degree of hurt. The higher the mean, the greater the perceived hurt.
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 communica-
tion” (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 indi-
viduals 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 mes-
sage. 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. the perceived hurt experienced by five categories of nonverbally
aggressive messages?
b. the frequency of nonverbally aggressive messages received from others?
c. 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 under-
graduate 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
(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 behav-
iors with each of the behaviors followed by a five-space semantic differential-
type 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 cat-
egory consisting of the sum of a participant’s responses to each of the indi-
vidual behaviors. For example, the degree of perceived hurt caused by “eye
behaviors” was the sum of a participant’s responses to the following four indi-
vidual 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 report-
ing 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 aggressive-
ness. 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
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 nonver-
bal “verbal” aggression as the dependent variables. The MANOVA was signifi-
cant (Wilks’ Lambda = .72, F (12, 181) = 5.88, p < .001). Significant correspond-
ing univariate main effects were found in the following seven dependent vari-
ables (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 nonver-
bally 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 2.37 3.07 16.31** .08

Disdain for the target 1.93 2.73 25.55** .12
Being angry 2.75 3.37 13.76** .07
Unable to think of an effective argument 2.17 2.28 .45 .00
Discussion degenerating into nonverbal fight 1.90 2.32 7.57** .04
Being taught to use nonverbal aggression 1.84 2.27 6.78* .03
The situation reminding one of past hurt 2.55 2.68 .52 .00
Being in a bad mood 3.03 3.15 .49 .00
Trying to be humorous but not hurtful 3.38 3.44 .09 .00
Having observed a TV or movie character 2.47 2.66 1.07 .01
Trying to appear tough 2.16 2.84 13.30** .07
Wanting to be mean to the other person 1.77 2.67 30.02** .14
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** Means represent the average score on the measure of how often a particular reason for employ-
ing nonverbal verbal aggression in the past two weeks.
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 aggres-
sive messages as the dependent variables. While this analysis failed to reveal a
significant overall effect for the individuals of high and low verbal aggressive-
ness 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 “Non-
verbal 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 corres-
ponding 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 nonver-
bally 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 8.93 7.92 4.44 .02

Eye Behaviors 9.67 8.82 2.63 .01
Vocalic Behaviors 13.47 12.19 5.02 .03
Kinesic Behaviors 12.80 11.36 6.19 .03
Nonverbal Disconfirmation Behaviors 11.49 10.34 4.06 .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.
Table 15.5 Frequency of Nonverbally Aggressive Messages Received from Others
VA
Facial Expressions 5.11 6.79 2.31 .01

Eye Behaviors 4.38 7.41 6.20* .03
Vocalic Behaviors 4.63 8.42 8.20** .04
Kinesic Behaviors 1.40 3.39 9.14** .04
* 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
Facial Expressions 4.65 8.46 8.15* .04

Eye Behaviors 5.26 9.21 7.91* .04
Vocal Behaviors 4.81 12.65 15.67** .08
Kinesic Behaviors 1.74 5.53 7.06* .04
* 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 signifi-

cant 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 depend-
ent 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
concerns investigated in Study One. The results indicate that 51 separate non-
verbal communication behaviors can be considered to be the nonverbal equiva-
lent 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 inter-
action 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 find-
ings of Study Two indicated that individuals who varied in trait verbal aggres-
siveness (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.
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 aggres-
sive 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 con-
ducted 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 aggres-
sive 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 lan-
guage, 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
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 indi-
viduals could use nonverbal behaviors to augment and reinforce their already
verbally aggressive communication.
A plethora of research (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006) has revealed the destruc-
tive 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 com-
ponent 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 communication-
based 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 pre-
dispositions both receive and direct these nonverbally aggressive forms of com-
munication 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 Com-
munication 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: Explica-
tion and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.
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 ela-
boration 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., 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 aggres-
siveness 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 inter-
personal dispute. Human Communication Research, 22, 315–334.
Ireland, J. L. (2004). Anger management therapy with young male offenders: An evalu-
ation 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 atti-
tudes (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Influence of attitudes from nonverbal communica-
tion in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248–252.
Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal
Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1999). Verbal aggression in college classrooms: Perceived
instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47, 33–45.
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundations of a communicator style construct. Human Com-

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly
Hills, 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. Communica-
tion 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 communi-
cating 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’ appropriate-
ness 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 indi-

viduals within or outside an organization that is intended to physically or psy-
chologically 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 con-
text are verbal in nature. Among these verbal acts of organizational aggression
are yelling, insulting, cursing others, talking behind others’ backs, and spread-
ing 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, indus-
tries, cultures, sectors, and any other “meaningful” distinction that one can
make about work and workplace differences. For example, a review of aggres-
sive communication in various organizational contexts revealed scores of investi-
gations 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 conceptualiza-
tions 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, psycho-
logical bullying, verbal abuse, incivility, interactional injustice, harassment, and
interpersonal abuse are but a representation of well-established research pro-
grams looking at basically the same phenomenon, but from varying perspec-
tives. 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 alarm-
ing. 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 organiza-
tional 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 & Neu-
man, 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 work-
place aggression is further confounded by young people’s relative lack of com-
munication 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 fundamen-
tal 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 aggres-
sion. Even in light of great personal and professional sanctions, the person may
still decide to engage in aggressive behavior (Felson, 2006). For example, aggres-
sive communication triggered by perceptions of organizational injustice may be
considered attempts to restore balance to the superior–subordinate relation-
ship. 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 hypoth-
esis 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
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 nega-
tive 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 com-
munication 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 & Neu-
man, 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 organiza-
tional 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 organiza-
tional communication (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Aquino, Lewis, & Brad-
field, 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
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; Neu-
man & 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, hostil-
ity, resentment, stress, and frustration (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Chory-
Assad, 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 pre-
dict 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 organ-
izations is the potential for it to lead to more intense, harmful aggressive
outcomes. Many scholars propose that verbally aggressive behavior in organ-
izations 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 like-
lihood 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 relation-
ships (Infante, 1987a; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante et al., 1990).
Infante and colleagues argued that potentially aggressive situations are concret-
ized 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
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 strat-
egies for verbal tactics, Infante (1995) developed various communication diffu-
sion 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 mem-
bers 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 well-
being (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 work-
place, in effect, is seen as a battlefield that is to be experienced or weathered
only when absolutely necessary. Extra-organizational activities, whether task-
related or social in nature, become opportunities for victims to further experi-
ence 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, Spec-
tor, & Leck, 2005). On the more extreme end, workplace verbal abuse is associ-
ated with turnover (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, &
Porath, 2000), organizational theft (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), and
lawsuits (Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Johnson & Indvik, 2001).
As has been evidenced in the theory and research reviewed thus far, aggres-
sive 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 communi-
cates 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’ per-
ceptions of their superiors’ trait verbal aggressiveness is negatively correlated
with perceptions of superiors’ use of compliance-gaining strategies with sub-
ordinates (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 prob-
lematic work outcomes. For instance, schoolteachers’ trait verbal aggressiveness
is linked to teacher burnout syndrome (Avtgis & Rancer, 2008) and under-
graduate 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 organiza-
tional processes and procedures (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Finally, telephone
reservation representatives’ trait verbal aggressiveness is negatively correlated
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 inter-
viewees’ 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 con-
sidered less desirable in hiring decisions.
In short, within organizations, trait verbal aggressiveness appears to detract
from satisfaction and job performance and perceptions of organizational pro-
cesses 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 fun-
damental communication and psychological functions. How then, can an
organization create a climate or culture that is conducive to civil dissent expres-
sion 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 indi-
vidual 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.
Infante (1987c) argued that failures in eastern management techniques can be

traced to the incongruencies that have existed between the organization’s cul-
ture 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 corpor-
ate 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 indi-
viduals? 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 self-
concept 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 organiza-
tions 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
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 expres-
sion, 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 con-
troversial 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 satis-
faction (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 inter-
personal 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 argumenta-
tive 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 com-
municator 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 infor-
mation), dominant (e.g., communicating in ways that take control of various
situations), contentious (e.g., communicating in antagonistic and combative
ways), animated (e.g., regularly using para-verbal and nonverbal behavior when
communicating), impression leaving (e.g., interacting in ways that are memor-
able 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 peo-
ple 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., com-
municating 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 communica-
tion 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 mis-
interpreted, 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 com-
municator 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 person-
ality 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,
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 com-
municators. 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 mind-
edness (Avtgis & Rancer, 2007). Quadrant One is considered total independent
mindedness or being high in argumentativeness and high in affirming com-
munication 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
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 interven-
tion) 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 com-
munication 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 con-
sider aggression potentiality or co-factors of aggressive behavior, should begin
to include mechanisms that better identify potential aggressors. During screen-
ing, employers are encouraged to conduct background investigations and to
check the references of potential employees to help identify patterns of aggressive
behavior (Neuman & Baron, 1997). Screening candidates based on assessments

of traits associated with [non-] aggression, such as empathy, emotional self-
control, 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). Man-
agement 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 aggres-
sion in the workplace can help to build a non-aggressive organizational culture
and climate (Spector et al., 2007). Although cultivating a non-aggressive organ-
izational culture and discriminating among job candidates’ potential for aggres-
sion 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 edu-
cation 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 com-
munication. Recently, training in affirming communication and dismissal and
de-escalation strategies has been successfully applied to rural trauma care
networks (Rossi et al., 2009).
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 communica-
tion 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 recruit-
ment 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 communica-
tion 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 com-
munication scholars to actively engage the research and theory with common-
place 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 Organiza-
tional 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 profes-
sionals (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
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 aggressive-
ness 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: McGraw-
Hill.
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.
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.
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, ver-
bal 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 dissatis-
faction/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.), Personal-
ity 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
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., 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 Quar-
terly, 6, 307–326.
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 aggres-
siveness as predictors of subordinates’ satisfaction. Human Communication Research,
12, 117–125.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication pro-
files. 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 argu-
mentative and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 294–304.
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.
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 organiza-
tional dissent and aggressive communication. Management Communication Quar-
terly, 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 character-
istics 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.
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 Occu-
pational 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 man-
agement 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 social-
psychological perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work
behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (p. 45). Washington, DC: American
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Com-
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 organiza-
tions: 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 Feb-
ruary 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.

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 interven-
tion strategy. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of work-
place 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 communi-
cation 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 selec-
tion 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 counterproduc-
tive 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
and Conflict in Small Groups
Carolyn M. Anderson and Mili Banerjee
The literature reviewed on groups and aggressive behaviors follows from estab-
lished 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 proper-
ties 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, mem-
bers engage in different types of communication and employ different skills
and abilities.
The authors of the present chapter advance the idea that aggressive com-
munication can exist in group life and, when it does, that type of communica-
tion 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 import-
antly 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 argu-
mentativeness and verbal aggression in groups, and (3) Anderson, Riddle, and
Martin’s (1999) socialization model that acknowledged traits, including argu-
mentativeness 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 dom-
inated 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 understand-
ing 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 com-
munication 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 argu-
ments 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 informa-
tion 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 influ-
ence 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 influ-
ence, 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 dyna-
mic 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
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 argu-
mentativeness 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 per-
ceive 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 mem-
bers. 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
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. Add-
itionally, 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 trad-
itional 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 idea-
generation 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 relation-
ship 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 mem-
bers either in the FTF or CMC environment. This finding refutes prior research
that indicated either an increase or decrease in the amount of conflict experi-
enced 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, mod-
erate, 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),
and agitation (threat, public exposure and disruption). Although the model
clearly suggests that “persuasion is an escalation from argument, and that agi-
tation 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 differ-
ent 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 communica-
tive 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 rela-
tionship 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 aggres-
siveness 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 specu-
lated that aggressive behavior leads to frustration with group work and even
what Sorensen (1981) and Keyton, Harmon, and Frey (1996) referred to as
grouphate.
Extending research on the role of argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-
ness, 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 sup-
ported. 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 percep-
tions 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 per-
ceived 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 indi-
vidual 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
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 defend-
ers 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. Fur-
ther, 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 investi-
gated 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 stu-
dents, 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 sub-
stantive 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?
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 influ-

encing participation in small group discussions was illustrated by Bonito and
Hollingshead’s (1997) model. The model features the role of antecedent charac-
teristics (individual, group, and task), as well as technology and time on par-
ticipation, 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 indi-
viduals 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 pro-
cess 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 hand-
ling 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
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 argu-
mentativeness 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 aggressive-

ness 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 dur-
ation). 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?
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. Com-
munication 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 participa-
tion. 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.
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 con-
flict 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.
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks
and social influence: An illustration in the group decision-making context. Journal of
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 Com-
munication 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 emer-
gence: 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: Explicat-
ing a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication
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.
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
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 communi-
cation 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
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 disson-

ance; 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 crit-
ical 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 communi-
cative 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 con-
forms 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 argu-
mentativeness and verbal aggressiveness would lead to differences in levels of
marital satisfaction. Essentially Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) were inter-
ested 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 argu-
mentativeness, 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 con-
tributed 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 nonvio-
lent 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, espe-
cially 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 them-
selves 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 relation-
ships 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
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
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 disposi-
tions 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 indi-
viduals 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 signifi-
cantly 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, non-
violent 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 con-
tinued. 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 relation-
ships. 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)
when attempting to gain compliance from their abusers. Battered women

reporting higher levels of argumentativeness and lower levels of verbal aggres-
siveness indicated using different types of compliance that incorporated more
of shared power-oriented bases (e.g., direct request, allurement, aversive stimu-
lation). 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 ver-
bally 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 physio-
logical 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 adapt-
ability. 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 indi-
viduals 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
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 col-
leagues 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 diffi-
culties were likely to lead to physical violence and/or relational dissolution.
The approach taken to study marital relations in much of Gottman and col-
leagues’ body of work was often rather unconventional: examining physio-
logical 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 (measure-
ment 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 link-
ages 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 mar-
riage. 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 demon-
strated 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
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 physio-
logical 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 aggres-
sive 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 bat-
terers 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
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 emo-
tional and physical abuse. The correlation between marital satisfaction and
emotional abuse was strongly negative (r = −.62); the correlation between mari-
tal 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
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 out-
comes 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’ communica-
tion 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 argu-
mentativeness 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
(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, spank-
ing). When Kassing et al. (1999) examined children’s recollections of corporal
punishment during their childhood and perceptions of their parents’ argu-
mentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, their findings indicated that percep-
tions 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. How-
ever, 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 argu-
mentativeness 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 relation-
ships 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 rela-
tionships 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 relation-
ships are often the longest relationships individuals will have in their life-
time; (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 know-
ledge/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.
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 par-
ticular 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 fre-
quency 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 escal-
ation (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
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 satisfac-
tion. 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 sib-
ling pairs. Interestingly, in both instances, opposite-sex sibling pairs experi-
enced 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 communica-
tion 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
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 indica-
tors 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, prob-
lems 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 for-
ward 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 concern-
ing 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.
Scholars have estimated that approximately 25 to 33 percent of same-sex part-

ners 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 parti-
cularly 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 pro-
grams. 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 aggres-
sive acts directed at them (Peterman & Dixon, 2003).
Consistent with heterosexual couples, same-sex couples reported experi-
encing 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 motiv-
ations 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-
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 communica-
tion. 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 view-
ing 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 homo-
sexual 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 com-
munity 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.
Underlying Themes of Family Aggression

Stafford and Dainton (1994) noted that “Normal family interaction is a para-
dox 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 exam-
ined. 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 relation-
ships (Ambert, 2001; Gottman, 1994; Stafford & Bayer, 1993). Clearly, the
interconnectedness across family dyads cannot be stressed enough when study-
ing aggression and family communication. In this spirit, I would like to high-
light 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 rela-
tionships 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 toler-
able” 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 relation-
ships. 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.
Other types of verbally aggressive exchanges occur throughout family inter-

actions. 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 mem-
bers 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 spank-
ing. 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 sug-
gests 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 communica-
tion, 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
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 add-
ition, 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 fam-
ilies 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. Communica-
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., 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.
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 compliance-
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 inter-
actions (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 pro-
cesses 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 aggres-
sive 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
mentativeness. Journal of Personality and Assessment, 46, 72–80.
Infante, D. A., Sabourin, T. C., Rudd, J. E., & Shannon, E. A. (1990). Verbal aggression in
Kassing, J. W., Pearce, K. J., & Infante, D. A. (2000). Corporal punishment and com-
munication 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.
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 mar-
riages. 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.)
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 relation-
ship to quality of marriage. Communication Research Reports, 7, 121–124.
Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex part-
ners: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81,
40–47.
Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Amato, P. P. (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggres-
siveness, and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3, 28–32.
Rudd, J. E., Beatty, M. J., Vogl-Bauer, S., & Dobos, J. A. (1997). Trait verbal aggressive-
ness 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
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 dialect-
ical tensions in family life: An examination of abusive and nonabusive families.
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 communica-
tion (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. Com-
Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived
intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 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 Communica-
tion, 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 inter-

personal 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 experi-
ence, 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 communica-
tion 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 empir-
ical 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 charac-
teristics, and relational conditions that together explain teasing. In the pages
that follow, the integral perspectives and extant research on teasing are dis-
cussed 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) concep-
tion 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 rela-
tionships 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 demon-
strated 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) identi-
fied 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 teas-
ing 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 recog-
nized the possibility that teasing communication can have positive (affection-
ate) 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, frustra-
tion, 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, person-
ality, 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 com-
munication. Keltner et al. (2001) further expand what encompasses teasing
through defining teasing “as the intentional provocation accompanied by play-
ful 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 multi-
faceted, 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
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 rele-
vance 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 mod-
erating 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 aggressive-
ness 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, cen-
ters 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 per-
spectives 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
cues for his/her actions (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1977). For
example, a person’s stable tendencies toward teasing are influenced by the qual-
ities 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 “ener-
gized” 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 pre-
dispositions 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 demon-
strated behavior more accurately. These considerations, tied to the mixed empir-
ical 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 character-
istics, 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 per-
sonality trait, attachment, and the communication predisposition, affectionate
teasing. The model indicates that affectionate teasing derives from an attach-
ment personality type. The destructive dimension of the model is composed of
hostility and aggressive teasing that are the personality trait and communica-
tion 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 vari-
ables 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.
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 relation-
ships. Attachment theory stems from the melding of biological and social
science perspectives on child development (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Attach-
ment 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 con-
struct. Seeking to explain infant distress, Bowlby (1969) suggested that infants
can demonstrate three types of attachment behavior: (a) secure; (b) anxious-
resistant; 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 willing-
ness to trust, and openly communicate to maintain close relationships in proto-
typical 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 roman-
tic relationships. They translated the infant attachment process into adult rela-
tionships. They maintained that attachment is manifest in three styles: (a) secure;
(b) anxious/ambivalent; and (c) avoidant. Although originally conceived as a

framework for mother/child relationships, these three styles have been instru-
mental 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. Com-
parisons 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 com-
promising strategy. These findings suggest that attachment is positively related
to constructive conflict management strategies such as low verbal aggressive-
ness 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 com-
prehensively. 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 other-
models demonstrate the expectation regarding the relational partner’s avail-
ability 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 dis-
tinguished by individuals’ views of themselves and others (Bartholomew, 1993).
Secures are people who display high self-esteem and rarely suffer from inter-
personal 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.
They maintain their high self-image by distancing themselves from others.

Fearful-avoidants shy away from close relationships because they feel too vul-
nerable. 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 relation-
ship and suffer from a high need to gain others’ approval. Bartholomew and
Horowitz (1991) tested the four-category model in the context of adult friend-
ships. 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) exam-
ined the connection between attachment style and relational maintenance strat-
egies. 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 rela-
tion to nonverbal involvement. The relationship between reciprocity and com-
pensation and attachment styles revealed that preoccupieds were distinguished
from the other attachment styles by their high tendency to consistently recipro-
cate 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
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 teas-
ing 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 dimen-
sion 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 dimen-
sions of the hostility construct (Buss & Durkee, 1957). Zillmann (1979) charac-
terized hostility as an eagerness to act aggressively toward another. Hostility is
distinguished from verbal aggression by recognizing the implicit nature of hos-
tility 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 sup-
ported. 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 con-
ceptualized as a subset of hostility. Aggressive teasing is defined as the predis-
position 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
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 deter-
mines 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 cor-
rectness 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 relation-
ship 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 dur-
ation collectively establish a set of expectations that dictate how teasing is
construed by the target. When there is greater conversance and experience
between interactants, the target is more likely to perceive teasing as positive and
affectionate (Alberts, 1992). According to Aronson et al. (2007), “understand-
ing the boundaries of acceptable teasing is required to engage in playful teas-
ing” (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 commit-
ment, attraction, and maintenance. For example, affectionate teasing could
result in higher commitment and attraction, whereas aggressive teasing dimin-
ishes commitment and attraction over the course of a relationship.
Situational Appropriateness
A communication situation is the composite of physical, temporal, and psycho-
logical 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 influ-
ence 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 pre-
dispositions derived from personality traits, coupled with the relational and
situational appropriateness determined via the receiver’s perceptions. The pos-
sibility then exists for the source’s teasing intentions and the receiver’s percep-
tions to be either congruent or incongruent. The incongruence of note occurs
when affectionate teasing is relationally or situationally inappropriate and con-
sequently 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 sat-
isfaction as a key communication outcome that is useful in assessing aggressive
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 appropriate-
ness. 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 communica-
tion that is intended and interpreted constructively. Specifically, affectionate
teasing enhances dyadic perceptions by increasing bonding and intimacy. Inte-
grating 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).
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.
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: McGraw-
Hill.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human develop-
ment. 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 dominance-
submission: 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.
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.
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.), Personal-
ity and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A. (1987b). Enhancing the prediction of response to a communication situ-
ation 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
50, 67–77.
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, cheat-
ing, 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.
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.
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and
future prospects. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the cross-
roads: 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, self-
esteem 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 Relation-
ships, 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 inter-
dependence analysis of commitment process and relationship maintenance phenom-
ena. 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
Simon, E. P., & Baxter, L. A. (1993). Attachment style differences in relationship main-
tenance 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
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. Inter-
actions 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 posi-
tive 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 out-
comes: 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, agree-
ableness, 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 useful-
ness 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. How-
ever, 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 “dif-
ferences 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 inter-
action 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 dis-
agree 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 conceptualiza-
tion. They suggested that disagreements about substantive and procedural mat-
ters 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 disagree-
ment (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
level of affinity between communicators determines whether conflict is gener-

ated 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 charac-
terized by interpersonal conflict, followed by a second phase labeled confronta-
tion, 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 stimu-
late 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 inconsis-
tent: 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 disagree-
ment, 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 subordin-
ates’ 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 assertive-
ness, responsiveness, argumentativeness, and tolerance for disagreement. We
report here only the results involving TFD.
Findings indicate that the Big Five dimensions of extraversion and openness
to experience were positively correlated with TFD while agreeableness, con-
scientiousness, 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 relation-
ship, 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 nega-
tive 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 incompat-
ible 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 antagon-

ism. 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 disagree-

ment 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
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 com-
municate 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 struc-
tures 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 relation-
ships 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 disagree-
ment. 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 argu-
mentativeness 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).
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 dis-
agreement. 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 cumula-
tive 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.
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
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 con-
flict (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 exhib-
ited in positive ways. Not everyone has high tolerance for disagreement, nor do
people with moderate tolerance for disagreement always communicate in posi-
tive ways. Of course those with low tolerance for disagreement will often avoid
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 every-
one 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 disagree-
ment they are working against the best interest of the group or dyad with which
they are involved.
The Tolerance for Disagreement Scale (TFD)

In order to do scientific research on Tolerance for Disagreement, it was neces-
sary 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 dis-
agreeing 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 com-
municate more.
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 mod-
erate or high TFD score, you may need to work to be less TFD to avoid group-
think. Remember, it is almost impossible to change other people’s personalities
or temperaments. Hence, you are responsible for moderating your own person-
ality 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 dis-
agreement: 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’ communica-
tion attitudes and dislike for working in a group. Psychological Reports, 101,
1037–1040.
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 sur-
vival: 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 reac-
tion is widespread. Oftentimes the advice is rather superficial, amounting
mainly to “quit it,” leaving the impression that the dysfunction is also super-
ficial 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 self-
discipline 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 personal-
ization, 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 victim-
ized.” 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 meas-
ured 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 con-
sequences, 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? con-
structively? 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
Mean S.D. α 1 2 3 4 5
Correlations, Standard Calculation

1. Direct 2.91 .73 .81 –
2. Persecution 2.35 .72 .79 .62 –
3. Stress 2.87 .77 .70 .51 .47 –
4. Positive Rel 3.40 .64 .79 −.17 −.25 −.22 –
5. Negative Rel 3.04 .72 .74 .33 .29 .31 −.30 –
6. Valence 2.65 .77 .81 −.25 −.09 −.42 .29 −.38
Correlations, Latent Variables
1. Direct –
2. Persecution .78 –
3. Stress .69 .73 –
4. Positive Rel −.21 −.31 −.30 –
5. Negative Rel .41 .40 .43 −.45
6. Valence −.29 −.17 −.47 .37 −.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.
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 person-
ality 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 posi-
tively associated with psychoticism, but extraversion distinguishes between the
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 argument-
ativeness, 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 associ-
ations 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 con-
sistent 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 par-
ents and adult children might show similarity in their personalization tenden-
cies. 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 cross-
generational associations. Of the six TCP subscales, four showed positive direct
Table 21.2 Correlations between the TCP and Big Three Batteries
Extraversion Neuroticism Psychoticism
Direct Personalization .10 .33*** .08

Persecution Feelings .14 .27*** .03
Stress Reactions .01 .28*** .11
Positive Relational Effects −.17* −.02 −.08
Negative Relational Effects −.21** .10 −.01
Like/Dislike Valence .05 .00 −.03
Note: N = 182
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
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, sub-
scale 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 con-
clude 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 experi-
ences. We are aware of only one study, Avtgis and Rancer (2004). They dis-
covered 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 communica-
tion 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 parent-
ing and national culture suggests that these factors are less important consider-
ations 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
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 aggressive-
ness (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 com-
munication predispositions center on argumentativeness, not verbal aggressive-
ness. 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
N Direct Persec Stress PosRel NegRel Valence
Arg-Aproach 291 −.15* .02 −.31*** .20*** −.09 .48***

Arg-Avoid 291 .31*** .17** .44*** −.25*** .18** −.47***
Arg-GT 291 −.25*** −.09 −.41*** .25*** −.15* .53***
VA-Antisocial 277 .06 .07 .04 −.05 .00 −.10
VA-Prosocial 277 −.07 −.07 −.01 −.05 .05 −.07
VA 277 .07 .08 .03 −.01 −.02 −.03
Masculinity 239 −.19** −.02 −.17** .07 −.01 .19**
Femininity 239 .36*** .12 .34*** −.04 .10 −.30***
Reactance 98 −.04 .08 −.36*** .15 −.19 .42***
PRCA 179 .13 .18* .14 .01 −.10 .04
Alexithymia 200 .01 −.20** .04 −.04 .04 −.16*
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
scales’ content. Verbal aggressiveness showed consistently null connections with

TCP in Table 21.3.
Supplementary measures bearing on aggressiveness showed some connec-
tions 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?).
Table 21.4 displays the results of these cumulations, with verbal aggressive-
ness 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 aggres-
siveness 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 correla-
tions 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 Utility Domin Ident Play Blurt Coop Civil Prof
Direct Pers 380 .03 .15** .09 −.07 .10 .09 −.08 −.17***
Persecution 380 −.01 .17*** .13* .04 .13* .01 −.16** −.17***
Stress 380 −.15** .04 −.01 −.20*** .06 .13** −.14** −.16**
Pos Relation 380 .30*** .03 .28*** .29*** .15** .18*** .15** .18***
Neg Relation 380 −.04 .12* .02 −.02 .15** .06 −.14** −.15**
Valence 380 .21*** .15** .21*** .41*** −.07 −.18*** .09 .12*
Verb Agg 192 .15* .43*** .24*** .24*** .34*** −.44*** −.21** −.27***
Argumentv 192 .40*** .15* .44*** .66*** −.01 −.17* .25*** .20**
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
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 evi-
denced 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 understand-
ing 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 consist-
ent 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 con-
flict. 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 feel-
ings are particularly predictive of apprehension about communicating, espe-
cially 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
near zero, we would conclude that situational demands completely over-

whelmed 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, Dal-
linger, 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 reac-
tions. 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 person-
alize 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, aggressive-
ness 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 signifi-
cant relationships. Both of these studies found very strong associations between
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 (inter-
view) 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 substan-
tial 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 aggressive-
ness 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 sev-
eral 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 per-
sonalizers. One of our friends refers to this as the “cornered rabbit” syndrome.
A more formal explanation can be generated from the literature. Once per-
sonalizers 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 criti-
cized, 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 self-
control 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 con-
tains 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.
Conclusions
The project of drawing all these findings together for a review paper has gener-
ated 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 differ-
ences 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 orienta-
tion 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 evi-
dent. 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 Inter-
cultural Communication Research, 33, 109–118.
*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.
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The biology of communication: A com-
munobiological 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
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
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. Inter-
national 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/conver-
sational 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 Inter-
national 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 psychoti-
cism scale. Personality and Individual Difference, 6, 21–29.
Hample, D. (1996, May). A theoretical and empirical effort to describe message produc-
tion. 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 ten-
dency 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.), Proceed-
ings 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 Inter-
national 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. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A
review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook 19, 319–351.
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 organiza-
tional 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 argumentative-
ness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37–47.
Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as pre-
dictors 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 ver-

bal aggressiveness as an individual difference, including genetics (Beatty &
McCroskey, 1997), disdain for other, psychopathological basis, social learn-
ing, 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 situ-
ational 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 cross-
situationally 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 state-
ment or statements that lead to Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA). Reactive
Verbal Aggression occurs when the initial use of verbal aggression by a commun-
icant 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, symbol-
ically, 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 aggres-

siveness 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) phys-
ical appearance attacks, 9) maledictions, 10) negative comparisons, 11) profan-
ity, 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 bosses: character attacks, de-escalation/avoidance, blame, negative com-

parisons, command, competence attacks, behavior criticism, and threats;
2 family members: competence attacks, negative comparisons, appearance
attacks, personality attacks, character attacks, behavior criticism, com-
mand, and profanity;
390 Charles J. Wigley III
3 friends: de-escalation/avoidance, negative comparisons, profanity, stereo-

types, physical appearance attacks, command, character attacks, and
behavior criticism;
4 significant other: de-escalation/avoidance, negative comparisons, character
attacks, physical appearance attacks, profanity, competence attacks, com-
mand, and behavior criticism; and
5 strangers: competence attacks, profanity, physical appearance attacks,
stereotypes, behavior criticism, command, character attacks, and personal-
ity 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 indi-
viduals’ “choice of VTEs, and also their relationship they hold with the recipi-
ent [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 ver-
bally 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 par-
tially 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
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 moder-
ate 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 frustra-
tion 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
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. Follow-
up 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 aggres-
sive 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) (situ-
ations involving provocation) but, as well, when other (O) perceives some
characteristic of the individual (I) (e.g., aggressive-male, unfriendly, or stub-
born) 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: “Self-
focus 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 self-
focused 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.
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 differ-
ent. 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
research on verbal aggressiveness as a trait used such scenarios (Infante &

Wigley, 1986) and similar scenarios could be used for measuring state aggres-
sion. 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 con-
firmed, 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 aggres-
sion. 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 meta-
analyses 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 com-
munication is perceived as a risk to the safety of the individual. Considerable
research supports Gibb’s conclusions (i.e., that there are numerous negative
communication climates that can lead to arousal of defensiveness). It is reason-

able to hypothesize that individuals experiencing heightened levels of defen-
siveness will use verbal aggression as a means of self-protection. While a num-
ber 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 impres-
sion that defensive communication is a desirable conversational strategy. Fur-
ther, 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 rumin-
ation, 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 sub-
scales 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 par-
ticular variable is the one of greatest interest in this chapter, it should be
noted that the Buss-Perry verbal aggression scale includes some argu-
mentativeness 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.
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 reac-
tion (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 rumin-
ation 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
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 trigger-
ing 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, short-
term 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 inter-
acting with various degrees of trait verbal aggressiveness, serve as trigger events
for reactive verbal aggression. This will improve our understanding of the likeli-
hood 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 dimin-
ishment or abandonment of self-focused attention? Studying the two constructs,
trait verbal aggressiveness and state verbal aggression, as well as their inter-
action, should provide us with a much better understanding of the func-
tional 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 empha-
sis, 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.
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.
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 Personal-
ity 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 meta-
analysis (pp. 281–314), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Infante, D. A. (1989). Response to high argumentatives: Message and sex differences.
Southern Communication Journal, 54, 159–170.
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
50, 67–77.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J., III (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model
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 aggressive-
ness. Communication Quarterly, 38, 170–188.
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:
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 applica-
tion (p. 243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wigley, C. J., III (2008). Verbal aggression interventions: What should be done? Com-
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). “Dys-
functional relationships associated with verbal aggressiveness are found in all
contexts of communication” (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, p. 240). “The communi-
cation 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 occur-

rences of verbal aggression were conceivable. Hample and Dallinger (1987)
reported that people will select effective strategies instead of appropriate strat-
egies, 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 ver-
bal 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 instru-
mental use of verbal aggression, albeit indirectly, is strategy research, specific-
ally 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 strat-
egies (deTurck, 1987). People who are high in trait verbal aggressiveness are
more likely and quicker to use verbally aggressive compliance-gaining strat-
egies (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 (Vange-
listi, 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 dif-
ferentiated 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 inten-
tionally delivered (Vangelisti, 1994), more intensely stated (Young et al.,
2005), and more common among those who are predisposed to being aggres-
sive (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 vulner-
able, 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 reac-
tion. 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 dis-
tancing 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
hurtful message research. Yet there is a difference that is important to acknow-

ledge 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, aggres-
sive messages (e.g., verbally aggressive messages) can be investigated by con-
sidering (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 out-
come might differ from the receiver’s perspective or from an observer’s view-
point. 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 indi-
viduals’ 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 experi-
ences 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
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 class-
room 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 appro-
priate. 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
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, straight-
forward, 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 aggres-
sive 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 class-
room. 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 investi-
gated. Students were then asked to give examples of the use of verbal aggression
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 aggres-
sive 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 ses-
sions. Several students mentioned that reciprocating a teacher’s own use of
verbal aggression with a verbally aggressive message led to a teacher apologiz-
ing 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 aggres-
sive 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 author-
ity in the classroom. The authors also reported that students noted that
coaches, club leaders, and teachers have all used verbal aggression to demand
more from their students. Martin, Dunleavy, and Kennedy-Lightsey (2008) con-
cluded by cautioning that they were not advocating an increased use of verbal
aggression by teachers, but that their results indicated that there may be situ-
ations 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 mes-
sages 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 poten-
tially embarrassing. They found that people higher in verbal aggressiveness
eliminated fewer arguments and expressed a willingness to use verbally aggres-
sive messages in order to achieve their goals. Noting that people have primary
goals (i.e., their objective) and secondary goals (i.e., maintaining a relation-
ship), 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: motiv-
ation/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 instru-
mentally successfully use verbally aggressive messages. Individuals could be
“spurred to levels of achievement they did not believe possible” by receiving
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 aggres-
sive 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 aggres-
sive, they also viewed their coaches as being lower in the credibility dimen-
sions of character and competence. Athletes also reported lower satisfaction
with their coaches and displayed fewer sportsmanship behaviors. When play-
ing 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 instru-
mental 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 ques-
tion 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).
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, unneces-
sarily hurtful, and potentially physically dangerous. But what about situ-
ations 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 second-
ary 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 unsatis-
fied (Venable & Martin, 1997). It is possible that people communicate ver-
bally 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
messages might not be the most socially appropriate means to end a relation-
ship 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 communi-
cating 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 aggres-
sive attack (Martin, Anderson, & Horvath, 1996). When people are on the
receiving end of verbal aggression, watching others being attacked, or repri-
manding 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 aggres-
sive 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
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 cath-
arsis 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 mes-
sages. 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 construct-
ive 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).
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 mes-
sages. 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. Com-
munication 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 Personal-
ity 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
deTurck, M. A. (1987). When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliance-
Dillard, J. P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on the selection of
compliance-gaining messages: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody-
McLaughlin 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.
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
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.
Ifert, D. E., & Bearden, L. (1998). The influence of argumentativeness and verbal aggres-
sion to responses to refused requests. Communication Reports, 11, 145–154.
Infante, D. A., Bruning, S. D., & Martin, M. M. (1994, Nov.). The verbally aggress-
ive 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 cred-
ited 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., Wall, C. H., Leap, C. J., & Danielson, K. (1984). Verbal aggression as a func-
tion of the receivers argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 1, 33–37.
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 associ-
ation 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 aggressive-
ness. 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 pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh.
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 involve-
ment. 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.
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 be-
tween 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
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 Rela-
tionships, 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? Com-
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 Com-
munication, 5, 123–140.
Index
In this index tables are indicated in bold; notes are indicated by n.
527 ads 225, 226 alcohol, and sports aggression 261

alexithymia 379
abuse 242 alienation 49
acclaims 224 Anderson, C. M. and Martin, M. M. 310
adolescent aggression 52–3, 140, 150, 186 Anderson, C. A. 189, 191
adults, aggression/aggressive Andersson, L. M. and Pearson, C. M. 289
communication 53–6 Anestis, M. D. 395–6
affective/hot aggression 287 anger, and aggressive communication 281
affirming communication 247, 295, 298 anger management 281
Agatston, P. W. 208 anger rumination 395–6
age, and aggression 393–4 anonymity, and fan aggression 260–1
aggression see also verbal aggression antisocial behavior alteration techniques
appropriate/persuasive 219–22 (BATs) 168–9
developmental trends in 46–8 anxiety, public speaking 4
indirect/passive 167–70 appropriateness 350–1
justification for 253, 391, 403–4 ARG scale 73–80, 102–3, 104–5
predicting 51–2 argument, effectiveness at 21
research 309–12 argument frames 379–81
Aggression Questionnaire 190–1 arguments, serial 170–3
aggressive communication see also argumentative predisposition 132
communication argumentative skills deficiency (ASD)
and authoritarian approaches 244 17–20, 21, 394
desirable/less desirable characteristics argumentative skills deficiency model
220–2 (ASDM) 166, 323
destructive traits 274–5 Argumentative Skills Deficiency Model of
interpretation of meaning 115 Interspousal Violence 321–2
predispositions to 108 argumentativeness
research 161 conceptual foundations of 69–71
risk factors 246 one and two dimensional models 71
and TCP 378–9 scales see ARG scale
terms associated with 241–2 and TCP 380
aggressive hostility 34 of teaching assistants 162
aggressive organizational communication training 131, 150–1
289–98 see also workplace aggression trait 130–2, 150–1, 294, 322, 327
Aggressive Provocation Questionnaire Argumentativeness Scale see ARG
(APQ) 393 Argyle, M. 269
418 Index
Aronson, E. 351 Blogosphere 231

Art of War, The 93 blurting 380
“A Survey of Four Continents” 94 Bonito, J. A. 312
asymmetrical activity, prefrontal cortex Bonito, J. A. and Hollingshead, A. B. 313
30–40 Bookwala, J. 54, 55–6
asymmetrical processing model 30, 31, Booth-Butterfield, M. and Sidelinger, R. J.
38–9 327
asymmetry research 14–15, 30–40 Bowlby, J. 346
Atkin, C. K. 189 brain laterality research 31
attachment 346–8 broad heritability 8
attack ads 234 brooders 396
attacks, political ads 225–9 Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 223
attacks, verbal/nonverbal 222–5 Buchanan, M. C. 410
audio recordings, and verbal aggression Budd, T. 242
189–90 bullying see also cyberbullying 52–3,
authoritarian approaches, and aggressive 199–200, 242
communication 244 in classroom 139–44
avoidance, and TCP 378, 383 and cyberbullying 58, 203, 207
Avtgis, T. A. 108, 383, 410 and differences 152
Avtgis, T. A. and Madlock, P. 243, 244 in groups 311–12
Avtgis, T. A. and Rancer, A. S. 105, 106, and teasing 150
107, 133, 293, 295 bully-victims 143
Ayoko, O. B. 308, 314 Burgoon, J. K. and Dunbar, N. E. 344
Buss, A. and Perry, M. 190–1
Babcock, J. C 320
Bad Blue Boys 258 Cairns, R. B. 49
balance theory 361 Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. 78
Bales, R. F. 308 catharsis, and verbal aggression 410–11
Bandura, A. 47 centricity 125
Banerjee, S. C. 187, 188 Chafee, S. H. 111
Banks, S. P. 409 change, in groups 314
Bartholomew, K. 347–8 Chen, G-M. and Starosta,W. J. 114
BATs 168–9 childhood aggression 48–52, 140
batterers, types 1 and 2 325–6 children, media exposure 186, 190
Baxter, L. A. 341 China, aggressive communication
Bayer, C. L. and Cegala, D. J. 326–7 and Chinese culture 85–9
Beatty, M. J. 6, 7, 8, 8–10, 15–16, 30–1, new developments, China 94–6
33, 75, 168, 327 strategies for, Chinese culture 90–3
Beatty, M. J. and Dobos, J. A. 327 term, in Chinese language 82–4
Beatty, M. J. and Heisel, A. D. 5 Chory-Assad, R. M. and Paulsel, M. L.
Beatty, M. J. and McCroskey, J. C. 6, 11, 168–9
34 Chory-Assad, R. M. and Tamborini, R.
Beck, S. 341 187
Beech, B. and Leather, P. 242 Chory, R. M. and Cicchirillo, V. 191
behavioural opposition, students 144 class, and race 113
Behm-Morawitz, E. and Mastro, D. E. 178 classroom conflict 144–9, 404–6
Bell, R. A. and Healey, J. G. 341 classroom environment, and aggression
Berger, C. R. and di Battista, P. 401 150, 161–6
Berkowitz, L. 189, 287 coaches, and aggression 255–6, 307,
Big Three/Five measures, and TFD/TCP 408
363, 375, 376, 376 collaborative approach, negotiations 134
biological factors 4–5, 6–15, 21, 38, 48–9 collectivist cultures 127, 128
Bjorkqvist, K. 49 college classroom, aggressive
blank slate approach 4–5 communication 161–6
Index 419
college students, and TV exposure 187, 188 cross-cultural research 101–11

Columbine High School 139 high/low context 105–6
communibiology 34 individual level 109–11
communication see also aggressive operationalizing 100–1
communication organizational 293
affirming 247, 295, 298 and political aggression 233
distortion 115 as shared symbol system 115
idiomatic 341 and TCP 377
measurement of 108–9 term 100
symbolic aggressive 268 third 135
training 248 Cupach, W. R. and Carson, C. L. 383
traits 101–2, 364–5 cyberbullying see also bullying 57–8,
communication apprehension 32–3, 38–9, 198–9
379 and bullying 203, 207
communication-related behaviors 31–2 channels 206
communicator image 295 and communication 210–12
communicator styles 271, 294–5, 296 defined 201–2
competition, and verbal aggression negative consequences of 208
407–8 prevention 209–10
compliance-gaining strategies/research reporting 208–9
322–3, 401 research on 204–9
computer-mediated communication safety strategies 209
(CMC) 174, 260, 309 in sports 261
computer tailored messages 211 types of 203–4, 205
conflict Cyber Bullying: A Prevention Curriculum
classroom 144–9, 404–6 for Grades 6–12 210
in groups 308–9 cyberharassment 198, 205
management/resolution 97, 145–8, cyberstalking 198, 205
309–10, 347
as negative 361, 363–4 Dailey, R. M. and Palomares, N. A. 409
negative solutions to 367–8 “Daisy” ad 227–8
preventing 365–7 Dallinger, J. M. and Hample, D. 377, 379,
and TFD 360, 361–2 382
Confucianism 85–6 Dao-De-Jing (Tao-Te-Ching) 86
Confucius 88, 89 debt and threats 255–6
construct validity, ARG/VA scales 77–9 decorum, and politically aggressive
constructive/destructive relationships, communication 221–2, 228
China 88 decorum principle 224
consumerism, healthcare 244 de-escalation 391
control, loss of 244 “Defensive Communication” 394
cooperative principle 220 defensiveness 394–5
Core TCP see tolerance for conflict denigration 205
covert/overt aggression 53 desensitization, systematic 4
Coyne, S. M. and Archer, J. 180 destructive aggressive communication
Coyne, S. M. and Whitehead, E. 179 traits 274–5
Crick, N. and Dodge, K. A. 47 dialectic exchange 293
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. 77 DiCioccio, R. L. 342–3
cross-cultural research 101–11 dimensionality 73–6
Cultural Revolution 95 direct/indirect aggression 56
cultural self 116–17 direct personalization, TCP 372–3
culture(s) disagreement
aggressive organizational 288 and argumentativeness 364
and argumentativeness 103, 110, 127–8 constructive/desctructive 359
conceptualization of 111–18 and tolerance for disagreement 360–1
420 Index
discrimination 242 film, and verbal aggression 178–80

dispositional approach 32 Fisher, R. 134
distrust, experienced by patients 244 flaming 205
Dixon, N. 254, 408 Flexible Savings Account (FSA) 244
Doctrine of the Mean 86, 87 Fouts, G. 183
Dodge, K. A. and Somberg, D. R. 47 Frog and the Scorpion 29
Downs, V. C. 232, 269–70 frustration 391, 393, 394
Dukakis, Michael 226 frustration-aggression hypothesis 287
Dumas, J. E. 50 functional theory 224
Durbin, J. M. 389–90, 392
Duxiu Chen 94 gay men, domestic violence 332
Geer, J. G. 219
Eastin, M. S. 192 gender see sex
education see also training genetic commonality 5
conflict resolution 146–8 genetic predispositions
verbal aggression 166–7 tolerance for conflict (TCP) 376
efficiency, interpersonal: and strategic verbal aggression/argumentativeness
aggression 5–6 6–10, 34, 335, 336
Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B. I. 286 geocentric approach, negotiation 125–8,
Ekman, P. 269 126
Ellis, D. G. and Fisher, B. A. 362 Gerberich, S. 245
email communication 28 Get Real About Violence 209–10
emotional intelligence 314 Gibb, Jack 394
environmental influences, and aggression Glascock, J. and Ruggiero, T. E. 180
49–51 global communication 127, 133–4
environments, social 5 globalization, and culture 125
equivalence, cross-cultural measurement Glomb, T. M. and Liao, H. 307
106–9 Goldwater, Barry 227–8
escalation cycle 289 Goleman, D. P. 314
ethnic differences, and bullying 152 Goodall, Jane 4
ethnicity 112, 115 Gortner, E. 326
ethnocentic approach, negotiation 126 Gottman, J. 324–6
exclusion 205 Greenberg, B. S. 181, 182
Expectancy Violation Theory 270–1 Greene, K. and Kremar, M. 179
Expectation States Theory (ESP) 312 Grice, P. 220
Grog Squad 257
face concerns 90–1, 223–4, 351 grouphate 311
fair play behaviors 255 groups 305–9, 310, 311, 365
Falconer, D. S. 8 Groupthink 367–8
family Gruenfeld, D. H. 310
aggression 49–50, 318, 334–6 Guerrero, L. K. and Burgoon, J. K. 348
communication 111, 320 Gustavsson, J. P. 51
relationships, and bullying 142
(F)anonymity 260–1 Hample, D. and Dallinger, J. M. 372,
fans 407
and aggression in sport 256–7 Hample, D. 382
dysfunctional 261 harassment 205
and identification 258–9, 408 hard-bargaining approach, negotiations
fantasy sports leagues 261 134
Federal Election Commission (FEC) 230 hardwiring, for aggression 4
Feeney, J. A. and Noller, P. 348 Haridakis, P. M. 188
femininity, and TCP 379 harmony, in Chinese culture 87, 90, 95, 96,
Feshbach, N. D. 49 97
fight-flight system (FFS) 13–14 Harre, R. and Lamb, R. 47
Index 421
Hartley, K. C. 410 Infante, D. A. and Gorden, W. I. 295–6

Hazen, C. and Shaver, P. 346–7 Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S. 70, 74
health implications, aggressive Infante, D. A. and Wigley, C. J. 26, 74–5,
organizational communication 290 190–1
healthcare, and aggression 241–7 influence, social 307
heckling, political 232–3 injustice, organizational 287, 288
Heisel, A. D. 404 instructor argumentativeness/VA 163–4,
hemispheric laterality 38 165, 173 see also teachers
Hennig, J. 34 instructor/student verbal aggression 160,
Henningsen, D. D. and Henningsen, M. L. 163, 164
307 instrumental aggression 253, 260, 407–11
hereditability estimate, aggression 10 integrated model of aggression 288
high-context communicative transactions interaction
106 Chinese culture 95
high-context cultures 105–6, 107, 129, 131 and TCP 382
Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. W. 206, 209 interactionist model of teasing
Hobman, E. V. 309 communication (TCM) 342–6, 345,
hockey, aggression in 253 348, 350, 351
Hopper, R. 341 internet
hormone exposure, verbal aggressiveness campaigning 230–2
10–11 and sports fans 260–1
hostile aggression 144 interpersonal conflict 361
Hostile Attribution Bias 47–8 interpersonal efficiency, and strategic
hostility aggression 5–6
and teasing 344, 349 invasive communication 84, 85
and verbal aggression 280 inventional system 166–7
Hovatter, D. 359 Ito, T. A. 391, 392
Huesmann, L. R. 50, 51
Huesmann, L. R. and Guerra, N. G. 142 Janis, Irving 368
Hughson, J. 258 Jin-gong xing jiao-liu 84
humor, aggressive 114, 179 Johnson, D. W. 148
“Hundred Schools of Thought Contend” Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. 131,
89 147
hurtful messages 279–80, 320, 324, Joint Programme on Workplace Violence
389–90, 392, 401–3 see also in the Health Sector 241–2
psychological pain “Journal of Youth” 94
justice, procedural 169
identification, and sport 258–9, 408 justification, for aggression 253, 391,
idiomatic communication 341 403–4
IIA scale 168–9 juvenile offenders, and impact of films
image, damaging of 219 179
impersonation 205
implicit ad hominems 270 Kameda, T. 306–7
impression management, and verbal Kassing, J. W. 328
aggression 410 Kassing, J. W. and Barber, A. M. 256
impression management theory 219 Kassing, J. W. and Infante, D. A. 255, 408
independent mindedness 292–6 Katt, J. A. 359–60, 362–3
indirect/direct aggression 56, 167–70 Kelloway, E. K. 287
Indirect Interpersonal Aggressiveness Keltner, D. 351
(IIA) scale 168–9 Keyton, J. 305
individualistic cultures 127–8 Kim, M. S. 109, 110
Infante, D. A. 17–18, 19, 143, 165, 166–7, Klopf, D. W. 101–2
271, 280, 289, 292, 293, 267, 269, Knapp, M. L. and Hall, J. A. 269
321–4, 343, 390, 391, 400, 403, 404 Knecht, S. 38
422 Index
Knutson, P. K. 360, 361 measurement validity, basics of 68–9

Koehn, S. C. and Martin, M. M. 178 media, and aggression 16, 50–1, 117,
Kowalski, R. M. 198, 341, 350 178–80, 193, 225–30, 230–2
Kowalski, R. M. & Limber, S. P. 203 mediated effects model 6
Mehrabian, A. 269
Lachlan, K. A. and Maloney, E. K. 191 messages
Lamude, K. G. and Torres, P. 362 hurtful 279–80, 320, 324, 389–90, 392,
Landis, Floyd 260 401–3 see also psychological pain
Lanza, M. 247 regret/memorable 256
Lao-Zi (Lao-Tzu) 86, 88 Meyer, G. 210
Lawrence, C. 393 Meyers, R. A. and Brashers, D. E. 306, 307
leadership, groups 307, 311 mianzi 90
Leech, G. 220 microtargeting 235
lesbians, domestic violence 332 Miczo, M. and Welter, R. 114
Levenson, R. W. and Gottman, J. M. Mitchell, J. 218
324 mobbing 312
Levin, D. E. 150 modesty, in Chinese culture 87
Lewin, K. 305, 314 motivation, and verbal aggression 407–8
Lewis, M. 48 Mottet, T. P. and Thweatt, K. S. 341
Lewis, R. J. 33–4 multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM)
Leyens, J. 178, 179 78
lian 90 music, and verbal aggression 189–90
life span perspective 45–6, 54, 57–9 Myers, K. A. and Bailey, C. L. 379
Lim, T. 391 Myers, S. A. 163
Limon, M. S. and La France, B. H. 311 Myers, S. A. and Goodboy, A. K. 55, 330,
Lin, Y. 111–12 331
Lindeman, M. 52 Myers, S. A. and Knox, R. L. 162, 164–5,
LoConto, D. G. and Roth, T. J. 255 330
Longaretti, L. and Wilson, J. 145 Myers, S. A. and Rocca, K. A. 163–4
low-context communicative transactions
106 Nansel, T. R. 200
low-context cultures 105–6, 129, 131 Nathanson, A. I. 51
low-level conflict 144 nationality, and culture 115, 118
Lykken, D. T. 7 nature or nurture debate 6
negative campaigning 229
Madlock, P. E. 365 negative urgency 396
Magnusson, D. 343 negotiation (s)
Mao Tse-tung 95 approaches to 126
marital aggression 54, 319–26 global, and argumentativeness 128–33
marital satisfaction 319, 324 and relationships 124
marriage relations, psychophysiological networks, social 58
approach 324–6 neurobiological systems, and aggression
Marshall, L. L. 323 12–15
Martin, M. M. 55, 182, 188, 329, 330, 334, neurotic hostility 34
405–7 neurotic psychoticism 35
Martin, M. M. and Valencic, K. M. neuroticism 376, 377, 384
404–5 New Culture Movement 94
masculinity, and sport 257–8 Nicotera, A. M. 115, 116–17
May Fourth Movement 94 nomological network approach 77
McCroskey, J. C. and Beatty, M. J. 33 nonaffirming communicator style 271
McCroskey, J. C. and Richmond, V. P. 363 nonverbal aggression 268–71
McCroskey, J. C. and Weeless, L. R. 360, degree of hurtfulness 271–4, 273, 278,
361–2, 363 279–80, 281, 282
measurement, cross-cultural 106–11 messages, frequency of 281, 279
Index 423
political attacks 224–5 Peterman, L. M. and Dixon, C. G. 332,

reasons for employing 277, 280–1 333
trash talk 254–5, 408 Petty, R. E. and Brock, T. C. 233
nonverbal communication 27, 47 Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 232
nonverbal disconfirmation behaviors 273 Pew Internet and American Life Project
nonverbal “verbal” aggression see 198
nonverbal aggression physical aggression 51, 267
norms, classroom 143 families 335
nursing, and aggressive communication parents 328
245 see also healthcare and verbal aggression 48, 181–2, 335
physiological reactions, during conflict
Occupational Safety and Health 336
Promotion Management Guidelines Pistole, M. C. 347
for Workplace Violence and politeness principle 220
Prevention Programs (OSHA) 246 politeness theory 223, 311
O’Connor, D. B. 393 political attack ads 225–9
Olaniran, B. and Williams, D. 115 political debates 222–5
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program 209 political heckling 232–3
Olweus Bullying Questionnaire 199–200, politically aggressive communication
213n. 217–22, 233–4
Olweus, D. 53, 141 polycentric approach, negotiation 126
Opium War 94 Potter, W. J. 184
Opotow, S. 146 Potter, W. J. and Warren, R. 183, 185
organizational aggression 285–6 see also power, and coaches 307
workplace aggression preassualtive tension state 247
ostracism 49, 205 predicting aggression 51–2
outing 205 prenatal effects, verbal aggressiveness
10–12
Palmer, C. and Thompson, K. 257 primates, study of 4
paralanguage 27 principal component analysis (PCA) 74
parental influence, on aggression 16, 142, private contract, strategy of 92–3
326–7, 256 progestin 11–12
Parke, R. D. 179 prosocial conflict 144
passive aggression 167–70 provocation 391, 392, 393
Patterson, G. R. 49 Prunty, A. M. 133
Payne, M. J. and Sabourin, T. C. 319 psychological pain, and verbal aggression
Peacemakers Program 146–8 27, 29 see also hurtful messages
peer group, norms 143 psychological violence 242
peers, and aggression 50 psychophysiological approach, marriage
Peña, J. and Hancock, J. T. 192 relations 324–6
Pence, M. 31, 32 public speaking anxiety 4
perpetrators, organizational aggression Pulkkinen, L. 54
286–7 push-polling 230
persecution feelings, TCP 373 Putonghua 83
Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA-24) 33 Qin-lue xing jiao-liu 84
personality development 111
personality traits, measurement of 108–9 race 112, 113, 115, 152
personalization, of conflict (TCP) 372–5, radio, negative attacks 229
381, 383, 384 Rancer, A. S. 150–1, 319
personalization, of disagreement 361 Rancer, A. S. and Avtgis, T. A. 161
persuasion, Chinese culture 91–3, 96 rational choice model 287
persuasion strategies, and culture 131–2 Rayner, C. 312
persuasive argument theory 307–8 reactance, and TCP 379, 381
424 Index
Reactive Verbal Aggression (RVA) 388, Schultz, B. 311

390–4 Schultz, B. and Anderson, J. 309
reciprocal verbal aggression 390 Schwartz, T. 222
referential skill usage 330 scientific perspective, verbal aggressiveness
regret messages 256 3–4
reinforcement, for aggression 49 script theory 48
Reinisch, J. M. 11–12 Seibold, D. R. and Meyer, R. A. 307–8
relational aggression 58 Seiter, J. S. 232
relational appropriateness, teasing 350–1 self-construal 109, 110, 111, 119n.
relational effects, positive/negative (TCP) self-focused attention 392
373 self-handicapping 410
relationship(s) serial arguments 170–3
development, and negotiations 124, serotonin 13
128 sex
satisfaction, and teasing 352 and aggression 49, 151–2
sport 255–7 and aggression in sport 253–4, 257–8
termination, and verbal aggression and bullying 152, 200, 207
408–9 and political aggression 233–4
relevancy, politically aggressive and tolerance for conflict,TCP 377
communication 221, 228 and verbal aggression 396, 404–5
reliability, ARG/VA scales 76–7 sex-typed behavior 11
religion, China 85–6, 88 sexual harassment 242
remedial skills development 21 Sheridan, M. 243
research, cross-cultural 101–11 “shock forums” 258
resting alpha asymmetry, and siblings, and aggression 55, 328–31
communication apprehension 33 Sillars, A. L. and Zietlow, P. H. 54
resting anterior symmetry 14–15 Simon, E. P. and Baxter, L. A. 348
rewarding, of verbal aggression 185 situational appropriateness, teasing 351
Roach, K. D. 162 Situational Triggers of Aggressive
Roberto, A. J. 212 Responses (STAR) scale 393
robo-calling 230 situationism 343
Rocca, K. A. and McCroskey, J. C. 163 skills deficiency model 211–12, 247
Rogan, R. G. and La France, B. H. 407 skills deficiency model of Interspousal
Rossi, D. 248 Violence 321–4
Rudd, J. E. 322–3 Smith, R. E. and Sarason, I. G. 17
Rudd, J. E. and Burant, P. A. 323 social aggression 58
Rudd, J. E. and Lawson, D. 125, 126 social cognition approaches 47
Ruggierio, T. E. and Lattin, K. S. 113, social environments 5
255 social influence, groups 305–7
rumination 395–6 social interaction, and families 336
Rybak, M. 35 social interaction theory 48
social learning processes 5
Sabourin, T. C. and Stamp, G. H. 323 social learning theory 15–17, 47
Salmivalli, C. 311–12 social science, and culture 116–18
same-sex couples, aggressive social status, and bullying 141, 312
communication 331–3 socialization in groups 310, 311
Sanders, J. A. 103, 104, 133 socially aggressive behaviors 178
Sanderson, J. 257, 260 socioemotional messages, and video
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 48 games 192
Scharfe, E. and Bartholomew, K. 346 Spector, P. E. 287
Scharrer, E. 181, 182–3 spiral of incivility model 289
Schat, A. C. H. and Kelloway, E. K. 296 sport
Schilling, Curt 257, 260 aggression in 113, 253–62, 408
Schrodt, P. 162, 163 and identification 258–9
Index 425
and masculinity 257–8 television

relationships 255–7 negative attacks 229
sporting coaches, and aggression 255–6 and non-verbal attacks 224
Stafford, L. and Dainton, M. 319, 334 and verbal aggression 180–9
Stasser, G. and Birchmeier, A. 308 Teven, J. J. 329, 359
Stephenson, P. and Smith, D. 141 texting 28
story sharing, Chinese culture 92 TFD see tolerance for disagreement
strategic aggression, and interpersonal theory of independent mindedness 292–6
efficiency 5–6 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 212
strategic verbal aggression 404 third cultures 135
Strelau, J. 13 threat 242
stress reaction, TCP 373 threats and debts 255–6
Structuration Theory 308 Tindale, R. S. 308
student/instructor verbal aggression 160, Tokunaga, B. 117
163, 164 tolerance for conflict (TCP)
students, and TV exposure 187, 188 and aggressiveness/avoidance 378, 383
Sue, D. 114 and Big Three measures 376
Summers, C. 408 core 373
Sutter, D. L. and Martin, M. M. 409, correlations for 374
410 exogenous matters 375–8
Suzuki, S. and Rancer, A. S. 75, 107, 108 factors co-occuring with 378–81
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 226 and frames, argumentativeness, verbal
symbolic aggression 85, 267, 268 aggression 380
systematic desensitization 4, 20–1 tolerance for disagreement (TFD) 359–60
and affect/conflict 365–8
taking conflict personally (TCP) 372–5 and communication traits 364–5
talk radio, negative attacks 229, 258 and conflict 360, 361–2
Tamborini, R. 180, 257 scale 369–70
Taoism 86 why do people differ in 362–3
tax-exempt ads 225 Tong-xun 83
taxonomy of nonverbal “verbal” training see also education
aggression 270–1, 274, 280 aggressive behavior 246
TCP see tolerance for conflict argument 294
teachers see also instructor communication 248
argumentativeness reducing aggression 247, 282
aggressive traits of 151 trait argumentativeness 150–1
and classroom conflict 145–6 trait, and state TCP 381–2
misbehaviors of 170 trait affection 33–4
teaching assistants, argumentativeness of trait argumentativeness 130, 150–1, 294,
162 322, 327
Teaching Students to be Peacemakers trait component, Reactive Verbal
Program 146–8 Aggression (RVA) 393–4
teasing trait verbal aggressiveness 4, 29, 39, 275,
affectionate/aggressive 344, 348–50 280
and bullying 150 and film/TV exposure 179–80, 188–9
defined 342 organizational context 291–2
family 334–5 student/instructor 162
interactionist model 340, 342–4 traits
outcomes 351–2 aggressive, teachers 151
perspectives of 340–4 communication 101–2, 274–5, 364–5
relational appropriateness 350–1 and TFD 359–60
sibling 329 Trapp, R. and Hoff, N. 171–2
technologies, new: and bullying 58 trash talk 254–5, 408
Tedeschi, J. T. and Felson, R. B. 48 Tremblay, R. E. 45, 48
426 Index
trickery 205 and relationship termination 408–9

trust, personal: and negotiations 128 research, and media 193
Turman, P. D. 307 scientific perspective 3–4
twins studies, of aggression 6–10 studies of 34–5
types of 164–5, 268
Underwood, M. K. 47, 49 verbal aggression TV consumption index
(VATCI) 187–8
VaezMousavi, S. M. and Shojaie, M. 256 Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) 28,
valence 306–7 74–5, 190–1
like/dislike (TCP) 373 verbal attacks, political debate 222–4
and TCP 384 Verbal Trigger Events (VTEs) 243, 244,
Valencic, K. M. 35 388–90, 392
validity victims
ARG/VA scales 77–9 of bullying 142, 206
measurement 68–9 same-sex partners 332, 333
Van Erva, J. P. 51 video games, and verbal aggression
Vangelisti, A. L. 320, 402 190–3
Vangelisti, A. L. and Young, S. L. 320 violence
varimax rotation 74 and aggressive organizational
VAS 73, 76–80 communication 289–90
veracity, politically aggressive interspousal 321–6
communication 221, 227 and sport 260
veracity principle 224 workplace 241
veracity-relevancy-decorum framework Visek, A. and Watson, J. 253
222
verbal aggression 388–9 Walker, S. 56
biological factors 4–5, 6–15, 21, 38 Wann, D. L. 260
catalysts/precursors 394–6 “Willie Horton” spot 226
and catharsis 410–11 Woods, S. and Wang, J. 104
causes of 388 workplace aggression 241, 285–91
cultural issues 103–4, 128 Wotring, C. E. and Greenberg, B. S. 179
de-escalating 249 wrestling 257
defined 26, 71–3 “Wu Wei” 86
destructive/constructive 400
explicit/implicit 26–8 Ybarra, M. L. and Mitchell, K. J. 203, 206
high/low trait 280 You Tube 231
intent of 26, 27, 29–30 Yuan Wei 94
interpretation of 28
intrumental use of 407–11 Zexu Lin 94
one and two dimensional models 72 Zillmann, D. and Bryant, J. 182
and physical aggression 48, 181–2, 335 Zillmann, D. and Weaver, J. B. 16
as positive/negative 113, 403, 411 Zornoza, A. 309
reducing 40, 211 Zuckerman, M. 6, 7, 396

Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict - Theodore A. Avtgis, Andrew S. Rancer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict - Theodore A. Avtgis, Andrew S. Rancer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments, Aggression,

Andrew S. Rancer (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1979) is Professor of Communication at

New Directions in Theory and Research

Edited by Theodore A. Avtgis and

ISBN 0-203-85542-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0–415–99639–2 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978–0–415–99639–6 (hbk)

1 Verbal Aggressiveness as an Expression of Selected

2 Verbal Aggression and Prefrontal Cortex Asymmetry 26

3 Aggressive Communication: A Life Span Perspective 44

4 Measuring Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness:

5 Exploring Constructive Aggressive Communication in China:

6 Culture and Aggressive Communication 100

7 Global Communicator: Understanding the Role of Verbal

8 Student Aggressive Communication in the K-12 Classroom:

9 Reconsidering the Role of Aggressive Communication in

10 Media Entertainment and Verbal Aggression: Content, Effects,

11 Cyberbullying: Aggressive Communication in the Digital Age 198

12 Aggressive Communication in Political Contexts 217

13 Aggressive Communication within Medical Care: Mapping

14 Trash Talk and Beyond: Aggressive Communication in the

15 Nonverbal “Verbal” Aggression: Its Forms and Its Relation to

16 The Dark Side of Organizational Life: Aggressive Expression in

17 Aggressive Communication and Conflict in Small Groups 305

18 Aggressive Expression within the Family: Effects on Processes

19 The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication 340

20 Tolerance for Disagreement 359

21 Taking Conflict Personally and its Connections

22 Verbal Trigger Events—Other Catalysts and Precursors

23 The Instrumental Use of Verbally Aggressive Messages 400

Thirty plus years of investigating argumentative and aggressive communication

Carolyn M. Anderson (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Professor in the School

interactive aggression processes. Currently, she is focused on studying how

70 scholarly articles, book chapters, published conference proceedings, and

research in Communication Education, Communication Quarterly, Journal

Communication and Personality: Trait perspectives (1998, Hampton Press).

E. Phillips Polack (M.D., West Virginia University) is Clinical Professor in the

Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona

Article Award from the Interpersonal Communication Division of NCA, the

Fengming Zhao is currently pursuing her master’s degree in the College of

Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and Acts of Verbal Aggression

Primacy of Biological Factors as Exogenous Variables

approach is to consider aggression as an inborn, evolutionarily significant strat-

Interpersonal Efficiency and Strategic Aggression

interpersonal skill level, considering another’s perspective and crafting alterna-

Biological Factors Exogenous to Verbal Aggression

Study Measurement Type N rmz rdz

Owen & Sines (1970) Self-Report 42 .56 .13

correlations for sample size. Although a commonly recommended technique

Neurobiological Systems that Moderate Aggression

system. In general, communicators high in trait verbal aggressiveness simply

Social Learning and Skills Theories as

Social Learning Theory

Argumentative Skills Deficiency Hypothesis

they lack the skills necessary to persuade receivers. However, research by

scientific studies which show large differences in those abilities as a function of

Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: Wiley.

Verbal Aggression and

In their seminal article, Infante and Wigley (1986) offered a conceptualization

before observers will modify an initially positive or neutral meaning to

constructed? If intent is merely a post hoc analysis, it is theoretically possible to

Asymmetrical Activity in the Prefrontal Cortex

reduced impulse control (Davidson, 2000), while greater symmetry in base-level

Baseline, or resting measures of asymmetry reflect a dispositional, or trait