Argumentative flexibility as a factor influencing message response style to argumentative and aggressive arguers.

• Author: Neer, Michael R.

The study of interpersonal argument has generated a considerable body of research literature in the last decade. A variety of contexts in which interpersonal argument is cast have been investigated ranging from such specialized contexts as marital argument to the more generalized context of conversational argument. Despite this diversity of contexts, a consensus exists among many argument theorists regarding the value of argument within an interpersonal relationship. Johnson and Johnson (1979) in their review of over 100 published articles on conflict within the classroom context, conclude that arguing improves one's social perspective-taking or ability to infer what is important to each person. Rancer, Baukus, and Amato (1986) report that arguing improves a relationship by keeping it interesting and increasing mutual understanding.

These outcomes do accrue without effort. As Infante (1988) stresses, interpersonal argument is more likely to achieve a positive outcome if arguers test each other's ideas rather than testing each other. That is, one's position on an issue may be attacked whereas attacks on one's self-concept may lead to destructive argument. Thus, arguers must be able to argue constructively. For Infante (1988), constructive argument requires that arguers treat each other as equals, establish attitudinal similarity, and demonstrate interest in each other's views.

Infante's definition of constructive argument represents a second consensus among many argument theorists. That is, several studies have determined that constructive argument is more likely to lead to cooperative or collaborative outcomes than destructive argument. For instance, Roloff, Tutzauer, and Dailey (1989) examined the impact of relational processes in argument and found that a low interpersonal orientation adversely affected negotiation outcomes while conciliatory-based negotiation led to an increase in integrative or collaborative outcomes. Pruitt (1981) further suggests that information exchange will lead to collaborative agreement when arguers believe that each is concerned with the needs of the other. Other research also suggests that once bargaining begins, arguers' reactions to each other are frequently based on reciprocal action, including the making of concessions (Esser & Komorita, 1975; Pruitt, 1968 & 1971; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975). These studies suggest that arguers, out of practical necessity, if not philosophical principle, may better serve their argumentative ends by arguing in a cooperative manner. Thus, attending to the relational level of argument appears to have a direct influence on the content level of argument.

These findings parallel Watzwalick, Beavin, and Jackson's (1967) distinction between content and relational messages. That is, a message includes both a content or cognitive level and a relational or affective level. As these theorists suggest, these levels are interdependent communication processes with each influencing the interpretation of the other. That is, the content of a message influences how participants define their relationship while the relational level influences how message content is interpreted. Wenzel (1990) demonstrates the importance of balancing the content level and the relational level when he states that a good argument must deal with the subject as comprehensively as possible, that arguers use candor in making their ideas clear, and that decisions be rigorously tested. However, as Wenzel also states, rules and principles alone cannot ensure critical discussion unless arguers bring "attitudes of the right kind" to an argument.

Wenzel defines these attitudes consistent with several tenets of the "new rhetoric" philosophical movement of the 1960's and early 1970's. The new rhetoric focused considerable attention on communication outcomes, such as Simon's (1967) use of communication to reconcile differences and deescalate conflict and Ohm-ann's (1964) emphasis on communication to achieve harmony anti consensus. Ehninger (1970) and Johnstone (1966) define these outcomes in more concrete behavioral terms. Ehninger suggests That an arguer must perform the role of restrained partisan or one who is able to hold to a preferred position yet able to submit that position to scrutiny. For Johnstone, an argument should be conducted so that arguers persuade in a way that maintains the possibility of persuasion.

While Ehninger stresses a content or issue-centered view, Johnstone's view is more relational-centered. What Johnstone is suggesting, of course, is that arguers treat each other with respect, without which they may be less inclined to submit their position to scrutiny. Thus, maintaining the possibility of persuasion translates into maintaining open lines of communication so that arguers may continue their dispute with the understanding that the issue under attack is not each other's self-concept but the proposition under consideration. Johnstone (1982) has more recently labeled this phenomenon "bilateral communication" in which each arguer assumes the other is capable of generating an argument as credible as their own. Ehninger (1970) summarizes this open generation of arguments succinctly when he suggests that arguers must accept the possibility that they may be persuaded in the process of attempting to persuade another.

Trapp (1990) recently restated the importance of the philosophical position of the new rhetoric when he suggested that once an argument degenerates into destructive argument, deescalation of conflict is the only recourse that arguers have to prevent an argument from spiraling toward verbal aggression. Trapp further suggests that arguers may solve their incompatibilities through consensus, compromise, or understanding. As Trapp points out, these outcomes may be achieved through at least two communication strategies. One, arguers may "agree to disagree" once they reach a mutual understanding of each other's position. Or two, arguers may adopt a win/win solution in which each agrees to accept at least certain aspects of each other's position. There is an interesting footnote to Trapp's discussion. The two strategies he references for resolving argumentative incompatibility have become popular conventional wisdom, thus further suggesting the social importance attached to arguing constructively.

Purpose of Study

The review of literature suggests that constructive argument is characterized by openness, tolerance, empathy, respect, and interpersonal involvement. These characteristics hold at least one thread in common; that is, they require that arguers demonstrate a considerable degree of adaptability or flexibility in making an argument as well as responding to the arguments of others. In this study, argumentative flexibility is defined as arguing in a manner in which openness is preferred to closure at the content level of argument and interpersonal involvement is preferred to detachment at the relational level of argument. Thus, flexible arguers will actively seek alternative points of view on an issue, hold multiple opinions on an issue, and examine viewpoints to which they are either unfamiliar or opposed when arguing the content of an issue, At the relational level, flexible arguers will actively encourage others to express their opinions, attempt to understand the reasoning behind another's opinions, and acknowledge the validity of another's position on an issue.

Although flexibility has not been studied specifically as an argumentative construct, several other constructs that require flexibility have, in fact, received research attention. Gibb's (1961) supportive vs. defensive communication climate has perhaps received the most research effort. That is, communicators who argue supportively are able to suspend personal judgment (description over evaluations), consider alternative points of view (problem-orientation over control) and recognize the fallibility of their own point of view (provisionalism over certainly). At the relational level, supportive communication requires that one establish empathy (over neutrality) and equality (over superiority) as argumentative research, has indeed, confirmed. For instance, Pruitt (1968) reports that one method of deescalating conflict is reducing defensiveness by recognizing the validity of an adversary's position.

Rhetorical sensitivity (Rhetsen) also has received attention as a communication construct. Rhetorically sensitive individuals, according to Hart and his colleagues (Hart & Burks, 1972; Hart, Carlson, & Eadie, 1980) demonstrate greater interaction consciousness or ability to balance self-interests with concern for others. Thus, rhetorically sensitive communicators accept personal complexity and avoid rigidity when communicating and are therefore better able to adapt their messages to particular situations. These findings mirror research in cognitive complexity which demonstrates the importance of flexibility in defining and organizing one's construct systems. For instance, the more differentiated, integrated, permeable, and abstract one's construct system, the better an individual can adapt effective persuasive messages to listeners (Applegate, 1982; O'Keefe & Delia, 1979).

Unfortunately, none of these constructs directly measures argumentative flexibility. The Rhetsen scale does measure sensitivity or concern for others; however, the scale was not designed to assess the process of argument. Despite the wide range of research and opinion regarding the value of constructive argument, research to date has yet to develop an instrument to measure flexibility within the argumentative context. The most widely used measure of interpersonal argument within the discipline is the Trait Argumentativeness (TA) Scale (Infante, 1981; Infante & Rancer, 1982). The TA scale measures an individual's disposition or tendency to either approach or avoid an argument. The underlying assumption of the TA construct is that an...