11Instructor Use of Aggressive Communication
Abstract: This chapter comprises a comprehensive overview of aggressive communication in the instructional setting. It presents the theoretical underpinnings of aggressive communication theory and the distinctions of constructive and destructive forms of aggressive communication as supported by empirical research findings. Assessment of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are discussed, along with psychometric challenges to the assessment of these two constructs that comprise aggressive communication. The chapter reviews training efforts to curtail the ubiquitous nature of destructive forms of aggressive communication, and it addresses related concepts such as bullying on behalf of both instructor and student. The chapter identifies major implications of the theory of independent mindedness, which is anchored in constructive aggressive communication. It concludes with suggestions for future research and theory-building efforts related to aggressive communication in the instructional context.
Keywords: aggressive communication, communication traits, verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, theory of independent mindedness, instructor aggressive communication, student aggressive communication, instructor hostility, bullying
This chapter focuses on the corpus of research concerning aggressive communication in the classroom. To provide some perspective as to how important aggressive communication is to the discipline of Communication Studies, Rancer and Avtgis (2006) provided a comprehensive research review of close to 400 studies directly related to aggressive communication. In the second edition of this work (2014), the number of studies had grown to over 500. This number alone speaks to the ubiquitous nature of aggressive communication and its compelling influence on human relationships around the world. In order to effectively describe the nature of aggressive communication and the effects that such communicative behavior has in the classroom, I will first examine the fundamental concepts of aggressive communication in interpersonal interaction, differentiate between constructive and destructive aggressiveness, and then survey research findings specific to aggressive communication used by teachers and students during instruction. I will also describe the measures and research designs most often used in this line of research, followed by predictions and recommendations about future research in this area.
TheoreticalFoundations of Aggressive Communication
Personality/Communication Trait Development
Interpersonal and instructional communication scholars study aggressive communication as a behavioral pattern or propensity to act toward others. Communication traits are related to personality traits because inner tendencies are manifest through outward communicative behavior. According to Infante, Rancer, and Womack (2003), communication traits are “an abstraction constructed to account for enduring consistencies and differences in message-sending and messagereceiving behaviors” (p. 77). Having knowledge of another person’s communicative behavior allows an individual to make reasonable predictions about how that person will respond in a given context or react to a particular message. However, although such predictions can be based on a person’s predisposition toward any given behavior, it is important to acknowledge that an individual can choose to be aggressive in any given situation regardless of any given predisposition toward such behavior.
Communication traits are hypothetical constructs developed by scholars in the social and behavioral sciences; they serve as a representation of human reality that might not be otherwise observed through the five human senses (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014). Communication traits provide meaning and explanation to communicative behavior in ways that would otherwise be theoretically and practically difficult. Infante, Rancer, and Avtgis (2009) developed a classification system for the many communication traits conceptualized by scholars over the last 50 years. Some traits can be classified as presentation traits, which reflect the global impression people make when communicating with each other (e.g., communicator style), as well as the types and amount of information people reveal about themselves to others (e.g., disclosiveness). Some traits are considered adaptation traits, such as being aware of the impressions individuals make on other people (e.g., self-monitoring). Apprehension traits are those communication traits that involve fear or anxiety related to speaking (e.g., communication apprehension), initiating conversation (e.g., willingness to communicate), or receiving information (informational apprehension). The utilization of such a typology allows a rather parsimonious classification through which dozens of communication traits can be conveniently clustered based on the nature of the particular behavioral tendency.
Origins of Aggressive Communication
Infante (1987a) argued that aggression and aggression-related behaviors specific to the Communication Studies discipline have lacked “comprehensive and unified conception of aggressiveness as a personality trait” (p. 161). Therefore, Infante posited the following comprehensive definition of aggressive behavior specific to the interpersonal communication context:
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. (Infante, 1987a, p. 158)
It is important to distinguish between physical aggression (punching or pushing someone or something) and symbolic aggression. Symbolic aggression is experienced via verbal and nonverbal behavior. Further, the use of both physical and symbolic aggression is designed to intentionally dominate or destroy the other person. The locus of attack may consist of the other person’s self-concept or the positions the person takes on any particular issue. Although physical and symbolic aggression are generally deemed destructive social behaviors, recent literature suggests that such behavior can be an effective compliance-gaining technique (Anderson & Rancer, 2007; Martin, Dunleavy, & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010). In fact, there are types of aggressive communication that are not only seen as appropriate but strategically superior to other forms of communication. According to Rancer and Avtgis (2006), “This duality of aggressive communication, the notion that aggressive communication can be considered good and/or bad, can be explained in a model of aggressive communication offered by Infante (1987b) in his personality approach to aggression” (p. 11).
Constructive aggressive communication
Infante’s (1987a) theoretical model posits that aggressive communication can be either constructive or destructive. Constructive aggression refers to assertiveness and argumentativeness, whereas destructive aggression refers to hostility and verbal aggressiveness. Assertiveness reflects exhibiting verbal and nonverbal behavior to stand and/ or speak up when individuals believe their rights have been violated, to exert control, and to obtain rewards. When assertive communicators speak in a socially appropriate and competent way, assertiveness is viewed as a positive and beneficial trait (Lang & Jakubowski, 1976). Assertive behaviors can also include openness, which reflects “frankness and other expressions of feelings to close friends and people of the opposite sex” (Norton & Warnick, 1976, p. 64), taking initiative, initiation of communication, and lack of being anxious (Norton & Warnick, 1976; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006).
The other dimension of constructive aggression, argumentativeness, may be conceptualized as a sub-set of assertiveness (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014). That is, all argumentative behavior is assertive, but not all assertive behaviors are argumentative in nature (Infante, 1987a). In the original conceptualization of the trait, Infante and Rancer (1982) defined trait argumentativeness as “a generally stable trait which predisposes the individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues, and to attack verbally positions which other people take on these issues” (p. 72). It is important to distinguish that, conceptualized in this way, the locus of attack consists of the positions the other person takes on issues, not personal characteristics.
Hamilton and Mineo (2002) utilized the two motivational tendencies associated with argumentativeness: a motivation to approach arguments (i.e., ARGap) and a tendency to avoid arguments (i.e., ARGav). These were originally identified by Infante and Rancer (1982) to create different argumentative profiles. Hamilton and Mineo identified five categories of trait argumentativeness. The low argumentatives are people who have a low motivation to approach arguments and a high motivation to avoid arguments. High argumentatives are people who have a high motivation to approach arguments and low motivation to avoid arguments. The conflictedfeelings moderate argumentatives are people who have a high motivation to approach arguments and a high motivation to avoid arguments. The apathetic moderate argumentatives are people who have a low motivation to approach arguments and a low motivation to avoid arguments. Finally, the neutral moderate argumentatives are people moderate in both their motivation to approach arguments and their motivation to avoid arguments. As evidenced thus far, argumentativeness, similar to the macro-construct of assertiveness, is considered a constructive form of aggressive communication.
Destructive aggressive communication
In contrast to these two forms of constructive aggression, Infante’s (1987a) model identified two types of destructive aggressive communication. The first type, hostility, is not uncommon in interpersonal interaction, as people often use messages that express irritability (e.g., quick temper, lack of patience, moodiness, overreaction to situations), resentment (e.g., jealousy, hatred, rumination on negative things), suspicion (e.g., distrust, belief that people are conspiring to get them), and negativity (e.g., uncooperative and antagonistic behavior, pessimism; Buss & Durkee, 1957; Infante & Rancer, 1996; Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). Several empirical studies have provided compelling evidence that people with a strong predisposition toward hostility perceive the world as a mean place, are more aggressive, and see others as persecuting them (Zelli & Huesmann, 1995).
Berkowitz (1962) posited that aggressive behavior is a function of people reacting aggressively to aggressive cues (i.e., frustration and experiences that induce anger-producing hostile behavior), and that such behavior often becomes habitual (Infante 1987a). Such a contention has received empirical support from researchers. For example, Bosworth, Espelage, and Simon (1999) studied school children who were identified as engaging in serial bullying behavior. Their findings indicated that these children reported being hit more often by their parents than children who did not engage in bullying behavior.
The other dimension of destructive aggressive communication, trait verbal aggressiveness, is subordinate to hostility in that all verbal aggressiveness is considered hostile in nature, but not all hostility involves verbal aggressiveness (Infante, 1987a). Verbal aggressiveness is defined as “the tendency to attack the self-concepts of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication” (Infante & Wigley, 1986, p. 61). According to Kinney (1994), there are three macro-categories of self-concept attacks consisting of group membership (e.g., “Your friends are a bunch of losers!”), relational failings (e.g., “Your ex-boyfriend was right about you!”), and personal failings (e.g., “Remember when you drank too much and made a jerk of yourself at the football game!”).
Since the original conceptualizations of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness constructs, it was assumed that if people were high in argumentativeness, they would have a natural tendency to be lower in verbal aggressiveness. Such a concept was the foundation of the skills deficiency explanation for verbal aggressiveness. That is, as a person develops the ability to use argument effectively, there will be a concomitant reduction in the tendency to resort to verbal aggression (Infante, 1995; Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989; Infante & Rancer, 1996; Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984). However, over the last several decades, research indicates that the relationship between argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness is not as orthogonal as originally thought (see, for example, Rancer, Avtgis, Kosberg, & Whitecap, 2000; Rancer, Whitecap, Kosberg, & Avtgis, 1997).
Several explanations have been offered to explain this shift in the relationship between the two constructs: (1) assumptions that not all verbal aggression is destructive and in fact, can be instrumental in nature (Martin et al., 2010); (2) the societal assumption that our global culture in general, and Western culture in particular, has become more aggressive in nature (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014); and (3) that training in argumentation skills does not necessarily mean a resulting reduction in verbally aggressive behavior as both argument and verbal aggression are approach-related constructs, yet separate from one another (Rancer et al., 2000; Rancer et al., 1997). Similar findings were reported by Anderson and Rancer (2007) in their study looking at incarcerated youth. More specifically, the authors found that incarcerated youth who were higher in verbal aggressiveness reported lower levels of communication satisfaction and greater tendency, when presented with a conflict scenario, to choose the response of physical aggression in reaction to the conflict scenario. Further, respondents also did not see significant distinctions between assertiveness, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness but considered the three constructs to be functionally equivalent.
In sum, the theoretical foundations of aggressive communication are deep and well embedded in the social sciences. The resulting empirical data show that aggressive communication is ubiquitous throughout all contexts of communication. As will be evidenced in this chapter, the classroom is dramatically affected by the presence or absence of aggressive communication. Instructors who use constructive or destructive aggressive communication while teaching produce marked results in the perceptions and/or performance of their students, and students who engage in aggressive communication with their instructors or with other students significantly influence the classroom learning environment. The next section of the chapter surveys the various ways that aggressive communication has been operationalized with an emphasis on measurement within the context of instructional communication.
Methods and Measurement of Aggressive Communication
Throughout the last several decades, aggressive communication has been assessed utilizing primarily self-report measures. Most scholars measure verbal aggressiveness using Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS). The VAS is a 20-item unidimensional measure containing 10 positively worded items (e.g., “I am extremely careful to avoid attacking individuals’ intelligence when I attack their ideas”) which are recoded for analysis and 10 negatively worded items (e.g., “If individuals I am trying to influence really deserve it, I attack their character”). The scale is summated for an overall trait verbal aggressiveness score. Dozens of studies have reported scale reliability estimates that cluster around .80 (Levine & Kotowski, 2010). In terms of specific research assessing instructional communication, studies utilizing the VAS involved changing the instructions to reflect the locus of assessment as being either the instructor or student, as well as altering the locus of assessment within each item (i.e., to reflect instructors or students; see Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014). There have been several challenges to the dimensionality, validity, and reliability of the VAS measure (Beatty, Rudd, & Valencic, 1999; Hamilton & Hample, 2011; Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012; Kotowski, Levine, Baker, & Bolt, 2009; Levine et al., 2004; Levine & Kotowski, 2010; Levine, Kotowski, Beatty, & Van Kelegom, 2012), as well as publications in defense of the VAS measure (Infante, Rancer, & Wigley, 2011; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014; Wigley, 2003).
More recently, several other instruments have been developed to assess verbal aggressiveness, including the 10-item Short Form Version of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (Infante, Anderson, Martin, Herrington, & Kim, 1993) which was adapted from the original Infante and Wigley (1986) scale, and the 8-item Adolescent Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (ADVA; Roberto & Finucane, 1997). Roberto and Finucane believed that adolescents and emerging adults represent a unique population with unique experiences and, as such, are better served by a measure of verbal aggressiveness specific to their experiences. Previous research indicates that the reliability of the ADVA is around .88 (Rancer et al., 1997; Rancer et al., 2000). Sample items from this measure include, “When I want my way and someone won’t listen, I will call them names and let them know I think they are stupid,” and “I like making fun of people who do things which are very stupid in order to make them smarter.” Most instructional scholars have used the original Infante and Wigley (1986) VAS, followed by the 10-Item Short Form Version of the VAS and the ADVA, respectively.
The constructive side of aggressive communication, argumentativeness, has also garnered multiple self-report versions of assessment. The most popular scale, regardless of context, continues to be the original Infante and Rancer (1982) Argumentativeness Scale. This 20-item measure is based on two competing motivations: a motivation to approach argument (ARGap) and a separate motivation to avoid argument (ARGav). Each of these competing motivations is measured with 10 items each. A sample item for ARGap would be, “I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue,” and for ARGav “Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.” Each 10-item sub-scale is summated and then calculated to produce a score for an individual’s general tendency to argue (ARGgt). More specifically, the resultant formula is ARGap − ARGav = ARGgt. Similar to the Cronbach alpha reliability estimates for the VAS, the Infante and Rancer Argumentativeness Scale collectively hovered around .80 (Levine & Kotowski, 2010). Specific to the context of instructional communication and similar to the adaptation of the verbal aggressiveness scale, researchers simply change the locus of the evaluation (i.e., focused on an instructor of the class the student had previously, or in the case of assessing instructors, focus on their students) in the directions of the scale and/ or the locus of evaluation in each item. Similar to the critique of the original Infante and Wigley (1986) VAS, the Argumentativeness Scale’s dimensionality and reliability have been challenged (Boster & Levine, 1988; Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993; Hamilton & Mineo, 2002; Kotowski et al., 2009; Levine & Kotowski, 2010). However, other evidence supports the original conceptualization and scale properties of the original measure (Infante et al., 2011; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006, 2014).
Although the vast majority of research on argumentativeness has utilized the original Infante and Rancer (1982) measure for assessment in the instructional context, scholars have developed several alternative forms to the scale. Infante et al. (1993) developed the 10-item Short Version of Argumentativeness Scale from items contained in the orginal Infante and Rancer scale. Similar to the rationale behind the development of the ADVA, which assumed that adolescents and emerging adults have unique experiences, Roberto and Finucane (1997) developed the 10-item Adolescent Argumentativeness Scale (ADARG). The reliability of the ADARG measure generally hovers around .81. Sample items include “I have a great time when I argue” and “I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.” Whereas studies utilizing the measure have been few, Rancer et al. (1997, 2000) used Roberto and Finucane’s measures (ADARG & ARGVA) to assess 7th graders’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as well as their argument behavior.
Utilizing a pre-test post-test field experiment, Rancer et al. (1997) adapted the Infante (1988) inventional system for training students to generate arguments. The inventional system includes Problem (what exactly is the problem?), Blame (exactly who is to blame for the problem?), Solution (what is the proposed solution?), and Consequence (what are the implication of implementing the solution?). Rancer et al. created a pnemonic device to increase retention of the inventional system. This resulted in the creation of the Peanut (problem), Butter (blame), Soda (solution), Crackers (consequences) dinner menu. Results from this study indicated that the experimental group who received the training using the inventional system were able to generate significantly more arguments and reported significantly greater post-trait argumentativeness scores than students in the control group. However, though the findings regarding argumentativeness and argument behavior were compelling, there was also an increase in the students’ verbal aggressiveness scores. The resulting changes in both aggressive communication traits remained stable even when assessed approximately one year later (Rancer et al., 2000). Such findings cast concern about the original linear relationship that was proposed in the theory of aggressive communication (Infante & Rancer, 1996).
Although other measures of argumentativeness and argumentative behavior exist, such as the Rancer, Kosberg, and Baukus (1992) Beliefs About Arguing Measure, assessment in the instructional context has relied primarily on the original Infante and Rancer (1982) measure, the ADARG, and the 10-item Short Form Argumentativeness Scale, respectively.
Instructors’ Use of Aggressive Communication
When investigating aggressive communication in the classroom, most scholars have focused on instructors’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors directed toward students (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). The bulk of this research has been conducted within the discipline of Communication Studies (see, for example, Chesebro & McCroskey, 2002; Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004; Infante 1995; Kearney, Plax, & Allen, 2002; Myers, Edwards, Wahl, & Martin, 2007; Myers & Knox, 1999; Myers & Rocca, 2000a, 2000b; Rocca & McCroskey, 1999; Schrodt, 2003a, 2003b; Schrodt & Finn, 2010, 2011; Vangelisti, Daly, & Friedrich, 1999). Collective findings from these studies have increased the understanding of classroom effects for both constructive and destructive aggressive communication traits of instructors.
The Constructive Dimension: Instructor Argumentativeness
As a subset of assertiveness, argumentativeness is the positive, constructive way that instructors often express assertiveness during classroom instruction. It is common practice for classroom instructors to verbally advocate positions, prompt student debate, and defend arguments during instruction (i.e., to engage in argumentative communication). A germinal study of argumentativeness conducted by Roach (1992) investigated the relationship that instructor gender, age, teaching experience, grade level taught, and years of experience within the particular institution would have on instructor argumentativeness. Results from this study aligned with previous findings from interpersonal contexts outside the classroom (Nicotera & Rancer, 1994; Rancer & Dierks-Stewart, 1985). For example, male teachers reported significantly higher levels of argumentativeness than female teachers, older teachers reported significantly higher levels of argumentativeness than younger teachers, and instructors who taught upper-level grades (i.e., high school and university) reported significantly higher levels of argumentativeness than teachers in lower grades (i.e., primary and middle school). Such findings led to calls for the creation of school cultures that encourage the open expression of attitudes and thoughts for all instructors at all levels. Such behavior is consistent with Infante and Gorden’s (1991) theory of independent mindedness that calls for the development of argumentative skills utilizing an affirming communicator style, while also training to reduce the use of verbal aggression. It is important to note that scholars conceptualize aggressive communication through the interactionist trait perspective (Andersen, 1987; Atkinson, 1957; Epstein, 1979; Magnusson & Endler, 1977). That is, personality and communication traits are a joint function of an individual’s predisposition toward a certain behavior and specific situational factors. For example, individuals may be high in the predisposition to argue, but if they are not motivated to engage in arguing or perceive that they will not achieve success in the argument due to some attributes of the subject of controversy, situation, or the other person, they may refrain from engaging in argument.
In an investigation of college students’ responses to the argumentativeness of their instructors, Myers and Knox (2000) found that higher levels of argumentativeness were associated with greater student affective learning. Research has consistently indicated that positive student affect for the course and instructor is associated with perceived learning, level of engagement of recommended course behavior, responsiveness in the classroom, compliance with teacher requests, and course attendance (Richmond & Gorham, 1996). Thus, instructor argumentativeness is associated with a host of positive classroom outcomes.
Despite generally consistent research findings about this positive instructor characteristic, it is difficult to predict with certainty the effects of a teacher’s use of argumentativeness during instruction. For example, Roach (1995a) hypothesized that argumentative behavior from a college instructor may sometimes be misconstrued as verbally aggressive – a destructive trait – and therefore produce negative classroom outcomes. Roach focused his study on the perceived use of power by college instructors at the beginning rank of Teaching Assistants. His assumption was that the less teaching experience individuals have, the more their instructional messages will be influenced by personality and communication traits. The results of the study contradicted previous research findings. Students reported greater affect toward the course, instructor, and recommended course behaviors when classes were led by Teaching Assistants who were low in argumentativeness. It appears as if students’ perceptions determine whether instructor communication behavior is interpreted as argumentative (constructive) or verbally aggressive (destructive) in nature.
Such findings speak to the complexity of aggressive communication in the classroom. In teaching and learning contexts, unlike some other communication contexts, power is both explicitly and implicitly used by both instructor and student and can have profound effects on students’ perceptions of instructors’ use of aggressive communication. When not limiting the scope of the study to only those at the lower ranks of the instructional hierarchy (e.g., Teaching Assistants), there appears to be variability in the findings reported in Roach (1995a). More specifically, the more experienced the instructor, the more constructive the use of argumentative behavior becomes. In another study, Roach (1995b) assessed Teaching Assistants’ perceptions of their own trait argumentativeness and power use. His findings indicated a positive relationship between trait argumentativeness and expert and referent power use. That is, the higher the self-perceived trait of argumentativeness, the greater the self-perceived use of these two types of power. In fact, expert and referent power are considered two of the most constructive of the various power bases available to instructors (see Richmond & McCroskey, 1992 for a comprehensive discussion of power use in the classroom). Thus, there appears to be an unclear relationship between trait argumentativeness and perceived power that may be explained by the locus of the evaluator (student versus Teaching Assistant). Roach (1995b) concluded, “Low argumentative TAs may unconsciously appeal more to power than reason in their classroom management techniques, but in terms of affective learning this is more favorably received” (p. 100).
Attempting to clarify such contradictory evidence, Rancer and Avtgis (2014) argued, “Whether perceived credibility, instructor teaching experience, or instructor title are reasons for the different findings, further research is needed to sort out the influence of teacher argumentativeness on student affective learning” (p. 121).
The Destructive Dimension: Instructors’ Verbal Aggressiveness
Verbal aggression in the classroom can take a host of verbal and nonverbal forms that include, in order from most frequent to least frequent, competence attacks, work ethic attacks, swearing, threats, character attacks, nonverbal behaviors, teasing, background attacks, and physical attacks (Myers et al., 2013). Collectively, researchers have observed that the use of such verbally aggressive messages have clear deleterious effects on the educational experience of the student, as indicated below.
Instructor immediacy
As a desirable feature of relational classroom communication, instructor immediacy is the perception of psychological closeness between teachers and students (Richmond, 2002). Immediate behaviors include verbal cues such as “we” and “us” instead of “you,” and nonverbal behaviors such as smiling, frequent eye contact, gestures, and the reduction of physical barriers (e.g., instructor desk and physical distance between instructor and student). When instructors use these verbal and nonverbal immediacy cues in the classroom, students report greater liking for the teacher and more positive learning outcomes (see Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004 for a meta-analysis of immediacy and learning), as well as enhanced motivation and other favorable responses to instruction. For these reasons, Rocca and McCroskey (1999) hypothesized that the verbally aggressive instructor would be seen as less immediate than instructors perceived as low in verbal aggression. They found support for the hypothesis and also reported that perceived verbally aggressive behavior had a negative impact on all three elements of attractiveness (i.e., task, social, and physical), as well as homophily with students (i.e., perception of similarity). In a follow-up study, Rocca (2004) found that students of highly aggressive teachers perceived a less supportive classroom climate and reported missing more classes when taught by a highly verbally aggressive instructor. The increase in absenteeism may have been the result of a lack of procedural and distributive justice (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004), if the instructor’s aggressiveness was viewed as unfair to students or inappropriate for the classroom context.
Students’ perceptions
Students bring their own perceptions and characteristics into the classroom, and these can influence research findings on instructor aggressiveness. For example, Schrodt (2003a) utilized multiple student self-reports of verbal aggressiveness, self-esteem, and other-report of instructor verbal aggressiveness. Findings indicated that students self-reporting moderate levels of verbal aggressiveness reported the instructor being higher in verbal aggressiveness than students low in verbal aggressiveness. No significant differences were observed when comparing moderate and high verbally aggressive students. Further, students high in self-esteem reported lower levels of instructor verbal aggressiveness. Such findings indicate the need to account for rater (e.g., student) characteristics and the interactive effects that such characteristics can have on perceptual ratings of others (e.g., instructors). According to Schrodt and Finn (2010), “Most of the extant research on aggressive communication in instructional settings focuses primarily on student perceptions of overt instances of instructor argumentation or verbal aggression. Only a handful of studies have considered the role that students themselves play in the aggressive communication process” (p. 161).
Socio-communicative style
Socio-communicative style is an interpersonal construct comprised of assertiveness (i.e., the degree to which a person stands up for one’s rights, being interpersonally dominant) and responsiveness (i.e., the degree to which a person is perceived in an empathetic, kind, and supportive way; Richmond & McCroskey, 1990). The sociocommunicative style of most people is a combination of the two dimensions, and neither assertiveness nor responsiveness is conceptually positive or negative by definition. In the classroom, however, Myers (1998) found that higher verbal aggressiveness from instructors was associated with the assertive style and with student reports of lower instructor competence, leading the researcher to conclude that reductions in aggressive communication might result in more positive student perceptions.
A related construct, communicator style, is comprised of ten dimensions: impression leaving, contentious, open, dramatic, dominant, precise, relaxed, friendly, attentive, and animated styles (Norton, 1983). Those who communicate using a friendly and attentive style are believed to exhibit an affirming style (i.e., validating the face or self-concept of the other person), which is consistent with instructor immediacy and a positive teacher-student relationship. For example, Myers and Rocca (2000a) found that students who perceived their instructors to be verbally aggressive also considered them as contentious, unfriendly, inattentive, tense, unanimated, and low on impression leaving. Myers and Rocca concluded that by exuding such an anti-social style within the classroom, the instructor may be perceived by students as being less approachable in terms of answering questions and, in general, student-instructor interaction. However, it should be noted that a highly verbally aggressive instructor who uses an affirming communicator style may suppress the evaluation of actual instructor verbal aggressiveness (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). In other words, the instructor’s use of an affirming style may serve as a perceptual buffer for the student.
Overall learning environment
When students’ ideas and classroom contributions are challenged by an instructor high in verbal aggressiveness, a number of relational and cognitive variables are negatively impacted, including lower affect toward the instructor and less satisfaction with the classroom experience (Myers & Knox, 2000), a more defensive classroom climate (Myers & Rocca, 2000b), greater feelings of misunderstanding and lower student evaluations of teaching effectiveness (Cahn 1984; Schrodt 2003b), and lower levels of instructor understanding and positivity (Schrodt & Finn, 2010). In such a learning environment, instructors may be challenged by disruptive or resistant behavior from students. For instance, Kearney, Plax, Richmond, and McCroskey (1984) examined communication strategies or behavior alteration techniques (BATs) instructors use to persuade students to stay on task or comply with academic requests. Instructor verbal aggressiveness was positively related to the use of what they termed antisocial BATs (e.g., punishment, guilt, emphasis on the teacher’s authority) and negatively related to the effectiveness of those BATs (see also Claus, Chory, & Malachowski, 2012).
Classroom justice
Justice in the classroom can be defined as perceptions of equity and fairness regarding classroom outcomes, processes, and procedures (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004). Over the last decade, the concept of classroom justice has emerged as a relevant factor in instructional communication, and its link to aggressive communication is noteworthy. Findings reveal that instructor use of verbal aggression in the classroom is mediated by perceptions of justice. For example, Claus et al. (2012) reported that students are more likely to use antisocial BATs with an instructor they perceive as being high in verbal aggressiveness because the students assume that the instructor would not see the use of prosocial BATs as being valid or respected. This may also be due to the fact that verbal aggression may negate the notion of classroom civility, resulting in the use of hostile or antisocial behavior on the part of the student. Further, student use of antisocial BATs may also serve as a form of retaliation for some perceived slight or embarrassment caused by the verbally aggressive instructor (Claus et al., 2012).
Student involvement
Student involvement can be defined as the physical and psychological investment the student brings to the experience of education (Myers et al., 2007), and it has been linked to the level of instructor verbal aggressiveness. Students tend to have particular motivations for being involved in a class and engaging in both in-class and out-of-class communication with the instructor. These motivations can be relational, participatory, sycophantic, excuse making, or functional in nature. Myers et al. reported that students of instructors high in verbal aggressiveness were less likely to be motivated by relational, functional, and participatory motives and more likely to be motivated by excuse making. Further, these researchers indicated that instructor verbal aggression was inversely related to behaviors such as questionasking, information-seeking, out-of-class interaction, and interaction involvement.
Instructor credibility
Students’ perceptions of their instructor’s credibility exert considerable influence on the teacher-student relationship and important outcomes, such as recall of course information and satisfaction with the class (Finn et al., 2009). Credibility, as conceptualized by McCroskey and Teven (1999), includes the three dimensions of caring (good will), intelligence (competence), and trustworthiness (character). When Myers (2001) examined students’ perceptions of instructor credibility in relation to their instructors’ self-reports of trait verbally aggressive, he found inverse correlations between aggressive communication and all three dimensions of credibility. Further, in looking at the co-influence of constructive (i.e., argumentative) and destructive (i.e., verbally aggressive) communication traits, Edwards and Myers (2007) reported that instructors who were perceived as being highest in competence, caring, and character had a trait profile of being high in argumentativeness and low in verbal aggressiveness. Such findings validate the original Infante and Rancer (1982) conceptualization of argumentativeness, as well as the original Infante and Wigley (1986) conceptualization of verbal aggressiveness.
Aggressive Messages
When considering the research discussed thus far, the majority has concerned the self-reported trait of verbal aggressiveness, the predisposition, as opposed to the actual use of verbally aggressive messages during instruction. Since the original development of the verbal aggressiveness construct (Infante & Wigley, 1986), scholars have developed a typology of specific types of aggressive messages, including competence attacks, profanity, disconfirmation, personality attacks, physical appearance attacks, negative comparison, ridicule, threats, maledictions, teasing, character attacks, and nonverbal verbal aggression (Infante, 1987a, 1995; Infante, Riddle, Horvath, & Tumlin, 1992; Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). Myers and Knox (1999) found that college instructors were perceived as using character attacks most often, with the least used behavior being nonverbal verbal aggression (e.g., glaring or invading student space in an aggressive manner). These researchers concluded that these findings may be due to a degree of mindlessness on behalf of the student regarding paying attention to the behavior of the instructor. Further, they conjectured that instructors in higher education may be given a greater behavioral bandwidth than instructors at the primary and secondary levels. In other words, the socially appropriate behavioral repertoire of the college instructor is greater perhaps because they are engaging in andragogy (i.e., the education of adults) versus pedagogy (i.e., the education of children). Myers and Knox reported that students indicated lower levels of affective learning from instructors who used verbal aggression in the classroom, and they observed a gender effect such that male instructors were perceived as using more teasing, profanity, and ridicule when compared to their female counterparts.
In an effort to update the original Infante (1987a) typology, Myers, Brann, and Martin (2013) used an inductive method to extract specific instructor verbally aggressive behaviors. Their nine-category typology of instructor verbally aggressive messages, in order of frequency, consisted of competence attacks, work ethics attacks (i.e., student lack of academic ability), swearing (i.e., profanity), threats (i.e., insinuating negative consequences regarding assignments and final grades), character attacks (i.e., telling students they were untrustworthy, immature, and rude), nonverbal behaviors (i.e., paralinguistic cue, kinesic, and proxemic violations intended to degrade the student), teasing (i.e., aggressive teasing with intention to hurt the student), background attacks (i.e., focusing on student background and experiences as the locus of attack), and physical appearance attacks (Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). These findings provided an extension of the original Infante et al. (1992) typology to include work ethic attacks and nonverbal attacks that are unique to the instructional context (Myers et al., 2013; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). Such theoretical refinement speaks to the unique nature of aggressive communication influenced by contextual factors – in this case, the instructional context. However, there is contradictory evidence as to the negative interpretation of some aggressive communication use by instructors. Pearce and Berkos (2003) reported that when the instructor was seen as being high in verbal and nonverbal immediacy, the use of profanity in the classroom did not affect teacher credibility and attractiveness. However, when instructor immediacy was not high, instructor use of profanity resulted in lower levels of credibility and attractiveness. Again, interaction with other communication traits can potentially modify the impact of verbal aggression on student perceptions of instructor behavior.
Taken as a whole, it is clear that instructor use of verbally aggressive messages can have a devastating impact on an abundance of behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes for students (for a comprehensive review, see Schrodt & Finn, 2010). In fact, several scholars have advocated that instructors, regardless of experience and rank, should never use verbal aggression in the classroom (Martin, Weber, & Burant, 1997; Teven, 2001).
In addition to the influence of instructor verbal aggression on college student populations, research endorses the notion that instructor verbal aggression also influences the instructors themselves. For example, Avtgis and Rancer (2008) investigated the association between verbal aggressiveness and the experience of burnout syndrome by instructors (Maslach, 2003; Maslach & Goldberg, 1998). Burnout syndrome consists of the three dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a perceived lack of personal accomplishment. Avtgis and Rancer found that instructors who use verbal aggression toward their students and fellow instructors create an unsupportive environment that correlates with the experience of burnout syndrome. As has been evidenced throughout this chapter, the deleterious effects of instructor verbal aggressiveness are many, whereas the pro-social and pro-educational outcomes are few. However, there are data that indicate in certain circumstances, instructor verbal aggression may, in fact, have some positive outcomes or be instrumental in nature (see Martin et al., 2010). For example, Infante, Myers, and Buerkel (1994) reported that verbal aggression may be positively used to motivate someone in a learning environment such as good-natured teasing and reprimanding or disciplinary action. According to Martin et al. (2010), instructors’ verbally aggressive messages “appear to work some of the time, with some of the people, in some situations” (p. 737).
Student Aggressive Communication Traits
Although the main focus of this chapter is instructor verbal aggressiveness, to ignore students’ use of verbal aggression in the instructional setting would be the functional equivalent of “one hand clapping.” There is less research on students’ aggressive communication than on instructors’ aggressiveness, but scholars have examined a number of related constructs such as bullying, cyber-bullying, conflict, and physical aggression in the classroom. Most of this research has focused on school children in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) and examines student-to-student communication (see Myers & Rittenour, 2010 for a comprehensive review of these aggression-related constructs).
College students have varying motivations and goals when communicating with their instructors. Sometimes these goals and motivations result in aggressive communication exchanges with the instructor and/or fellow students. For example, serial aggressive communication exchanges between the instructor and student have been observed (Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004; Goodboy & Myers, 2012; Schrodt & Finn, 2010). According to Legg and Wilson (2012), when students become disgruntled with an instructor and do not wish to go through the process of taking their concerns to the department chair, dean, or provost, a behavior known as articulated instructional dissent (Goodboy, 2011), they may express their displeasure through face-to-face strategies (i.e., speak to friends about negative attributes of the professor) or mediated communication (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, or teacher evaluation websites such as ratemyprofessor.com). Such venues allow the student a platform through which character attacks, competence attacks, physical appearance attacks, and personality attacks on the instructor can be accomplished, in most cases, without recourse. Further, the student-bully can choose to remain anonymous when executing such verbally aggressive attacks (Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2009).
Such behavior has been termed cyberbullying and is defined by Roberto and Eden (2010) as the “deliberate and repeated misuse of computer technology by an individual or group to threaten or harm others” (p. 198). Inherent in the teacher-student relationship is a recognized power imbalance (e.g., legitimate power, expert power, reward power, punishment power) in that the instructor is perceived to have power over the relationship with the student, and abuse of that power may result in victimizing the student. Because instructors are usually not seen as victims of students’ verbal aggressiveness, many scholars have not yet focused their research efforts on the effects of student-bullying (Espelage et al., 2013). An important exception is the work of Vogl-Bauer (2014), whose personal experience with student aggressiveness prompted her to engage in a serious study of the growing phenomenon. She applied Lutgen-Sandvik and Tracy’s (2012) bullying dimensions of micro-level (i.e., interactions and communication patterns between the bully and the victim), meso-level (i.e., cultural, climate, policies, and procedures specific to the organization within which the bullying is taking place), and macro-level (i.e., larger socio-cultural assumptions concerning bullying behavior). Policies such as individual assessment, zero-tolerance policies, and greater cultural awareness campaigns represent each of these levels, respectively. Vogl-Bauer appropriated these theoretical constructs, which had been developed for K-12 students and traditional non-academic organizations, and applied them to the context of higher education, and she issued a call for focused research in this emerging area.
In what could be considered a micro-level study of students’ argumentativeness and the relationship to several socio-demographic variables, Infante (1982) distinguished between high, moderate, and low argumentative students and several socio-emotional and demographic factors. He investigated the influence of political philosophy (i.e., liberal-conservative), birth order, training in argumentation, family size, college grade point average (GPA), average class size, and the degree to which their job, if they had one, required a high communication demand. Findings indicated that high argumentative students (positive characteristic) reported greater levels of high school forensic training, greater college GPA, were older than their siblings, were more politically liberal, and preferred smaller class sizes when compared with low argumentative students. Although argumentativeness was assessed via Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness Scale (a predisposition toward engaging in argumentative behavior), it can be extrapolated that the association of being high in argumentativeness with (1) greater communication skill development (e.g., greater forensic training, older siblings who probably interact with adults in greater frequency than younger siblings), and (2) preference for small class sizes (which often requires significantly more opportunities for interaction than in larger classes) results in greater argument skill and an increased tendency to approach arguments. Similar to the research on instructor verbal aggression and accounting for instructor self-report of trait verbal aggressiveness, Kennedy-Light-sey and Myers (2009) reported a connection between student self-reported verbal aggressiveness and perceived appropriateness of the behavioral alteration techniques (BATs) utilized by their instructors. Findings indicated positive correlations between self-reported verbal aggressiveness and the following BATs: complaining, manipulation based on the relationship between the teacher and student, guilt, public persuasion, demanding, and general excuses. Further, verbal aggressiveness was a significant predictor of the tendency to use negative BATs. However, when both perceived appropriateness and perceived effectiveness were entered into a mediating model, they significantly reduced the link between verbal aggressiveness and likelihood to use antisocial BATs (from .39 to .17 and from .39 to .15, respectively). This study reveals the interesting and dynamic link between the predisposition to use verbal aggression and the state-like decision as to what techniques are appropriate and effective in any given instructional situation for engaging such messages.
One of the more popular constructs in interpersonal communication is that of interpersonal communication motives. Originally proposed by Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988), interpersonal communication motives were adapted by Martin, Myers, and Mottet (1999) specifically for the instructional setting. Martin et al. identified the following student motives for communicating in the classroom; relational (i.e., need to establish a relationship with the instructor), functional (i.e., need to understand course assignments and material), participatory (i.e., need to be interested in the course and material), excuse making (i.e., need to justify any subpar performance), and sycophancy (i.e., need to make a good impression on the instructor). Martin et al. found that student level of verbal aggressiveness was positively related to the sycophantic and excuse-making motives. Arguably, excuse making and sycophancy are the more negative motivations for communicating with instructors and, as such, there would be a logical connection to student level of verbal aggressiveness.
Similarly, student complaining behavior, regardless of the motivation for doing so, has also been linked to aggressive communication in the classroom. Adapting the Kassing (1998) organizational dissent construct to the classroom, Goodboy (2011) identified three types of dissent. Expressive dissent involves expressing negative feelings in an effort to make the student feel better about some perceived inequity or instructor wrong-doing. Rhetorical dissent reflects a student’s persuasive attempts to get the instructor to right some perceived wrong. Vengeful dissent reflects the intent of tarnishing the instructor’s reputation or competence. Student complaining behaviors focus on issues such as unfair grading, preferential treatment, ineffective teaching style, and unfair course policies, among others. In terms of aggressive communication, Goodboy and Myers (2012) reported that students high in verbal aggression reported using rhetorical and vengeful dissent more often than students low in verbal aggression. The positive relationship between verbal aggression and rhetorical dissent seems contradictory, as rhetorical dissent is closely related to Kassing’s original conceptualization of articulated dissent (i.e., voicing opinions to someone who can fix the issue or problem), which has been shown to be negatively related to verbal aggressiveness as it requires strategic argument to express articulated dissent (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). The finding of vengeful dissent, which mirrors the Kassing original conceptualization of displaced dissent (i.e., complaining to people who cannot fix the problem but serve as a “venting” target for the dissent), is consistent with previous findings regarding verbal aggressiveness (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). This provides further evidence of the association between student verbal aggression and other hostile communicative acts (i.e., vengeful dissent).
Linvill and Mazer (2013) investigated the influence that student dispositions toward aggressive communication have on their perceptions of instructor political bias. Results indicated that students high in verbal aggressiveness perceived their instructor as more politically biased than did students low in verbal aggressiveness. These findings suggest that one must account for students’ predispositions toward aggressive communication in order to get a more holistic explanation for any influence on the myriad of potential outcomes (i.e., cognitive, affective, behavioral) within the classroom setting (see, Schrodt, 2003a, 2003b).
In summary, it can be seen that theory and research on aggressive communication in the classroom must account for enduring characteristics of both instructor and student (i.e., communication traits), contextual factors (i.e., education forum in which the messages are being exchanged), and situational factors (specific nuances in the particular communication episode) in order to produce more satisfying and methodologically sophisticated approaches to studying aggressive communication within the classroom.
Future Research into Aggressive Communication
In some ways, research investigating aggressive communication in the classroom – especially instructor verbal aggression – is still in its infancy compared to research on aggressive communication in other communication contexts such as the interpersonal and organizational contexts. One limitation of extant classroom research is that it was conducted predominantly through a Western-centric lens, as most of these studies have taken place in large universities located throughout the United States. Outside the classroom, intercultural studies in aggressive communication are abundant, as scholars have made cultural comparisons based on national/ethnic cultures (Avtgis, Rancer, Kanjeva, & Chory, 2008; Croucher et al., 2013; Gonzalez-Alcala & Rancer, 2013; Jenkins, Klopf & Park, 1991; Suzuki, 1998; Suzuki & Rancer, 1994) or organizational cultures (Avtgis & Rancer, 2002; Avtgis & Rancer 2007a, 2007b; Infante, 1987a, 1987b; Infante & Gorden, 1987, 1991). However, it should be noted that though many of the intercultural studies have used college student populations, the focus of such findings have been comparing cultures, not instructional communication variables or outcomes. As noted by Rancer and Avtgis (2014), communication research in the instructional context has yet to adopt this intercultural perspective. Such comparisons are among the most fertile research areas in light of the dramatic increase in the number of international college students from around the world who are flocking to other countries to study and learn, as well as a notable increase in the number of American college students studying abroad. Given the various political, relational, structural, and classroom processes that are present in any given instructional setting, it is imperative for instructional communication scholars to account for such variables, especially with regard to aggressive communication in both instructor and student populations.
A second unexamined area of aggressive communication is the Kindergarten to 12th-grade classroom. Scholars who focus on this age group have investigated related constructs such as bullying, conflict management, and harassment, but far fewer have addressed instructor verbal aggression specifically. Although there are some research findings regarding K-12 verbal aggressiveness among incarcerated youth and middle-school students (Anderson & Rancer, 2007; Rancer et al., 1997; Rancer et al., 2000), this area is clearly understudied by communication scholars. Research in such areas should utilize various methodologies from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives in an effort to ask better questions and to garner better answers. In not addressing the development of aggressive communication at primary and secondary grade levels, researchers are missing an opportunity to thwart the use of destructive aggressive communication and increase the use of constructive aggressive communication. If personality theorists are correct, by the time students reach college, which is where most of the instructional aggressive communication research has taken place, an individual’s personality is already developed and extremely difficult to change.
A third area of concern for future researchers involves the development and use of creative research methodologies. One research method that holds promise for verbal aggression scholars involves collecting physiological data. This type of methodology has been pioneered by a few communication scholars who have made use of the electroencephalograph (Heisel, 2010) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (Avtgis, Polack, & Brefcznski-Lewis, 2010), as well as other physiological data such as monitoring cortisol levels and pupillary measurement (see Beatty, McCroskey, & Floyd, 2009). Such measurement techniques allow researchers to develop a greater understanding of the physiological underpinnings of how people react to receiving and sending verbally aggressive messages. In terms of instructional communication, one can only imagine the possibilities in both measurement and research design in the study of instructor and student aggression that may lead researchers to provide findings of causality as opposed to simple findings of association.
Taken as a whole, aggressive communication in both constructive and destructive forms is alive and thriving throughout the Western educational system. According to Infante and Wigley’s (1986) skills deficiency explanation of verbal aggressiveness, people trained in arguing skills will have a decreased tendency to resort to verbal aggression. Therefore, mandatory training in constructive forms of argument for both instructors and students should become part of the educational curriculum and instructor professional development. When the learning environment becomes polluted with relational tension, the classroom becomes a place that may do more harm than good. The study of aggressive communication in the instructional context and ways to reduce the deleterious effects of destructive forms of aggressive communication are crucial to improving the educational system. It is the instructional communication scholars and researchers who specialize in aggressive communication to be the ones leading such efforts.
References
Anderson, C. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2007). The relationship between argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and communication satisfaction in incarcerated male youth. The Prison Journal, 87, 328–343. doi:10.1177/0032885507304433
Andersen, P. A. (1987). The trait debate: A critical examination of the individual differences paradigm in interpersonal communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 47–52). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.
Avtgis, T. A., Polack, E. P., & Brefcznski-Lewis, J. B. (2010, May). Charting a course: Meeting new horizons in mapping the verbally aggressive brain. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2002). Aggressive communication across cultures: A comparison of aggressive communication among United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 191–200.
Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2007a). The theory of independent-mindedness: An organizational theory for individual culture. In M. B. Hinner (Ed.), Freiberger Beiträge zur interkulturellen und Wirtschaftskommunikation. The role of communication in business transactions and relationships (pp. 183–201). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2007b). A communication trait approach to superior-subordinate communication: Independent-mindedness theory. Business Communication Yearbook, 14, 867–873.
Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2008). The relationship between trait verbal aggressiveness and teacher burnout syndrome in K-12 teachers. Communication Research Reports, 25, 86–89. doi:10.1080/08824090701831875
Avtgis, T. A., Rancer, A. S., Kanjeva, A. P., & Chory, R. M. (2008). Argumentative and aggressive communication in Bulgaria: Testing for conceptual and methodological equivalence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 117–124. doi:10.1080/17475750802077354
Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Floyd, K. (2009). Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, methods, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Beatty, M. J., Rudd, J. A., & Valencic, K. (1999). A re-examination of the verbal aggressiveness scale: One factor or two? Communication Research Reports, 16, 10–17.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Boster, E. J., & Levine, T. R. (1988). Individual differences and compliance gaining message selection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, dogmatism, and negativism. Communication Research Reports, 5, 114–119. doi:10.1080/08824098809359811
Boster, E. 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. doi:10.1080/01463379309369901
Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescents, 19, 341–362.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343–349.
Cahn, D. D. (1984). Teacher-student relationships: Perceived understanding. Communication Research Reports, 1, 65–67.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). Communication for teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reaction to perceived fairness. Communication Education, 53, 253–273. doi:10.1080/0363452042000265189
Claus, C. J., Chory, R. M., & Malachowski, C. C. (2012). Student antisocial compliance-gaining as a function of instructor aggressive communication and classroom justice. Communication Education, 61, 17–43. doi:10.1080/03634523.2011.619270
Croucher, S. M., Otten, R., Ball, M., Grimes, T., Ainsworth, B., Begley, K., & Corzo, L. (2013). Argumentativeness and political participation: A cross-cultural analysis in the United States and Turkey. Communication Studies, 64, 18–32.
Edwards, C., & Myers, S. A. (2007). Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports, 24, 47–53. doi:10.1080/08824090601128141
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: 1. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37. 7. 1097
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D., Reddy, L. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding and preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy agenda. American Psychologist, 68, 75–87. doi:10.1037/a0031307
Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Jernberg, K. A., Elledge, N., & Larson, L. (2009). A metaanalytical review of instructor credibility: Associations with instructor and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 516–537.doi:10.1080/03634520903131154
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases for social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gonzalez-Alcala, C., & Rancer, A. S. (2013, April). The development and testing of the Spanishlanguage versions of the Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness Scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburg, PA.
Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756
Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2012). Instructional dissent as an expression of students’ verbal aggressiveness and argumentative traits. Communication Education, 61, 448–458. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.699635
Hamilton, M. A., & Hample, D. (2011). Testing hierarchical models of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 250–273. doi:10.1080/19312458
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.
Hamilton, M. A., & Tafoya, M. A. (2012). Toward a collective framework on verbal aggression: Hierarchical and antagonistic processes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 112–130. doi:10.1177/0261927x11425038
Heisel, A. D. (2010). Verbal aggression and prefrontal cortex asymmetry. In T. A. Avtgis & A. R. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 26–43). New York, NY: Routledge.
Infante, D. A. (1982). The argumentative student in the speech communication classroom: An investigation and implications. Communication Education, 31, 141–148.
Infante, D. A. (1987a). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A. (1987b, July). Argumentativeness in superior-subordinate communication: An essential condition for organizational productivity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Syracuse, NY.
Infante, D. A. (1988). Arguing constructively. Prospect, IL: Waveland.
Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63.
Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herrington, A. D., & Kim, J. (1993). Subordinates’ satisfaction and perceptions of superiors’ compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 307–326. doi:10.1177/0893318993006003004
Infante, D. A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interpersonal violence. Communication Monograph, 56, 163–177.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles: Implications for independent-mindedness and upward effectiveness. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 73–80.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees’ see the boss: Test of an argumentative and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western Journal of Communication, 55, 294–304.
Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 1–7.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 19, pp. 319– 351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2009). Contemporary communication theory. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Wigley, C. J. (2011). In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Communication Quarterly, 59, 145–154. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.563439
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. (2003). Building communication theory (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L., Horvath, C. L., & Tumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40, 116–126.
Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67– 77. doi:10.1080/10417948409372622
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–69.
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.
Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229.
Kassing, J. W., & Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Examining the relationship between organizational dissent and aggressive communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 100–115.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Allen, T. H. (2002). Understanding student reactions to teachers who misbehave. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 127– 140). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV: Alternatives to discipline. Communication Yearbook, 8, 724–746.
Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., & Myers, S. A. (2009). College students’ use of behavior alteration techniques as a function of aggressive communication. Communication Education, 58, 54– 73. doi:10.1080/03634520802272299
Kinney, T. A. (1994). An inductively derived typology of verbal aggression and its relationship to distress. Human Communication Research, 21, 183–222.
Kotowski, M. R., Levine, T. R., Baker, C. R., & Bolt, J. M. (2009). A multitrait-multimethod validity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communication Monographs, 76, 443–462. doi:10.1080/03637750903300247
Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Contrapower harassment in academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual attention. Sex Roles, 60, 331–346. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9560-x
Lang, A. J., & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible assertive behavior. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Legg, A. M., & Wilson, J. H. (2012). Ratemyprofessors.com offers biased evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 89–97. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.507299
Levine, T. R., Beatty, M. J., Limon, S., Hamilton, M. A., Buck, R., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2004). The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs, 71, 245– 268. doi:10.1080/0363452042000299911
Levine, T. R., & Kotowski, M. R. (2010). Measuring argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Psychometric concerns and advances. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 67–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
Levine, T. R., Kotowski, M. R., Beatty, M. J., & Van Kelegom, M. J. (2012). A meta-analysis of traitbehavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 95–111. doi:10.1177/0261927x11425037
Linvill, D. L., & Mazer, J. P. (2013). The role of student aggressive communication traits in the perception of instructor ideological bias in the classroom. Communication Education, 62, 48–60. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.721889
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 3–47. doi:10.1177/0893318911414400
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 3–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Martin, M. M., Dunleavy, K. N., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D. (2010). The instrumental use of verbally aggressive messages. In T. Avtgis & A. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 400–416). New York, NY: Routledge.
Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155–164.
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.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192.
Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention and burnout: New perspectives. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 63–74.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103.
Myers, S. A. (1998). Instructor socio-communicative style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 370–378.
Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 354–364.
Myers, S. A., Brann, B., & Martin, M. M. (2013). Identifying the content and topics of instructor use of verbally aggressive messages. Communication Research Reports, 30, 252–258. doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.806260
Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 495–508. doi:10.1080/03634520701466398
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., & Rittenour, C. E. (2010). Student aggressive communication in the K-12 classroom: Bullying and conflict. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000a). The relationship between perceived instructor communicator style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 17, 1–12.
Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2000b). Students’ state motivation and instructors’ use of verbally aggressive messages. Psychological Reports, 87, 291–294.
Nicotera, A. M., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). The influence of sex on self-perceptions and social stereotyping of aggressive communication. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 283–307.
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, application, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Norton, R., & Warnick, B. (1976). Assertive as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 3, 62–66.
Pearce, K. J., & Berkos, K. M. (2003, October). The effects of profanity use on teacher credibility and attractiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprechwissenschaft und Sprecherziehung, Berlin, Germany.
Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2014). Argumentative and aggressive communication (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
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., & Dierks-Stewart, K. J. (1985). The influence of sex and sex-role orientation on trait argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 69–70.
Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management. Communication Education, 41, 375–387.
Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V. G., Kosberg, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Training in argumentativeness: Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescents. Communication Education, 46, 273–286.
Richmond, V. P. (2002). Teacher nonverbal immediacy. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for Teachers (pp. 65–82). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Richmond, V. P., & Gorham, J. S. (1996). Communication, learning, and affect in instruction. Edina, MN: Burgess International Group, Inc.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the Assertiveness-Responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67, 449–450.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roach, K. D. (1992). Teacher demographic characteristics and level of teacher argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, 9, 65–71.
Roach, K. D. (1995a). Teaching assistant argumentativeness: Effects on affective learning and student 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.
Roberto, A. J., & Eden, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Aggressive communication in the digital age. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 198–216). New York: NY: Routledge.
Roberto, A. J., & Finucane, M. E. (1997). The assessment of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in adolescent populations. Communication Quarterly, 45, 21–36.
Rocca, K. A. (2004). College student attendance: Impact of instructor immediacy and verbal aggression. Communication Education, 53, 185–195. doi:10.10/03634520410001682447
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.
Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602–628.
Schrodt, P. (2003a). Student perceptions of instructor verbal aggressiveness: The influence of student verbal aggressiveness and self-esteem. Communication Research Reports, 20, 240– 250.
Schrodt, P. (2003b). Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106–121.
Schrodt, P., & Finn, A. N. (2010). Reconsidering the role of aggressive communication in higher education. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 159–176). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schrodt, P., & Finn, A. N. (2011). Students’ perceived understanding: An alternative measure and its associations with perceived teacher confirmation, verbal aggressiveness, and credibility. Communication Education, 60, 231–254. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.535007
Suzuki, S. (1998, May). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Effects of gender and lowand high-context communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Jerusalem, Israel.
Suzuki, S., & Rancer, A. S. (1994). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61, 256–279. doi:10.1080/03637759409376336
Teven, J. J. (2001). The relationship among teacher characteristics and perceived caring. Communication Education, 50, 159–169.
Vangelisti, A., Daly, J. A., & Friedrich, G. W. (1999). Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vogl-Bauer, S. (2014). When disgruntled students go to extremes: The cyberbullying of instructors. Communication Education, 63, 429–448. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.942331
Wigley, C. J. (2003, April). Temporal stability of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale: State and trait influences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054
Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1995). Accuracy of social information processed by those who are aggressive: The role of beliefs about a hostile world. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.