Argumentativeness Scale: Separate Challenge Readiness From Reasoning Quality

Communication · Executive Insight Brief · 202

Ready to argue is not ready to reason

Use the approach–avoidance profile to examine disagreement without turning self-report into a verdict on judgment or courage

Premise

Before anyone tests a contested claim, people decide whether to enter the argument. The Argumentativeness Scale measures a relatively enduring self-reported orientation toward advocating positions and attacking opposing positions rather than another person’s self-concept. It distinguishes the pull toward argumentative exchange from the impulse to avoid it.

For executives, that distinction prevents two common errors: treating visible willingness to challenge as analytical competence and interpreting reluctance as lack of ideas. The instrument can identify a predisposition worth investigating. It cannot establish whether the reasoning is sound, the exchange constructive, or the environment safe enough for dissent.

The essential model

Dominic A. Infante and Andrew S. Rancer developed the scale in 1982 through three factor-analytic studies. The final 20-item self-report instrument contains separate approach and avoidance components. The traditional general score subtracts avoidance from approach; higher values indicate a stronger net orientation toward engaging in argument. In the third study of 692 participants, internal consistency was .91 for approach and .86 for avoidance. A one-week retest with 35 students produced stability correlations of .87, .86, and .91 for approach, avoidance, and the difference score.

Keep the components visible because identical totals can conceal different profiles. Weak approach and avoidance may indicate indifference; strong approach and avoidance may indicate simultaneous energy and anticipated relational cost. A changed difference score can reflect increased approach, reduced avoidance, or both—different stories that one total obscures.

Why this matters

Consider a product review where a technical lead repeatedly challenges assumptions while another experienced specialist remains quiet. A profile showing high approach and low avoidance for the first person, and moderate approach with high avoidance for the second, suggests different predispositions toward overt argument. It gives a facilitator a disciplined reason to examine turn-taking, status, evidence quality, and what follows dissent.

The profile does not show that the outspoken lead is the stronger thinker or the quieter specialist disengaged. Weak reasoning can dominate, while avoidance may be rational under punitive hierarchy. Trait and state information together predicted response better than trait information alone, reinforcing the need to examine expertise, power, relationships, stakes, and psychological safety.

Risks and limits

Later research materially narrows behavioral interpretation. Multimethod work found weak convergence between self-report and observed behavior, and a subsequent meta-analysis judged direct scale–behavior evidence sparse and inconsistent with strong predictive validity. The defensible claim is that the measure captures a reproducible self-reported orientation; behavior remains dependent on method and situation.

The scale does not measure debating skill, reasoning quality, civility, conflict competence, or courage. It supplies no clinical threshold, selection standard, or universal cutoff. Preserve the 20-item structure, score both components, triangulate with observed communication, and verify permission before reproducing protected items or scoring materials.

Executive takeaway

Use the Argumentativeness Scale as a hypothesis about readiness for disagreement, not a ranking of critical thinkers. Retain both components and compare self-perception with participation, evidence quality, power, and consequences. Decide whether the barrier lies in avoidance, excessive engagement, interaction design, or climate—not whether one score identifies the best challenger.

Key questions

• Do the approach and avoidance scores reveal a profile that the net difference score conceals?
• What do observed participation and evidence quality show that the self-report cannot establish?
• Which power, relationship, topic, or consequence conditions make argument more or less likely here?
• Does the intervention need to address avoidance, excessive engagement, argument skill, or the communication climate?

Selected sources

• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72–80.
• 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(4), 443–462.
• Levine, T. R., Kotowski, M. R., Beatty, M. J., & Van Kelegom, M. J. (2012). A meta-analysis of trait-behavior correlations in argumentativeness and verbal aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 95–111.