1!.
mmé" '

hfivwwséwm
$3.,

mm, a.» ,

I nrvgJ: .— 4 ,

mgfifin

1%? a A

fiamfi, .. Ed».

.
w».

amwaf ,m

. r .t
.i 4.5)...
ht 7 .. r:-

spanking“.

. £511.13: .5
.. ...
. t. «355 a A iJn: .514”.
2&13fll, . >95! 3“”...
. .2} .
:83...
1::

is.
141. Inll

. 1:. .
khan“ a. e}...

.. r. 57:...
’51-“?!
,. .I
, . 3. r ..l haunt!“
. a :.wu...t[zht.c.l
5.1: {I},
I?! :33}. 12§x.xn
. 15.5.! A
. , ”ED-M“; I!
, :ll‘! .. J

 

.v.
in“! ‘l’ , I :‘l
i.hflflvpl’fluh..ml.u.hll."
.. 35f .

)tkfl 11.6.2.3:
“VA.

 

3.3:..5. )
D.

» .fslvincpsi. 5.71.;

((1,: .
.z—ékbflfi:
.1:...otl.!031.:

.2 III.

.
3.1
.5555:
: nil"?!
. . .II g...ii...¢!t it!
x). ‘5‘... . :11 35.1.2.1.
. . 3. Pl! .nfirl. ,

51hr

 

 

 

 

 

in: ,
3 If)...”
at: .ooLHPZ}

 

 

 

 

 

fiwwnfi. mréuxrrmfifim

: ‘ ‘ . . _ . ., _ . , . . . .gwt ”mi." .uowrwwv. , . ,A . . V
E

 

 

 

 

 

llfliflfimflmfliflfifliflflfliflifit
‘2’: «CU LIBRARY r

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION
TRAITS; VERBAL AGGRESSIVENESS, ARGUMENTATIVENESS, AND
ASSERTIVENESS

presented by

Sachiyo Morinaga

has been accepted towards fulfilIment
of the requirements for

MA degree in Nmmcm ION

 

 

.. 2&6

Major professor

Date flZfi/W-é W

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

mi 2 9 4W1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm m.“

 

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION
TRAITS; VERBAL AGGRESSIVENESS, ARGUMENTATIVENESS, AND
ASSERTIVENESS.

BY

Sachiyo Morinaga

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

2000

PENTPRACT
A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION

TRAITS; VERBAL AGGRESSIVENESS, ARGUMENTATIVENESS, AND
ASSERTIVENESS.

BY

Sachiyo Morinaga

This study compares aggressive communication traits in
three countries, China, Japan and the United States.
Aggressive communication traits can be distinguished into
two categories; constructive traits (i.e. assertiveness,
argumentativeness) and destructive traits (i.e. hostility,
verbal aggressiveness). This study analyzed tendencies of
these communication traits displayed among participants in
three countries, employing the Argumentativeness Scale
(Infante & Rancer, 1982), the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
(Infante & Wigley, 1986), and the Assertiveness Scale
(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). The results indicated
significant interaction effects of country and sex with the
main effects of both on all three communication traits. In
addition, implications and limitations of these findings as

well as suggestions for future research are discussed.

Copy Right
Sachiyo Morinaga

2000

To My Parents;

Teru and Satoshi, Morinaga

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. William
Donohue, Dr. Mary Bresnahan and Dr. William Mehrens for
your supports and suggestions in completing my thesis. I
especially would like to appreciate Dr. Bresnahan for her
sharing data from her research team. I would like to thank
Rie and Lifang for their precious comments and warm
friendship.

I thank the Rotary International for allowing me this
great opportunity to study communication at Michigan State
University. Also, I thank officials and members of MSU
Japan Club, and all the teachers at Battle Creek Japanese
Saturday School.

Lastly but definitely not least, I want to thank my
friends who supported me during past few years. Special
thanks go to David, Keiko, Jerry, Cousins-sensei, Kimika,
Sawa, Hiromi, Yuuka, Okada-san, the Inoue family, the
Shearman, Lihua, Jaemin, and Sunyoung. I can not list all
the names here, but without your warm friendship, I would

not have been able to enjoy studying here as much as I had.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Chapter1:Introduction

ChapterZ: Culture Overview
Definitions of Culture
Cultural Variability
Individualism-Collectivism
Cultures Selected

Chapter3: Aggressive Communication
Verbal Aggressiveness
Verbal Aggressiveness and Culture
Verbal Aggressiveness and Sex
Argumentativeness
Argumentativeness and Culture
Argumentativeness and Sex
Assertiveness
Assertiveness and Culture
Assertiveness and Sex

Chapter4: Research Questions

Chapters: Methods

Participants

Procedures

Translations

Instrumentation
The Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
The Argumentativeness Scale
The Assertiveness Scale

Preliminary Analyses

Chapter6: Results

Scale Intercorrelations

Descriptive Statistics for four scales

Two-way ANOVA results country by sex
The Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
T-test results of each country pair
The ARGap Scale
T—test results of each country pair

w

viii

31

32
32
33
33
34
34
34
35
36

40
40
41
42
42
42
43
43

The ARGav Scale

T-test results of each country pair

The Assertiveness Scale

T-test results of each country pair
Comparison by Sex

T-tests between country

T—tests within country

Chapter 7: Discussion
Limitations

References

Appendices

Appendix A
Tables

Appendix B
Figures

Appendix C
Questionnaires
Research Consent Form

vii

43
44
44
45
45
45
46

47
5.2

57

67
68
69
84
85
87
88
93

List of Tables
Table 1: Correlations and errors of the Verbal
Aggressiveness Scale items left after the tests of internal

consistency

Table 2: Correlations and errors of the ARGap Scale left
after the tests of internal consistency

Table 3: Correlations and errors of the ARGav Scale items
left after the tests of internal consistency

Table 4: Correlations and errors of the Assertiveness Scale
items left after the tests of internal consistency

Table 5: Scale Intercorrelations of four scales

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation,
and Sample Size) of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation,
and Sample Size) of the ARGap Scale

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation,
and Sample Size) of the ARGav Scale

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation,
and Sample Size) of the Assertiveness Scale

Table 10: Two-way ANOVA results of the Verbal
Aggressiveness Scale country by sex

Table 11: T-test result of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
comparing three pairs of countries

Table 12: Two-way ANOVA results of the ARGap Scale country
by sex

Table 13: T-tests result of the ARGap Scale comparing three
pairs of countries

Table 14: Two-way ANOVA results of the ARGav Scale country
by sex

Table 15: T-tests result of the ARGav Scale comparing three
pairs of countries

viii

Table 16: Two-way ANOVA results of the Assertiveness

country by sex

Table 17: T-tests result of the Assertiveness Scale

comparing three pairs of countries

Table 18: T-test results of four scales
female across three countries

Table 19: T-test results of four scales
female in the United States

Table 20: T-test results of four scales
female in Japan

Table 21: T-test results of four scales
female in China

ix

between male

between male

between male

between male

Scale

and

and

and

and

Figure 1: Line graph
Aggressiveness Scale

Figure 2: Line graph
country and sex

Figure 3: Line graph
country and sex

Figure 4: Line graph
Scale by country and

List of Figures

of mean scores
by country and

of mean scores

of mean scores

of mean scores
sex

for the Verbal
sex
for the ARGap Scale by

for the ARGav Scale by

for the Assertiveness

List of Abbreviations

ARGap: argumentativeness
approach arguments)

ARGav: argumentativeness
arguments)

ARth: argumentativeness
arugmentative)

CFA: confirmatory factor
Df: Degree of freedom

N: Sample Size

Std. Dev.:

Sig.: Significance level

approache (the tendency to
avoidance (the tendency to avoid
general (the general trait to be

analysis

Standard Deviation

m

Chapter 1

Introduction

This study investigates cultural differences in
aggressive communication traits. Aggressive communication
traits can be classified into two kinds: destructive traits
and constructive traits (Infante and Rancer, 1996).
Destructive traits include verbal aggressiveness and
hostility. Constructive traits refer to argumentativeness
and assertiveness. This study examines three of these
traits, verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness and
assertiveness. Three countries (i.e. China, Japan, and the
United States) were chosen for consideration for this study.

Numerous studies have examined communication behaviors
in terms of individual predispositions or traits. Infante,
Rancer, and Womack (1990) described communication traits as
hypothetical constructs that explain “enduring consistencies
and differences in individuals’ message-sending and message-
receiving behaviors”(p. 143). Also, according to Martin and
Anderson (1996), “communication traits are subsets of
personality traits concerned with human symbolic behavior”
(p.58). This study investigates whether cultural and sex

differences exist in three communication traits; verbal

l

aggressiveness, argumentativeness, and assertiveness.

These communication traits were selected for the
present study for several reasons. First, they have
educational implications, such as training and second
language instruction. Argumentativeness and assertiveness
are described as elements of communication competence and
considered to be desirable communication traits, whereas
verbal aggressiveness represents one of the undesirable
communication traits (Infante, 1987; McCroskey & Richmond,
1992). The distinction between argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness has been emphasized by many scholars.
Argumentativeness often leads to positive outcomes, such as
obtaining goals, keeping self-esteem, better understanding,
and relational development; whereas verbal aggressiveness
often leads to negative outcomes. However, much of the
research examining aggressive communication traits that has
been conducted in the U. S. might not hold true for people
from other cultures. Therefore, in communicating cross-
culturally, it is crucial to understand the general
communication traits predominantly displayed by people in
other cultures.

A second reason for the importance of studying

aggressive communication is to understand how people from

2

different cultures deal with conflictual situations that
often result in arguing. Now that it is increasingly
important for most of the countries on the earth to
communicate with each other, it is beneficial for us to know
what types of communicative traits are displayed in
different countries. Folger, Poole, and Stutman (1993)
discussed that argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness
were important predisposional traits that affected the
processes and outcomes of interpersonal conflicts (pp.51-
51). Therefore, exploration of verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness should provide insight for the study of

conflict across cultures.

Chapter 2

Culture Overview

E E' 'l' E : 1

“Culture” connotes large and profound meanings, which
complicates the task of definition. There have been many
attempts to examine culture. Among the prevalent definitions
of culture, intercultural communication has been influenced
mostly by definitions proposed by anthropologists and
psychologists. For example, Clifford Geertz(1973) defined
culture as “an historically transmitted pattern of meaning
embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions
expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men
communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about
and attitudes toward life”(p.89). A renowned social
psychologist, Geert Hofstede(1980) defined culture
similarly, when he defined it as the “programming of the
mind” and as the “integrative aggregate of common
characteristics that influence a human group’s response to
its environment” (Hofstede, 1980, p.21). In the
communication field, Samover, Porter, and Jain (1994)
defined culture as “the deposit of knowledge, experience,

beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion,

4

notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the
universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a
group of people in the course of generations through
individual and group striving” (p.11).

With this plethora of definitions of culture, all seem
to agree on the notion that culture explains shared
behaviors, values or assumptions of a specific group of
people. Thus, it can be said one of the factors that makes
us behave the way we do is this shared assumption of the
group or the culture. The cultural literature claims that
people in different cultures behave differently because they
have divergent beliefs. Several studies show that culture
explains the differences of behavior among different
cultures. There is ample justification for assuming that an
individual’s predisposition to act in a predictable way in
an argumentative situation may be strongly influenced by
culture. Based on this notion, the present study examines
whether cultural factors can be one way of explaining
communicative traits, verbal aggressiveness,
argumentativeness, and assertiveness.

: J! J M . 1.].
Many intercultural literatures have the basic

assumption that individual’s behaviors are affected by

5

culture. However, general cultural influence is so vague and
difficult to pin down. Efforts to narrow it down and
identify cultural variability have been made by several
scholars. Hofstede (1980) did very extensive research on
cultural variability displayed in the multinational
corporation. Hofstede (1980) and other scholars studied
organizational behaviors in IBM subsidiaries in 53 countries
around the world and identified several dimensions and
variables of culture. Many studies have been conducted on
the dimensions of cultural variability that Hofstede
introduced. These dimensions include Power Distance,
Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity—Femininity, and
Individualism-Collectivism. Power distance refers to “the
extent to which the members of a society accept that power
in institutions and organizations is distributed
unequally”(Hofstede, 1983, p. 336). This dimension deals
with the perception of equality and power. Uncertainty
avoidance is defined as “the degree to which the members of
a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity,
which leads them to support beliefs promising certainty and
to maintain institutions protecting conformity”(Hofstede,
1983, p.336). This dimension deals with how people in a

culture react to uncertainty. Masculinity represents “a

6

preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and
material success", while femininity represents “a preference
for relationship, modesty, caring for the weak, and the
quality of life”(Hofstede, 1983, p. 337). Masculinity and
femininity deal with the different values that tend to
predominate in a culture. Lastly, Hofstede (1983) described
individualism as a “loosely knit social framework in society
in which individuals are supposed to take care of themselves
and their immediate families only”, in contrast with
collectivism, which is illustrated as a “tightly knit social
framework in which individuals can expect their relatives,
clan or other in—group to look after them, in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty”(p.337). This dimension deals with the
relationships of people in a culture. The present study
particularly focuses on Individualism-Collectivism, for this
dimension has been actively used for intercultural
communication research.

Individualism-Collectivism defines the opposing anchor
points of a continuum of values along which cultures are
arrayed. Individualism-Collectivism is a widely accepted
dimension which has been studied both conceptually and

empirically (Hofstede, 1980; Hui, 1988; Triandis, 1995;

7

Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, Lucca, 1988; Triandis,
McCusker, Hui, 1990).

In individualistic cultures, individual goals are
emphasized more than group goals. In comparison, in
collectivistic cultures, group goals are valued more than
goals of individuals. Individualistic cultures tend to focus
more on individual initiative and achievement, while
collectivistic cultures tend to put emphasis on inclusion
and group harmony.

The Individualism-Collectivism dimension can also be
illustrated well with the notion of “ingroup”. Triandis et
al. (1988) defined ingroup as follows, “ingroups are groups
of people about whose welfare one is concerned, with whom
one is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable
returns and separation from whom leads to discomfort or even
pain” (p.75). People in individualistic cultures tend to
have several ingroups to which they belong to, such as
family, social clubs, work places, schools, religious groups
and so on, while members of collectivistic cultures tend to
belong to fewer general ingroups. Also, ingroups have less
influence in individualistic cultures, while they have
strong influence on activities in collectivistic cultures.

Individualistic cultures tend to be universalistic and apply

8

the same value standard to all situations, while
collectivistic cultures tend to be particularistic and apply
different value standards depending on the groups, ingroup
and outgroup (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996).

Triandis (1995) further explained Individualism-
Collectivism by describing the power relationships that
people in each culture have. Triandis (1995) termed these
as “vertical culture” and “horizontal culture”. In vertical
culture people are expected to stand out from others, and
tend to see themselves as different from others, while those
who are in a horizontal culture tend to see themselves the
same as others, valuing conformity to groups and devaluing
individual freedom. One good example of this is illustrated
by contrasting proverbs from each country. In Japan, a
proverb says, “the nail that sticks out will get hammered
(Deru Kui Wa Utareru)”. This proverb teaches Japanese not to
stand out as an individual and instead emphasized the
importance of being one of a coordinated member. Also, in
Chinese, a proverb says “the roof support beam that sticks
out most rots first (Mao Jian De Suen Zi Xian Lau)". This
proverb tells the Chinese not to be the first one who stands
out or speaks out. By contrast, in the U.S., a proverb says,

“the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. This proverb teaches

9

Americans that calling attention to yourself is a good
strategy to get some form of rewards.

Earlier on, Hall (1976) identified the difference
between high-context communication and low—context
communication. Hall (1976) explained high-low context
communication as follows. A high context communication or
message is one in which “most of the information is either
in the physical context or internalized in the person, while
very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of
the message”(p76). On the other hand, a low-context
communication or message is one in which the “mass of
information is vested in the explicit code”(p. 70).

Several studies revealed the relationship of High-Low
Context communication and the Individualism—Collectivism
Scale. Gudykunst and Matsumoto (1996) claimed that “high and
low context communication are a function of individualism-
collectivism“(p.33).

Gudykunst & Matsumoto (1996) argued that both
individualism and collectivism coexist in all cultures, but
either one tends to predominate. For example, cultures that
tend to be individualistic include Australia, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland,

Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden,

10

Switzerland, and the United States. Cultures that tend to
be collectivistic include Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt,
Greece, India, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Venezuela,
and Vietnam (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996, p. 24).
CLAW

In this study, three countries, the People’s Republic
of China, Japan, and the United States were chosen for
consideration, because they contrast greatly in their
communication behavior. These three countries differ in
several cultural dimensions, such as collectivism-
individualism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988), and
high—low context communication (Hall, 1976). Furthermore,
the United States is considered as representative of
individualism, while China and Japan are considered as
representative of collectivism.

According to the scores displayed by Gudykunst and
Ting-Toomey (1988), Japan scored 46 on individualism and can
be considered as a high-context communication culture. The
United States scored 91 on individualism scale and can be
considered as a low-context communication culture.
Unfortunately, because of the political condition with the

People's Republic of China, they did not have scores of

11

China. They, however, presented scores for Taiwan, Hong
Kong, and Singapore. All three cultures showed very low
individualism scores; Taiwan scored 17, Hong Kong scored 25,
and Singapore scored 20 on individualism scale. Even though
these three countries have many Chinese immigrants and share
the same historical background, it might be problematic for
us to assume that these three countries would display
similar orientation to individualism.

Several studies have examined whether Individualism-
Collectivism is a function of divergent communication
behaviors. For example, Kim (1994) confirmed that people
from collectivistic cultures are more concerned about
hurting others and making requests from others, while people
from individualistic cultures are concerned more about
speaking clearly in conversation. Also, Kim and Wilson
(1994) observed that people in individualistic cultures tend
to regard clarity as the essential element of effective
communication in comparison to people from collectivistic
cultures.

Overall, culture seems to reinforce different values
in different cultures, and accordingly makes people behave
different ways. Because collectivistic cultures reinforce

concern for group harmony, while individualistic cultures

12

reinforce concern for individual goals, the divergent
attitudes and communication behaviors will predictably be
displayed in an arguing situation. Therefore, this study
attempts to compare the differences in aggressive
communication traits of individuals from an individualistic
country (i.e. the U.S.) with collectivistic countries (i.e.

Japan and China).

13

Chapter 3

Aggressive Communication

Infante and Rancer (1996) claimed that “aggression can
be good or bad or both good and bad” and distinguished
aggressive communication traits and divided into two
categories; constructive aggression and destructive
aggression (p.322). The constructive traits include
assertiveness and argumentativeness, while destructive
communication traits include verbal aggressiveness and
hostility.

Argumentativeness and assertiveness are seen as
constructive communication traits. According to Infante and
Rancer (1996), assertiveness is the more global trait and
argumentativeness is “a subset of assertiveness because all
argument is assertive, but not all assertiveness involves
argument” (p.322). A more formal definition of each trait
will be provided later in this text, but in general, the
reader should be aware that assertiveness deals with being
forthright about your needs and worth, while
argumentativeness deals with offering reasons to support
your position.

Conversely, verbal aggressiveness and hostility are

14

considered as destructive traits of aggressive communication
and are viewed “as a subset of a more global trait, in this
case, hostility”, because “all verbal aggression is hostile,
but not all hostility involves verbal aggression” (Infante &
Rancer, 1996. P.323). Hostility is the general mode of being
hostile to others, while verbal aggressiveness entails
personal attacks on others verbally.

The distinction between constructive aggression and
destructive aggression has been often emphasized,
especially, verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness both
conceptually (Infante & Rancer, 1996; Infante, Rancer,&
Womack, 1993) and empirically (Infante & Rancer, 1982;
Infante & Wigley, 1986). This distinction is important also
because argumentativeness often leads to positive outcomes,
such as obtaining goals, retaining self—esteem, better
understanding and relational development, while verbal
aggressiveness often leads to negative outcomes.
Wee

Verbal aggressiveness refers to one’s tendency to
derogate another person, or attack the self-esteem of
another, while argumentativeness refers to one's tendency to
provide logic and reasoning to support one's position on

controversial issues. Infante and Wigley (1986) described

15

verbal aggressiveness as “attacking an individual’s self-
concept in order to make a person feel less favorably about
self”(p.61). Verbal aggressiveness is differentiated from
argumentativeness in the focus of the attack; verbal
aggressiveness deals with attacking the self-concept of
others, while argumentativeness deals with attacking the
opinions of others. Several studies support the idea that
verbal aggression is a self-concept attack directed toward
another’s self-concept (Geen & Donnerstein, 1983; Roloff &
Greenberg, 1979). Verbally aggressive messages include
“character attacks, competence attacks, insults,
maledictions, teasing, ridicule, profanity, and nonverbal
emblems”(p.61). According to Kinney (1994), three broad
domains of self-concept attack are presented; group
membership, personal failings, and relational failings.
Kinney (1994) also identified four attributions of verbal
aggression; psychopathology, disdain, social learning and
argumentative skill deficiencies. First, psychopathology
causes verbal aggression in that some people try to solve
problems by being verbally aggressive with others who they
identify their problem. Second, disdain causes verbal
aggression when by looking down on others motivates one to

be verbally aggressive. Third, social learning can also be

16

the cause for one’s verbal aggression, since the environment
can reinforce one to use verbally aggressive messages. Bayer
and Cegala (1992) examined the relationships between trait
verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness with parenting
style. They found that verbal aggression correlates
positively with control—hostile parenting style. Fourth,
argumentative skill deficiencies, or lack of the ability to
argue causes some to be verbally aggressive. Infante et a1.
(1987) concluded that the verbal aggression is partly a
result of a lack of argumentative skill, since they found
that a highly argumentative person was the least provoked to
appeal to verbal aggression. In addition, frustration, in
which one is discouraged or hindered from doing something,
was considered as one reason for verbal aggression (Infante,
1987).

ygIhal_Aggressiyeness_and_gultu1§+ Several cross-cultural
studies are available on conflict management and
assertiveness, but less on verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness. Harman, Klopf, and Ishii (1990) examined
differences in verbal aggressiveness between Japanese and
American college students. They found no significant overall
differences between Japanese and Americans, Japanese females

and American Females, and Japanese males and American males,

17

but they found a significant difference between males and
females collapsing the country factor. Sueda and Wiseman
(1992) examined how Americans and Japanese differ in dealing
with embarrassment. Sueda and Wiseman (1992) found that
Americans used so called, “autonomy-preserving strategies”
such as mere presentation of the fact, justification, humor,
and aggression significantly more often than Japanese did in
dealing with embarrassment. This finding is consistent with
the former studies that concluded individuals in low-context
cultures tended to use more autonomy-preserving strategies
than individuals in high-context cultures (Ting-Toomey,
1988). In a cross-ethnicity study, which was conducted with
co-cultural groups in the U.S., Sanders, Gass, Wiseman and
Bruschke (1992) examined the three argumentation trait’s
measures; verbal aggression, argumentativeness and need for
cognition. Sanders et al. (1992) found that
argumentativeness will correlate positively with a need for
cognition, while verbal aggressiveness will correlate
negatively with a need for cognition. Sanders et al. (1992)
also examined the relationship between an individuals’
ethnicity and verbal aggressiveness as well as
argumentativeness. They found Asian Americans to be

significantly higher on the verbal aggressiveness scale than

18

either European Americans or Hispanics, although they found
no significant differences on the argumentativeness scale
among Asian Americans, European Americans and Hispanics,
contrary to other findings that concluded Asian Americans
tended to be more indirect or assertive than Caucasians (Sue
& Sue, 1977; Zane, Sue, Hu and Kwon, 1991). Although there
are some studies that concluded culture explains their
choice of conflict strategies, there is no evidence
supporting that culture explains an individual’s trait to be
verbally aggressive. Therefore, the following hypothesis is
posited.

H1: There will be no significant difference in verbal
aggressiveness among three countries; China, Japan, and the
United Status.

yerbal_Aggressiveness_and_fiex* Several studies demonstrate
the sex differences in verbal aggressiveness concluding that
males tend to be more verbally aggressive than females
(Infante et al., 1984; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Nicotera &
Rancer, 1994). Infante (1989) examined whether males and
females responded differently to highly argumentative
others. Infante (1989) observed that males responded with
more verbal aggression when others used verbal aggression,

whereas females became more argumentative. Harman, Klopf,

19

and Ishii (1990) found significant sex differences in verbal
aggressiveness among Japanese and American subjects
collapsing the country factor.

Several explanations have been offered to describe the
sex differences in verbal aggressiveness. One of the
explanations is that males and females differ in their
perception of verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness.
Nicotera and Rancer (1994) reported significant differences
between the sexes on both self-reported and stereotyped
perceptions of verbal aggressiveness as well as
argumentativeness. Another explanation is that there is sex
difference in social expectations. It is said that males are
expected to be more aggressive than females (Burgoon &
Miller, 1983). Based on these observations, the following
hypothesis is warranted.

H2: Males in all three countries can be expected to exhibit
more verbal aggressiveness than females counterparts.
Argumentatiitensss

According to Infante and Rancer (1982),
Argumentativeness is defined as “a generally stable trait
that predisposes the individual in communication situations
to advance positions on controversial issues and to attack

verbally the positions that other people take on these

20

issues” (p. 72). As argued in the verbal aggressiveness
section, argumentativeness is differentiated from verbal
aggressiveness in that they differ in the focus of attack.
Namely, argumentativeness refers to an individual’s tendency
to argue on controversial issues, while verbal
aggressiveness refers to the tendency to attack another
person’s self-esteem.

Argumentativeness is conceptualized in terms of
approach—avoidance, or excitation-inhibition of conflict.
The highly argumentative person feels excitement toward
argument and has a strong tendency to approach arguments,
without feeling inhibition to argue or avoiding arguments.
The low argumentative person has a strong tendency to avoid
arguments and shows no favorable excitement with strong
inhibitions and avoidance tendencies (Infante & Rancer,
1982). Therefore, the general trait to be argumentative
(Hereafter abbreviated as ARth) is constituted by two
factors; tendency to approach argument (Hereafter
abbreviated as ARGap) and tendency to avoid arguments
(Hereafter abbreviated as ARGav). The general trait for
argumentativeness was hypothesized as the difference of sum
of ARGap minus ARGav. Hence,

ARth = ARGap - ARGav.

21

The highly argumentative person is high in an
argumentative approach and low in avoidance, while a low
argumentative individual would be low in an argumentative
approach and high in avoidance. In case the score for
approach and avoidance is close in number, a person will
have moderate score in general argumentativeness. This
person is classified as a moderate, and divided into two
types of moderates; conflict feeling moderates and apathetic
moderates. Conflict feeling moderates are high on both
approach and avoidance. They want to argue, but are
reluctant to do so at the same time. Apathetic moderates are
low in both approach and avoidance. They do not want to
engage in arguments, though they are not intentionally
avoiding argument.

However, some evidences suggests that the
Argumentativeness Scale is in fact unidimensional (Boster &
Lavubnem 1988; Kazoleas, 1993; Roberto & Finucase, 1997). If
the Argumantativeness Scale is not actually unidimentional,
it is not appropriate for us to substruct those scores.
Therefore, the present study conducts analyses for both a
unidimensional solution and a multidimensional solution.

WW Several studies have related

Individualism—Collectivism to a conflict style (Ting-Toomey,

22

1988, 1991; Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubiskey, Yang, Kim, Lin, &
Nishida, 1991). Ting-Toomey and associates consistently
found that people in collectivistic cultures tend to use
avoidance strategy more often than people in individualistic
cultures. Prunty, Klopf, and Ishii (1990a, 1990b) examined
differences 1J1 argumentativeness between Japanese and
American college students. They found that Americans were
significantly higher on both tendencies to approach
arguments and the general trait to be argumantative. In
conflict management, Ohbushi and Takahashi (1994) studied
the cross-cultural comparison. of conflict style and its
motivations for the strategies chosen. They found that
Japanese tend to avoid conflict more than Americans and
Japanese avoidance was motivated. by their' perception. of
shared responsibility and desire to maintain relationships.
Similarly, Sueda and Wiseman (1992) found that Americans
used. so called, “autonomy-preserving strategies” such. as
mere presentation of facts, justification, humor, and
aggression significantly more than Japanese did in dealing
with embarrassment. In Japan, having no excuse for one's
failure, or being able to surrender is often considered as a
virtue, because it often leads us to peaceful interpersonal

relationships. Morris et a1. (1998) examined conflict

23

management style of managers in the U.S., China,
Philippines, and India and concluded that Chinese managers
rely more on an avoiding style, whereas American managers
rely more on a competing style. A review of several studies
supported the evidence regarding the differences in
argumentative communication traits across cultures.
Therefore, following hypothesis is warranted.
H3: There will be significant difference in the
argumentativeness scale among three countries; China, Japan,
and the United Status, Americans being more argumentative
than Japanese and Chinese.
Argumentatixeness_and_3ex‘ Numerous scholars have found
gender differences in argumentativeness (Infante, 1982;
Nicotera & Rancer, 1994; Shultz & Anderson, 1984). Infante
(1989) examined whether males and females responded
differently to highly argumentative others, and observed
that females become more argumentative with verbally
aggressive others, while males tended to rely more on verbal
aggressiveness.

Several explanations have been offered to describe sex
differences in argumentativeness. One of the explanations
is the perception of sex role in conflictual situations.

For example, Nicotera and Rancer (1994) examined how

24

perceptions of sex role affect argumentative behavior. They
found that there were significant differences between males
and females on both self-reported and stereotyped
perceptions of argumentativeness. Also, Rancer and Dierks-
Stewart (1985) examined both biological and psychological
gender differences in argumentativeness and observed no
differences based on biological sex, but found significant
differences in argumentativeness based on psychological
gender perception. Namely, Individuals who self-reported as
instrumental (masculine) were higher in argumentativeness
than those who identified as expressive (feminine).
Similarly, Rancer and Baukus (1987) explained that gender
differences in argumentativeness are based on individual’s
beliefs about arguing. They found that significantly more
females than males believed that arguing was a hostile
behavior used to control or dominate others. Hence, the
following hypothesis is warranted.
H4: Males will be more argumentative than females in all
three countries; Japan, China, and the U. S.
Assertixeness

Alberti and Emmons (1978) conceptualized the
assertiveness as “people acting in their own best interests,

defending their rights without undue anxiety, expressing

25

honest feelings comfortably, and exercising their rights
without denying others' rights”(p. 2). Similarly, Thompson,
Ishii, and Klopf (1990) defined assertiveness as “an
individual’s ability to make requests, actively disagree,
express positive or negative personal rights and feelings,
initiate, maintain, or disengage from conversations, and
stand up for one’s own self without attacking
others”(p.829). Assertiveness also should be differentiated
from aggression such as verbal aggressive behavior in that
it is constructive in nature. Assertiveness refers to
maintaining your own rights, stands without inflicting any
pain on others, whereas “aggressive people express their
feelings, needs, and ideas at the expense of
others”(Thompson, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991, p.166).
Aasertiveness_and_gulturel Several studies have examined
differences in assertiveness between Americans and Japanese.
Various studies have indicated that Americans are more
assertive and direct than Japanese (Barnland, 1975; Barnland
& Araki, 1985; Nomura & Barnland, 1983; Thompson, Klopf, &
Ishii, 1990). In collectivistic cultures, group harmony is
valued and conformity to the group or opinion of others is
much more respected than in individualistic cultures.

Therefore, assertiveness is not seen as a positive behavior.

26

Also, in the context of social conflict, Japanese have shown
more preference for the use of less assertive, mitigating
tactics (Obuchi & Takahashi. 1994), and also mitigating
accounts, such as apologies or excuses and less assertive
accounts, such as justifications or denial (Itoi, Ohibushi,
and Fukuno, 1996). Sueda and Wiseman (1992) found that when
dealing with embarrassment, Americans used strategies such
as justification, presentation of the facts and aggression
more than Japanese. This finding is consistent with the
study by TingeToomey (1988) that concluded individuals in
low-context cultures tend to use more autonomy-preserving
strategies than individuals in high-context cultures. Nomura
and Barnland (1983) compared the interpersonal criticism
between Americans and Japanese. They found that Japanese
tend to remain silent, tell their remarks to a third person,
use nonverbal signs of rejection more often than Americans
did. Burnland and Araki (1985) found that Japanese prefer to
use nonverbal strategies to express a compliment. Overall,
the Japanese preference toward an ambiguous way of
communication is supported.

Several cross—ethnicity studies in the U.S., however,
indicated conflicting conclusions that Asian Americans tend

to be less assertive than Caucasians on their self-report

27

measure of assertiveness (Sue & Sue, 1977. Zane et a1.
1991), except that Chinese-American males are as assertive
as Caucasians on behavioral measures but not on perception
(Sue, Ino & Sue. 1983)

In China, self-effacing behavior was preferred (Bond,
Leung, & Wan, 1982). They explain that in China, making the
self-effacing attribution is considered as a virtue, because
it usually leads to harmonious interpersonal relationships.
Self-effacing is acting humble, “attributing success to good
luck and failure to lack of ability” (Bond et al., 1982,
p.158). Self-effacing behavior oftentimes is associated with
non—assertiveness. While assertiveness might be valued in an
individualistic country like the U.S., non-assertiveness is
valued in a collectivistic social context.

From these observations, it can be explained that
people from collectivistic cultures will be less assertive
than people from individualistic cultures, therefore, the
following hypothesis is warranted.

H5: Japanese and Chinese participants will be less assertive
than American participants.

Assertiyeness_and_fiex¢ There have been several studies,
which examined sex differences in assertive behavior in U.S.

Martin and Anderson (1996) examined age and sex differences

28

in aggressive and responsive communication traits. They
found that there are significant main effects for sex on
assertiveness. They found that American males were
significantly more assertive than American females. Dubrin
(1991) examined sex difference and gender difference on
assertive behavior. Suggesting that the gender difference is
greater than sex difference, Dubrin (1991) found that male
are perceived as more likely to manipulate situations, and
to be assertive compared to females. Similar research was
conducted both in Japan and China. Thompson, Ishii and Klopf
(1990/1991) observed a significant main effect on
assertiveness using the Richmond and McCroskey (1985)
Assertiveness-Responsiveness Scale. Hamid (1994) found no
significant sex difference on assertiveness for students in
Hong Kong, while they found that males scored higher than
females. However, Anderson, Martin, Zhong, & West (1997)
examined assertiveness in China and found that Chinese males
were more assertive than Chinese females.

These gender differences are explained through the
process of socialization and expectation. Several studies
also showed that the socialization process causes American
boys to be more assertive than girls (Leonard, 1995; Wall &

Holden, 1994). In the U. S., the assertive model is often

29

associated with masculinity (Wildman & Clementz, 1986) and
perceived as skillful but not as preferable (Delamater &
McNamara, 1991; Kelly et al., 1980). Delamater and McNamara
(1991) studied female perceptions of assertiveness in
conflict situations, and found that a non-assertive
confederate was more preferred than an assertive or even
empathetic-assertive confederate. Kelly et al. (1980)
examined reactions to assertive and non assertive behavior.
They found that even though assertive models were viewed as
skilled and able, they were given lower ratings of
likeability. Further, female assertive behaviors indicated
more negative evaluations than male assertive behaviors.

The majority of studies support sex differences in assertive
behavior, therefore the following hypothesis is warranted.
H6: Male participants will be more assertive than females in

all three countries.

30

Chapter 4

Research Questions

Research Question 1: Are there any significant
differences in verbal aggressiveness among participants in
three countries, China, Japan and the United Status?

Research Question 2: Are there any significant
differences in argumentativeness among participants in three
countries, China, Japan and the United Status?

Research Question 3: Are there any significant
differences in assertiveness among participants in three
countries, China, Japan and the United Status?

Research Question 4: What gender differences exist in
the three communication traits: verbal aggressiveness,
argumentativeness, and assertiveness across three countries?

Research Question 5: What gender, culture, and
interaction differences exists across the three

communication traits?

31

Chapter 5

Methods

Participants from three countries (i.e. China, Japan
and the United States) completed the questionnaire that
included three scales with some demographic questions. The
questionnaires were distributed and self-reported by the
participants. Confirmatory factor analysis, and Pearson
correlations were used to examine the scales, and then
analysis of variance and independent sample t-tests were
used to interpret the data.
Ramsinants

The sample consisted of 666 undergraduate students
from three countries; the People’s Republic of China, Japan
and the United States.

U.S. American participants were 204 undergraduate
students attending a large mid-western university (80 males,
120 females, and 4 were unclassified). American students
were given extra credit for participation in this study.

The Japanese sample consisted of 282 undergraduate
students attending a university located in Tokyo, Japan (106
males, 170 females, and 6 who were unclassified). Japanese

participants in this study were those who agreed to

32

participate voluntarily without any credit or compensation.

The Chinese sample consisted of 180 undergraduate
students, attending a university located in Beijing, China
(78 males, 101 females, and 1 who were unclassified). The
Chinese participants were paid 8 yuan for their completion
of this study.
Procedures

The participants were asked to consent for their
participation in the study and then filled out a
questionnaire that included the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale
(Infante & Wigley, 1986), the Argumentativeness Scale
(Infante & Raner, 1982) and the Assertiveness Scale
(Richmond & McCroskey, 1992) with some demographic
questions. In addition, a research induction which was part
of another study was also administered.

Translation

The questionnaires were translated from English into
the respective languages. To ensure that the translated
questionnaires had equivalence with the original ones, the
method of back translation was followed (Brislin, 1976). The
Japanese and Chinese versions of the questionnaire were

translated by a bilingual and then back translated into

33

English by a second bilingual. Discrepancies between the
original and the English back-translator were reviewed and
then the two translators reviewed the Japanese or Chinese
characters for clarity. These revised questionnaires were
then piloted with a small sample of graduate students from
each of the countries.

Instrumentation

Ihs_yaIhal_Aggrcssixcn§sa_Sgal§t The Verbal Aggressiveness
Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986) that consists of 20 items
including 10 positively worded items and 10 negatively
worded items was employed to measure participants’ trait to
be verbally aggressive. Items were rated on a five point
Likert scale with the larger sums of scores indicating
greater verbal aggressiveness, after reflecting negatively
worded items. Infante and Wigley (1986) reported .81
internal reliability for this scale. Previous studies have
supported the reliability and validity of the scale in the
U.S. (Infante, et al., 1989; Infante & Golden, 1985) and in
Japan (Suzuki & Rancer, 1994).

Ihe_Argnmentatiyenss_$gale* The Argumentativeness Scale
(Infante & Rancer, 1982) is employed to measure
participants’ trait to be argumentative. Eighteen items (out

of 20 original items) were rated on a five point Likert

34

scales with the larger score indicating a greater preference
for either approaching arguments or avoiding arguments.
Infante and Rancer (1982) reported .91 reliability for
argumentative approach items and .86 for argumentative
avoidance items. The reliability and validity of this scale
has been supported by several previous studies in the U.S.
(Infante & Gorden, 1989; Rancer & Infante, 1985; Rancer,
Kosverg, & Baukus, 1992) and Japanese samples (Suzuki &
Rancer, 1994).

Several studies have claimed that the
Argumentativeness Scale is, in fact, unidimensional (Boster
& Levine, 1988; Kazoleas, 1993, Roberto, 1997). Therefore,
this study examined both a unidimensional solution and two-
factor solution for the Argumentativeness scale.
The_Assertiveness_Sgale4 In this study, a 10 item
Assertiveness Scale is employed which is part of Richmond
and McCroskey's (1998) Assertiveness—Responsiveness Measure.
Richmond and McCroskey (1990) reported a reliability of .88
for assertiveness and .93 for responsiveness, and they are
uncorrelated (-. 027). This Assertiveness scale was employed
to measure participant’s trait to be assertive. All items
were rated on a five point Likert scale with the greater

score indicating more assertiveness. Several studies both in

35

the U.S. and in other countries have supported the
reliability and validity of this scale (Thompson, C. A.,
Ishii, S., & Klopf, D., 1990; Thompson, C. A., Klopf, D. W.
& Ishii, S., 1991).

E J' . E J

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982)
was performed on three scales collapsing the country factor.
CFA was used to ensure the validity of the scales, as well
as to test the unidimensionality of the scale across three
countries. This procedure was employed to determine which
items of each scale measure the same construct throughout
three countries. Therefore, CFA analysis was conducted for
three scales separately. Based on the results of the test of
internal consistency, items that do not meet the criteria
for acceptance are deleted from each scale and this CFA
procedure was repeated until acceptable unidimensional
solution was reached. CFA analyses resulted in deleting
several items from each scale.

After performing the CFA procedure, five items
remained to comprise the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale.
Correlations and errors of items from the Verbal
Aggressiveness Scale remaining after tests of internal

consistency are presented in table 1.

36

[Table 1 about here]
Therefore, five items were used to compute the
Verbal Aggressiveness score, with the minimum being 5 and
the maximum being 25 points. The Cronbach alpha reliability
for this measure was .69 (M212.5, SD=3.8).

Originally, the general trait to be argumentative was
considered as a multidimensional model having two factors;
the tendency to approach arguments and the tendency to avoid
arguments. Argumentativeness was conceptualized as the
combination of tendency to approach arguments and tendency
to avoid arguments, as shown in the equation explained on
p.20. However, there are some evidences suggesting that the
Argumentativeness Scale be in fact unidimensional (Boster &
Lavubnem 1988; Kazoleas, 1993; Roberto, Finucase, 1997). As
Roberto and Finucane (1997) argued that, if the
argumentativeness scale is multidimensional, “it is
inappropriate to sum across the items to compute ARth”,
because subtracting ARGav from ARGap means summing up two
unrelated construct (p.22). Therefore, the present study
conducted CFA analyses both for a one-factor solution and a
two-factor solution by reflecting items to see which model
apply for the participants of this study.

CFA analyses revealed that the Argumentativenesss

37

Scale had a two—factor model; the tendency to approach and
the tendency to avoid, which was consistent with the
previous findings (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Rancer & Infante,
1985; Rancer, Kosverg, & Baukus, 1992; Suzuki & Rancer,
1994).

Therefore, the present study measures the trait
argumentativeness using two separate scales, the tendency to
approach arguments (ARGap) and the tendency to avoid
arguments (ARGav).

Again, several items of both factors were deleted
based on the tests of internal consistency. Five items were
left for the ARGap Scale, or the tendency to approach
argument, and four items were left for the ARGav Scale, or
the tendency to avoid arguments. Correlations and errors of
items from the Argumentativeness Scale remaining after tests
of internal consistency are presented in table 2 for ARGap
and table 3 for ARGav.

[Table 2 and table 3 about here]

Five items were summed up to calculate
argumentativeness approach score, the minimum being 5 and
the maximum being 25, and also four items for the tendency
to avoid, the minimum being 5 and the maximum being 20. The

Cronbach alpha reliability was .80(M=10.7, SD=3.6) for the

38

ARGap Scale, and .83 (M=15.1, SD=3.9) for the ARGav Scale
(Cronbach, 1951).

Finally for the Assertiveness Scale, four items were
kept after performing CFA procedures. Correlations and
errors of items from the Assertiveness Scale left after
tests of internal consistency are presented in table 4.

[Table 4 about here]

Four items were summed up to have an assertiveness
score, the minimum being 5 and the maximum being 20. The
Cronbach alpha reliability was .80 (M=10.9, SD=4.3)
(Cronbach, 1951).

Therefore, this study actually deals with four scales,
Verbal Aggressiveness, Argumentativeness-Approach (ARGap),

Argumentativenee-Avoidance (ARGav), and Assertiveness.

39

Chapter 6

Results
Scalflntemrrelatinns

Pearson correlations were computed among the three
scales to ascertain whether they were measuring what they
are supposed to measure.

[Table 5 about here]

Verbal aggressiveness and both ARGap and ARGav are
expected to correlate negatively, because verbal
aggressiveness is differentiated from an argumentative
approach and also a argumentative avoidance. Verbal
aggressiveness is correlated positively with ARGap(r =.128,
p<.01), and positively with Assertiveness(r=.088, p<.05) as
expected, but also positively with ARGav(r=.153, p<.01)
which was not expected.

Assertiveness is expected to correlate positively with
ARGap and negatively with ARGav and positively with verbal
aggressiveness. The results showed that Assertiveness is
correlated positively with ARGap(r=.263, p<.01) and
correlated negatively with ARGav(r=-.147, p<.01) as

expected. As expected, ARGap and ARGap were highly

40

negatively correlated(r=-.459, p<.01), which was the largest
intercorrelation among four scales.

The only unexpected correlation was the one between
Verbal Aggressiveness and ARG-avoidance. However, we might
be able to reason that both avoidance and verbal
aggressiveness were associated with one’s inability to argue
by logic, or reasoning. Because people are not competent in
argument in some situations, they tend to appeal to
avoidance and maybe verbal aggression. This correlation
hints to us that avoidance strategy is associated with
verbal aggressiveness in some way. Overall these
correlation figures were small enough in magnitude to
conclude that the scales were measuring different
constructs, though there are some overlaps.

First of all, the descriptive statistics (i.e. Means,
Standard Deviations, and Sample Size.) for four scales, the
Verbal Aggressiveness, the ARGap Scale, the ARGav scale and
the Assertiveness scale are examined. The means of all four
scales was displayed for the three countries combined,
sorted by three countries, and sorted by countries and by
sex.

[Table 6, 7, 8 and 9 about here]

41

Inn;may_ANQEA_rssults_snuntr¥_hx_ssx

To examine country and sex main effect and country by
sex interaction effect, a two-way analysis of variance was
conducted. Results of the Two-way analysis of variance are
presented in table 10, 12, 14, and 16. Line graphs of the
mean score for all four scales sort by both country and sex
are presented in figure 1-4.

Ths_ysrbal_Assressiysnsss_Scalei TWO-way ANOVA results for

the Verbal Aggressiveness showed a significant interaction
effect (F[2, 628]=11.297, p<.0001, n2=.o23), with main
effects for country (F[2,628]=135.103, p<.0001, n2=.28) and

sex (F[1,628]=21.21, P<.0001, n2=.022). This interaction
effect shows that the sex difference in U.S. is greater than
in Japan and China, as clearly shown in figure 1.

[Table 10, Figure 1 about here]
W In order to find out
which country caused this difference, the independent sample
t-tests for each. pair of countries were conducted. The
verbal aggressiveness scores for Chinese (M=15.66, SD=2.918)
are significantly higher than those for Americans (M=12.36,

SD

3.569) and Japanese (M=10.62, SD=2.951). Also, scores

for Americans are significantly higher than their Japanese

42

counterparts.
[Table 11 about here]
Ibe_ARGap_§gale* Two-way ANOVA results for the ARGap showed

a significant interaction effect (F[2, 628]=12.998 p<.0001,
n2=.038), with main effects for country (F[2,628]=11.965,
p<.0001, n2=.035) and sex (F[1,628]=10.189, P<.001,

n2=.015). As clearly shown in figure 2, there is no
interaction effect between Japan and China. What drives this
interaction effect is the sex difference in the U.S. and its
relation with Japan and China.

[Table 12, Figure 2 about here]
W In order to find out
which country caused this difference, independent sample t-
tests for each pair of country were conducted. The
argumentativeness approach score for Japanese (M=15.85,
SD=3.922) was significantly higher than those for Americans
(M=15.02, SD= 3.973) and Chinese (M=l4.04, SD=3.350). Also,
scores for Americans are significantly higher than Chinese
counterparts.

[Table 13 about here]
Ihe_AE§a_y_§_c:_a.J.§_L Two-way ANOVA results for the ARGav showed

a significant interaction effect (F[2, 628]=9.031, p<.0001,

43

112:.021), with main effects for country (F[2,628]=82.064,
p<.0001, n2=.19) and sex (F[1,628]=39.031, p<.0001,

n2=.045). Similar to the ARGap and shown clearly in figure
3, there is IN) or little interaction effect between Japan
and China. What drives this interaction effect is the sex
difference in the ‘U.S. and. its relation. with. Japan. and
China.

[Table 14, Figure 3 about here]
I:tsst_results_of_sach_conntrx_nairi In order to see which
country caused this difference, the independent sample t-
test for each pair of countries were conducted. The
argumentativeness avoidance score for Chinese (M=12.35,
SD=2.891) was significantly higher than for Americans
(M=11.62, SD: 3.604) and for Japanese (M=8.791, SD=3.090).
Also, scores for Americans are significantly higher than
their Japanese counterparts.

[Table 15 about here]

The—AssertilsnesLSsalei Two-way ANOVA results for the

Assertiveness showed a significant interaction effect (F[2,
628]=4.768, p<. 01, n2=.01), with main effects for country
(F[2,628]=176.077, p<.0001, n2=.36) and sex
(F[1,628]=12.836, p<.0001, n2=.013). There are slight

44

interaction effects, whioh might be caused the sex
differences between the U.S. and China.

[Table 16, Figure 4 about here]
I;test_results_gf_§agh_gguntry;pairg The results of a series
of independent sample t-test revealed that the assertiveness
score for .American. (M=14.36, SD=3.611) are significantly
higher' than. those for .Japanese (M=10.27, SD: 3.540) and
Chinese (M=8.111, SD=3.290). Also, the scores for Japanese
are significantly higher than the Chinese scores.

[Table 17 about here]
W
I;t§sts_between_gguntry* Male and female scores of the four
scales were compared by independent sample t-tests
collapsing the country factor. The results of t-tests are
presented in Table 18.

The results indicated that male participants were
significantly more aggressive than female participants
across the three countries (t=4.789, p<. 0001). As for
ARGap, the male participants scored significantly higher
than female participants across the three countries
(t=2.744, p< .006). In comparison, the male participants
scored significantly less on ARGav than female participants

across three countries (t=-5.080, p< .0001). Lastly, male

45

participants were significantly more assertive than female
participants (t=2.852, p<. 004).

[Table 18 about here]
I;tests_within_gguntryé T-tests to compare the mean scores
of male and female in each country were conducted.

T-test of four scales comparing the means scores of
the male and female participants in the United States
yielded all significant results. The significant sex
differences were displayed in the Verbal Aggressiveness
Scale(t=5.424, p<.0001), the ARGap scale(t=5.795, p<.0001),
the ARGap scale(t=-.6.491, p<.0001), and the Assertiveness
Scale(t=4.437, p<.0001).

[Table 19 about here]

As for Japan, the Verbal Aggressiveness score showed
significant difference (t=3.596, p<.0001). Also,
significant differences were displayed in ARGap (t=—3.011,
p<. 01) and Assertiveness scale (t=2.308, p<.05). Therefore,
except for the ARGap scale, three other scales showed
significant sex difference.

[Table 20 about here]

As for the Chinese, there are no significant

differences on all four scales.

[Table 21 about here]

46

Chapter 7

Discussion

The results of this study showed that there exist
differences in aggressive communication traits among three
countries; the People’s Republic of China, Japan and the
United States. Some of these findings are consistent with
former findings and others are not.

As for Verbal Aggressiveness, Chinese participants
scored highest, followed by American and Japanese
participants. Although previous studies have shown no
difference on verbal aggressive communication traits between
Japanese and Americans (Harman, Klopf, and Ishii, 1990), the
present study revealed that Americans are more verbally
aggressive than Japanese, with Chinese being more verbally
aggressive than either Americans or Japanese. Interestingly,
Chinese males and females showed no significant difference
in verbal aggressiveness, while Japanese males and American
males are more verbally aggressive than Japanese females and
American females. The results for these two constructs are
consistent with the previous studies which concluded that
males tend to be more verbally aggressive than females in

the U.S. (Burgoon & Miller, 1983; Infante et al., 1984;

47

Infante & Wigley, 1986; Nicotera & Rancer, 1994) and in
Japan (Harman, Klopf, and Ishii, 1990), though not in China.

Former studies found that Americans are more
argumentative than Japanese (Prunty, Klopf, and Ishii,
1990a, 1990b), Japanese participants in this study were
found to have a higher tendency to approach argument (ARGap)
than either American or Chinese participants. However, the
highest mean score for ARGap was obtained from American
males (M=16.91, SD=3.464), and lowest score was from
American females (M=13.80, SD=3.834). Therefore as a
country, the overall Japanese mean (M=15.85) was higher than
the overall American mean (M=15.80), because the American
females lowered the mean of the US data. Interestingly, both
in the Japanese and the Chinese data, no significant sex
differences were displayed, while American males scored
significantly higher than American females. It can be
assumed that sex role is still reinforced among the
participants in the U.S.

The results for ARGav were consistent with the results
of ARGap. Chinese scored highest on ARGav, followed by
Americans and Japanese, which showed clear contrast with the
result of ARGap. Japanese scored high on approach and low on

avoidance and verbal aggressiveness. It can be said that, at

48

least for the particiapnts of this study, Japanese are in
fact very argumentative, though not verbally aggressive. In
contrast, the Chinese data was low on approach and high on
avoidance and verbal aggression. Both Japanese and Chinese
are described as valuing harmony and expected to avoid
argument; however, they showed characteristic differences,
which suggests the necessity of further research to
understand these communication behaviors.

Again, significant sex differences is indicated in the
American and the Japanese data, while no sex difference was
found for the Chinese participants of this study. Another
interesting finding is that American females scored highest
among the entire group on the ARGav scale (M=12.86,
SD=3.497), while Japanese males scored lowest (M=8.068,
SD=3.246). This indicates that American females tends avoid
arguments more than other groups and Japanese males
indicates their willingness to engage in arguments more than
other groups.

American participants were found to be more assertive
than either Japanese or Chinese, and Japanese participants
were more assertive than Chinese participants. The data was
consistent with previous studies showed that Americans are

more assertive than Japanese (Barnland, 1975; Barnland &

49

Araki, 1985; Nomura & Barnland, 1983; Itoi, Ohibushi, and
Fukuno, 1996; Ohbuchi & Takahashi, 1994; Thompson, Klopf, &
Ishii, 1991). Thompson, Klopf, and Ishii (1990) utilized
Richmond and McCroskey’s (1985) assertiveness scales, and
compared Japanese and Americans assertiveness-
responsiveness. In the replication of Thompson, Klopf, and
Ishii (1991), their finding was consistent, Americans are
highly more assertive, while Japanese were moderately so.

An interesting contrast is that Chinese scored lowest on the
Assertiveness scale (M=8.111, SD=3.290), even though they
scored highest on the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale (M=15.66,
SD=2.918). Inconsistent with Anderson, et al. (1997),
Chinese females are not significantly different from Chinese
males on their assertiveness scores. Again, American males
were significantly higher than American females and so are
Japanese participants.

Hamid (1994) argued that there is a danger in assuming
nonassertiveness as maladaptive in cross-cultural
counseling. Hamid (1994) argues that “assertiveness is
generally linked to healthy personality adjustment in
Western psychology”, but in China (Hong Kong), “people are
expected to be deferent to authority (p.127)". Because of

its social norm, and political situation, Chinese people put

50

more emphasis on conformity to others and maintenance of
harmonious relations, which might lead to non-assertive
behavior.

It is interesting if we focus this sex difference
within country. The largest significant sex differences were
found in American data. As for Japanese, significant sex
differences were found in three scales except the ARGap
scale, though not as significant as the American
counterpart. Interestingly, no sex differences were evident
among all four scales with Chinese data. As clearly shown in
the four figures, we can see the larger sex differences in
the American data. How can that be explained? Is there
something in individualism that reinforces sex differences?
Several researchers claimed that the language silence women
(Key, 1975; Lakoff, 1975), as the English language itself
favors men placing women on the negative end of continuum
(Kaplan, 1986, Spender, 1980).

Inconsistent with Anderson, et al. (1997), Chinese
females are not significantly different from Chinese males
on their assertiveness scores. Again, American males were
significantly higher than American females and so are
Japanese participants.

Hamid (1994) argued that there is a danger in assuming

51

 

nonassertiveness as maladaptive in cross-cultural
counseling. Hamid (1994) argues that “assertiveness is
generally linked to healthy personality adjustment in
Western psychology”, but in China (Hong Kong), “people are
expected to be deferent to authority (p.127)”. Because of
its social norm, and political situation, Chinese people put
more emphasis on conformity to others and maintenance of
harmonious relations, which might lead to non-assertive
behavior.

I' . I'

The finding of this study considered several
limitations. A first problem is the measurements of this
study. The instruments may be culturally biased. When scales
are administered to people from different cultural
backgrounds, assumptions that underlie items might not hold
true. Across cultures, for example, what Americans
understands as verbally aggressive may have little overlap
with what Japanese and Chinese perceive. Other sampling
problem is that all the subjects recruited in this study are
students, as with most of previous studies in general.
Students as subjects make the population limited in terms of
region, age, and socio—economical status. This should be

one caution for generalization. Lastly, sex research has

52

 

been of great interest to many researchers. According to the
meta-analysis of Canary and Hause (1993), however, there are
virtually no sex differences and sex differences are mostly
moderated by a number of factors. Canary and Hause (1993)
warned that we rely too much on stereotypes and caused
polarization of sexes, and called for more theory on sex and
communication. It is suggested psychological and
sociological gender should be used rather than biological
sex (Canary & Hause, 1993; Dubrin, 1991).

A second possible problem is other mediating factors.
The biggest problem of all is the social desirability bias
(Nicotera, 1990). Nicotera(1993) examined the relationship
between argumentativeness and social desirability biases.
Nicotera (1993) observed that sex difference diminished
after removing social desirability biases and suggested
future research of the effect of social desirability.
Especially, in intercultural research, social desirability
bias complicates data, because socially desirable behavior
itself differs between cultures and also some countries
focus more on socially desirable activities than others.

Hamid (1994) argues that in the U.S. assertiveness is
seen as one character of a well—adjusted person, while in

China, non-assertiveness is more socially desirable. As he

53

 

points out, the communicative behavior valued in one culture
is not always valued in the same way in another culture. The
finding of this study calls for more research on cross-
cultural differences in the meaning of aggression and
aggressive behavior including verbal aggressiveness,
argumentativeness and assertiveness.

Another important mediating factor is situation. Trait
theorists have been criticized by situationists. Traits of
one's behavior are studied with the assumption that our
behavior is somewhat consistent across situations. People
tend to use the expression like “she is like that” or “he is
not usually like this”. This view is based on the trait
theories. On the other hand, situationists contend that we
behave differently across situations, and situations will
determine our behaviors. The argument is over to what extent
our behavior can be explained by our traits and or by
situations. This view of including both individual’s traits
and situational variables is called the interaction approach
(Infante, et al. 1990, 1993). It has been recommended that
communication research should take an interaction approach
(Andersen, 1987; Infante, 1987). It is argued that Infante
and Rancer’s (1982) model of argumentativeness takes an

interactionist position in that it includes influences of

54

 

situational variables. This study, however, takes the traits
approach, in that it measured aggressive communication
traits of people from three countries. Therefore future
study can examine the aggressive communication behavior
taking situation specific factors into consideration.

Actually, not so many studies have been done in
Mainland China because of its past political situation.
Those previous studies that are mentioned in this study for
Chinese were mostly conducted in Hong Kong, Taiwan or
Singapore. Thus, more research about Mainland China would be
very beneficial in cross-cultural research. Japan and China,
both classified as collectivistic cultures, showed
significant differences in their communication traits. As we
see from the significant differences between Japan and
China, countries classified as collectivistic can exhibit
differences and need to be examined further.

Investigating the effect of culture and the
respondents’ gender on aggressive communication traits
yielded several important findings. This study provided an
attempt to understand three aggressive communication traits
(i.e. Verbal Aggressiveness, Argumentativeness Approach and
Avoidance, and Assertiveness) of three countries, China,

Japan and the U.S. Hopefully, the results might help us to

55

 

have a better understanding of cultural differences in

communication behavior in arguing situation.

56

REFERENCES

57

References

Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1978). Xgur_perfegt

righti_A_guide_to_asssrtixe_hshayior. San Luis Obispo, CA
Impact Publishers.

Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Zhong, M., & West, D.
(1997). Reliability, separation of factors, and sex
differences on the assertiveness-responsiveness measure: A

Chinese sample. Cnmmunication_Rsssarsh_RsnsrtsI_14. 58-64.

Anderson, P. A. (1987). The trait debate: A critical
examination of the individual differences paradigm in
interpersonal communication. In E. Dervin & M. J. Voigt

(Eds.). Progrsss_in_communication_ssiences (Vol.7, pP-47-
52.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Barnland. D. (1975). 2ubIic_and_nrirats_sslf_in_ianan
and_ths_united_Statss- Tokyo, Japan: Simul PreSS-

Barnland, D., & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural
encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and

Americans. Qournal_of_Cross:Cultural_£s¥sholos¥+_1§. 9-26.

Bayer, C. L. & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Trait verbal
aggressiveness and arugmentativeness: relations with

Parenting style. flsstsrn_Qournal_of_CQmmunisationx_56. 301-
310.

Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K.C.(1982). The social
impact of self-effacing attributions: The Chinese case. The

Journal_of_Social_Es¥sholog¥x_llfl. 157-166.

Boster, F. J., & Levine, T. (1988). Individual
differences and compliance gaining message selection: The
effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness,

dogmatism. and negativism. Communication_Rsssarsh_RenQrtsi
5, 114-119.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of
research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.).

Eisld_msthods_in_cross;sultnral_rsssarch (pp.155-169).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

58

Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1983). An expectancy
interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R.

St. Clair (Eds.), Rsssnt_adMancss_in_languassr_communisation
and_sogial_psyghglggy.(pp. 199-229) London: Erlbaum.

Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any
reason to research sex difference in communication?

Communisation_0uartsrlxr_41. 129-144.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the
internal structure of tests. Psychometrikar_1§, 297—334.

Delameter, R. J., & McNamara, R. R. (1991).
Perceptions of assertiveness by women involved in a conflict

situation. BehaMior_Modifisationi_151211 173-193.

Dubrin, A. J. (1991). Sex and gender differences in

tactics of influence. Esyghglggigal_3epgrtsL_§8, 635—646.

Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., & Stutman, R. K. (1993).

Horkins_through_conflisti_12nd_sdil. New York: Harper

Collins.

Geen, R. G., & Donnerstein, E. L. (Eds.) (1983).

Assrsssioni_Ihsorstital_and_smnirisal_re112ws_Ileill. New

York: Academic Press.

Geertz, C. L. (1973). Ihs_intsrnrstation_sf_culture.

New York: Basic Books.

Gudykunst, W. E., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T.

(1996). Communications_in_psrsonal_relationshins_across
cultures; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B.,& Matsumoto, Y.(1996). Cross-cultural
Variability of Communication in Personal Relationships. In
W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.),

I O O I
01111.. o. .0 O 9‘ .090. ‘ o. ,OQ‘Q 0‘ ._ .“ . .‘,

(pp. 19-56)Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond_§ulture. New York:
Doubleday.

Hamid, P. N. (1994). Assertiveness and personality

dimensions in Chinese students. Bsygholggigal_RepQrtst_lir
59

127-130.

Harman, C. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990).
Verbal aggression among Japanese and American students.

Esrcsntual_and_Motor_Skillsi_19.1130.

Hofstede, G. (1980/1984). Culture:s.§onssqnensesi
IntsrnatiQnal_diffsrencss_in_nsrk;relatsd_ralnss. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures
in fifty countries and three regions. In J. Deregowski, S.

quirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds.), Explisations_in_sross;
cultural_nsxchologxi (pp. 335-355) Lisse, The Netherlands:

Swets & Seitlinger.

Hofstede, G., & Bond,M.(1984). Hofstede’s Culture
dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value

survey. Jonrnal_of_Cross:Cultural_ns¥sholos¥i_15. 417-433.

Hofstede. G. (1991). Culturss_and_organizationsi
Softwars_of_ths_mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of Individualism—
Collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal

of_CrQss;Cultural_£s¥cholos¥i_11. 225-248.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional
measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal
models.In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cunnings (Eds.), researgh_in
Qrsanization_Bshaxior_lei4 (pp.267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Infante, D. A. (1987). Enhancing the prediction of
response to a communication situation from communication

traits. Communication_Quarterl¥i_35. 305-316.

Infante, D. A. (1989). Response to high
argumentatives: Message and sex differences. Southern
Communicatinn_lnurnali_54. 159-170.

Infante, D. A., & Golden, W. I. (1985). Superiors’
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness as predictors of

subordinates’ satisfaction. Communication_Quartsrl¥+_31. 81-
9o.

60

Infante, D. A., & Golden, W. I. (1989).
Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as
predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with

subordinates. Human_Communisation_3sssarshr_12. 117-125.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A
conceptualization and measure of argumentativenes. Journal

W: 72'80-

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996).
Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of
recent theory and research. In B. R. Burleson. & A. W.

Kunkle. (Eds.), Communication_1earbook_12 (pp.319-352).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A. Rancer, A. S. & Womack, D. F. (1993).

Building_sommunisstion_theor¥_12nd_Edil PrOSPeCt Hights,
IL: Waveland.

Infante, D. A., Trebing, J. D. Shepherd, P. E. &
Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of argumentativeness

to verbal aggression Southsrn_Snsssh_Communication_flournalr
5o, 67- 77.

Infante, D. A., Wall, C. H., Leap, C. J., & Danielson,
K. (1984). Verbal Aggression as a function of the receiver’s

argumentativeness. Communication_Ressarch_Renortsr_1. 33-37.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal
aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure.

Communication_Monogranhsr_53. 61-69.

Itoi, R., Ohibushi, K., & Fukuno, M. (1996). A cross-
cultural study of preference of accounts: Relationship
closeness, harm severity, and motives of account making.

Journal_of_Annlisd_Social_Bs¥cholog¥i_2§, 913-934.
Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness

on resistance to persuasion. Human_Communisation_Rsssarchi
29, 118-137.

Kaplan, C. (1986). ssa_changesi_sssars_on_culturs_and
fominismr London : Verso.

61

Kelly, J. A., Kern, J. M., Kirkley, B. G., Patterson,
J. N., & Keanse, T. M. (1980). Reactions to assertive versus
unassertive behavior: Differential effects for males and
females and implications for assertiveness training.

Beharior_1hsranxi_ll. 670-682.

Key. R. M. (1975). MaleLfsmale_languagsi_with_a
CQmprohonsiyo_bibliograohyr Metuchen, N.J.:Scarecrow Press.

Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the
perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human

Communication_RessarshI_21. 128-151.

Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural
comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communioation

MQnQQIaDth_§l, 210-235-

Kinney, T. A. (1994). An inductively derived typology
of verbal aggression and its association to distress. Human

Communication_3essarshr_21. 183-222.

Lakoff, T. R. (1975). Languags_and_woman1s_21acs. New
York : Harper & Row.

Leonard, R. (1995). “I’m just a girl who can’t say
‘no’”: A gender difference in children’s perceptions of

refusals. Eeminism_and_2s¥chologxr_5, 315-328.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1996). Communication
traits: A cross-generalization investigation. Communroarion

Research_Renortsi_13. 58-67.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1996). Intoroultural
communisation_in_contextss Mountain View, California:
Mayfield Publishing Company.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982).
Eundamsntals_of_human_sommunication. Prospect Heights, IL:

Waveland Press.S

Nicotera, A. M.(1996). An assessment of the
argumentativeness scale for social desirability bias.

Communication_8snortsi_2. 23-35.
Nicotera, A. M., Rancer, A. S. (1994). The influence

62

of sex of self-perceptions and social stereotyping of

aggressive communication predispositions. flootorn_Journal_of
communication1_58. 283-307.

Nomura, N., & Barnland, D. (1983). Patterns of
interpersonal criticism in Japan and the United States.

Intsrnational_Journal_of_Intsrcultural_Relations1_1. 1- 17

Ohbuchi, K., & Takahashi, Y. (1994). Cultural styles
of conflict management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity,
covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal_of

Apnlisd.$oc1a1_2s¥sholog¥1_24, 1345-1366.

Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990a).
Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to

approach and avoid conflict. Communication_Rsssarch_Rsnorts1
1, 75-79.

Prunty, A. M. Klopf, D. M. & Ishii, S. (1990b).
Japanese and American tendencies to argue. Esyohologioal

Reports1_6§. 802.

Rancer, A. S., & Burkus, R. A. (1987). Discriminating
males and females on belief structures about arguing. In L.
B. Nadler, M. K. Nadler, & W, R. Todd- Mancillas (Eds. ),

AdMancss_in_gsndsr_and_communication_rsssarsh (pp. 155- 173).

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Rancer, A. M., & Dierks-Stewart, K. J. (1985). The
influence of sex and sex-role orientation on trait

argumentativeness, Qournal_of_Psrsonalit¥_Assessmsnts1_49,
69-70.

Rancer, A. M., & Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations
between motivation to argue and the argumentativeness of

adversaries. Communisation10uarterl¥1_33, 209-218.

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_Education1_41. 375-387.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985/1992)

I O O C U
C . ‘ - - . ‘ . a- A - ---
.IIII U ' .. e . C 9- .. v . v. 2.

Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

63

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability
and separation of factors on the assertiveness-responsive

measure. Psxchological_3snorts1_§1. 449-450

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998).

I 0 I O
.IHI.l 0. 0!‘ #0.. ‘0‘0‘ .0 o. 0 0.2! ‘ a... ‘ ‘ ‘!‘_.

lEifith_oditionL. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Roberto, A. J., & Finucane, M. (1997). The assessment
of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in adolescent

pepulations. Communisation_0uartsrl¥1_45. 21-36.

Roloff, M. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1979). Sex
differences in choice of modes of conflict resolution in

real-life and television. Communroarion_Quarrorlyr_21, 3-12.

Samover, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1994). An
introduction to intercultural communication. In L. A.

Samovar. & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intsrcultural_communisation1
a_roador (p.4-26). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Sanders, J. A., Gass, R. H., Wiseman, R. L., &
Bruschke, J. C. (1992). Ethnic Comparison and measurement of
argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and need for

cognition. Communication_Reports1_5, 50-56.

Schultz, E., & Anderson, J. (1984). Training in the
management of conflict: A communication theory perspective.

.Small_Group_Bshayior1_15. 333-348.

Spender, D. (1980). Man_mado_languagor Boston
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sue, D., Ino, S., & Sue, D.M. (1983). Nonassertiveness
of Asian Americans: An inaccurate assumption? Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 30, 581-588.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1977). Barriers to effective

cross-cultural counseling. Journal_of_Counssling_Esxchologr1
23, 420-429.

Sueda, K., & Wiseman, R. (1992). Embarrassment
remediation in Japan and the United States. lntornational

64

Journal_of_Intsrcultural_Rslations1_18121. 193-219.

Thompson, C. A., Ishii, S., & Klopf, D. (1990).
Japanese and Americans compared on assertiveness

/re8ponsiveness. Psxchologisal_rsnorts1_66. 829-830.

Thompson, C. A., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1991). A
comparison of social style between Japanese and Americans.

Communication_Research_Reports1_8, 165-172.

Ting—Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles:
A face-negotiation theory. In Y.Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.),

Iheoriss_1n_1ntsrsultural_communication1(pp. 213-235).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim,
H. S., Lin, 8., and Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face
maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict:
a study in five cultures. Iha_lntornational_flournal_ofi
Conflict_Management1_2. 275-296.

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs.
Individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in
cross-cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.),

Cross;cultural_stud1ss_of_nersonalit¥1_att1tudss1_and
oognition_(pp.70-95). London: Macmillan.

Triandis, H. c. (1995). Indiridualism_&_Collectiyism.

San Francisco, CA: Westview Press

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai,
M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism:
Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relations.

1ournal_of_Psrsonal1tM_and_Social_£s¥sholog¥1_54. 323-338.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990).
Multimethods probes of individualism and collectivism.

Qournal_of_Rsrsonal1tx_and1Social_£s¥sholog¥1_52. 1006-1020.

Wall, J. E., & Holden, E. W. (1994). Aggressive,
assertive, and submissive behaviors in disadvantaged, inner-
city preschool children. Qournal_of_§linioal_ghild
Esrcholog¥1_23, 382-390.

Wildman, B. G., & Clements, B. (1986). Assertive,

65

empathic assertive, and conversational behavior: perception
of likability, effectiveness and sex role. Bohauior
Modification1_19. 315-331.

Zane, N. S., Sue, S., Hu, L., & Kwon, J. H.(l991).
Asian-American assertion: A social learning analysis of

cultural differences. Qournal_of_counssling_ns¥sholog¥1_38.
63-70.

66

APPENDICES

67

Appendix A

Tables

68

Tables 1: Correlations and errors of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale items
left after the test of Internal Consistency*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 11 13 16 19
7 .01 -.04 -.04 .00
11 .33 -.03 .02 -.01
13 .22 .38 .01 -.01
16 .27 .28 .24 .01
19 .32 .44 .34 .27
F 50 68 .52 45 64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Bold numbers are the indicators in the original scale.
*The numbers in the lower triangle are obtained correlations. The numbers in the

upper triangle with italicized figures represent errors. Errors are calculated by the
subtraction of obtained correlation from predicted correlation.

69

Tables 2: Correlations and errors of the ARGap Scale items left after the
test of Internal Consistency*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 12 14 15 18
6 .01 -.03 -.01 .00
12 .34 -.03 .02 -.03
14 .44 .55 .00 .02
15 .44 .53 .64 -.03
18 .38 .51 .54 .63
F 53 67 .78 83 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Bold numbers are the indicators in the original scale.
*The numbers in the lower triangle are obtained correlations. The numbers in the

upper triangle with italicized figures represent errors. Errors are calculated by the
subtraction of obtained correlation from predicted correlation.

70

Tables 3: Correlations and errors of the ARGav Scale items left after the
test of lntemal Consistency*

 

 

 

 

3 11 17 13
3 .00 -.03 .02
11 .47 .02 -.02
17 .54 .50 .01

 

13 .46 .52 .52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Bold numbers are the indicators in the original scale.
*The numbers in the lower triangle are obtained correlations. The numbers in the

upper triangle with italicized figures represents errors. Errors are calculated by
the subtraction of obtained correlation from predicted correlation.

71

Tables 4: Correlations and errors of the Assertiveness Scale items left after
the test of Internal Consistency*

 

 

 

 

6 8 9 10
6 - 02 .00 01
8 .58 .01 -.04
9 60 .62 - 02

 

10 .46 .50 .55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Bold numbers are the indicators in the original scale.
*The numbers in the lower triangle are obtained correlations. The numbers in the

upper triangle with italicized figures represent errors. Errors are calculated by the
subtraction of obtained correlation from predicted correlation.

72

Table 5: Scale Intercorrelations of four scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGGRESS ARGap ARGap ASSERT
AGGRESS 1 .000
ARGap ".128 1 .000
ARGav **.1 53 **-.459 1 .000
ASSERT *.088 ”.263 **-.147 1 .000

 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

73

 

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size)
of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std .' Dev. N
U.S. overall 12.36 3.56 220
male 13.94 3.39 79
female 1 1.33 3.83 1 19
Japan overall 10.65 2.95 278
male 11.39 3.41 140
female 10.09 2.52 168
China overall 15.66 2.91 180
male 15.42 3.12 101
female 15.79 2.71 78
Three overall 12.53 3.75 660
countries
Combined
male 13.37 3.72 261
female 1 1.95 3.65 388

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This scale’s maximum total score is 25, minimum being 5.

74

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size)
of ARGap Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. Dev. N
U.S. overall 15.02 3.97 200
male 16.91 3.46 79
female 13.80 3.83 1 19
Japan overall 15.85 3.92 270
male 15.80 3.97 104
female 15.88 3.91 165
China overall 14.04 3.35 180
male 13.98 3.59 78
female 14.01 3.10 101
Three overall 15.09 3.85 650
countries
Combined
male 15.59 3.87 261
female 14.75 3.81 385

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This scale’s maximum total score is 25 minimum being 5.

75

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size)
of the ARGav Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. Dev. N
U.S. overall 11.62 3.69 202
male 9.75 2.98 79
female 12.86 3.49 120
Japan overall 8.791 3.09 268
male 8.068 3.24 102
female 9.22 2.91 165
China overall 12.35 2.89 180
male 12.10 3.02 78
female 12.58 2.76 101
Three overall 10.65 3.58 645
countries
Combined
male 9.79 3.51 259
female 1 1.23 3.52 386

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This scale’s maximum total score is 20 minimum being 4.

76

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation, and Sample Size)
of the Assertiveness Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Std. Dev. N
U.S. overall 14.36 3.611 202
male 15.71 2.98 80
female 13.50 3.675 1 19
Japan overall 10.27 3.54 272
male 10.89 3.444 104
female 9.880 3.56 167
China overall 8.1 1 1 3.29 180
male 7.974 3.47 78
female 8.099 2.94 101
Three overall 10.91 4.25 649
countries
Combined
male 1 1.49 4.51 262
female 10.52 4.03 387

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This scale’s maximum total score is 20 minimum being 4.

77

Table 10: Two-way ANOVA results of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

country by sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGRESS :quu'grgg Of 533:; F Sig. 112
Country 2428.341 2 1241.171 135.103 .000 .273
Sex 194.873 1 194.873 21.212 .000 .022
“£31 by 207.588 2 103.783 11.297 .000 .023
Residual 5723.419 823 9.187
Total 8893.872 828 14.182

 

 

Table 1 1: T-test result of the Verbal Aggressiveness scales comparing
three pairs of countries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T score Df Sig.
“use? -.....
vséilianrin -1 1889 456 .000

 

 

 

78

 

Table 12: Two-way ANOVA results of the ARGap Scale country by sex

 

Sum of Mean . 2
ARGAP Squares Df Square F S'g' '1

Country 327.866 2 163.933 11.965 .000 .035

 

 

 

Sex 139.179 1 139.179 10.198 .001 .015
“”823 by 358.179 2 178.089 12.998 .000 .038

 

Residual 8536.006 623 13.701

 

 

Total 9348.754 628 14.887

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13: T-test result of the ARGap scales comparing three three pairs of
countries

 

 

 

 

T score 01 Sig.
”33.535323” 12335 “2 ‘°°°
..
vségilnpaan 65“ 450 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

 

 

Table 14: Two-way ANOVA results of the ARGap scale country by sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARGav 88:02:; Df Shcdifizre F Sig. Ti 2
Country 1588.145 2 784.072 82.084 .000 .193
Sex 327.912 1 372.912 39.030 .000 .040
muggy by 172.583 2 88.281 45.384 .000 .021
Residual 5952.382 823 9.554
Total 8119.485 828 12.929

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15: T-test result of the ARGav scales comparing three three pairs of
countries

 

 

 

 

 

T score Df Sig.

United States 9.170 468 .000
vs.Japan

United States -2.140 380 .033
vs. China

China -12.260 446 .000
vs.Japan

 

 

 

 

 

80

Table 16: Two-way ANOVA results of the Assertiveness Scale country by
sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSERT Ssquu'grgg Df sac/:32; F Sig. 11’
Country 4139.078 2 2089.538 178.077 .000 .358
Sex 150.885 1 150.885 12.838 .000 .013
muggy by 112.080 2 58.040 4.788 .009 .010
Residual 7322.481 623 11.754
Total 11817.701 628 18.500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17: T-test result of the Assertiveness Scale comparing three three
pairs of countries

 

 

 

 

T score 01‘ Sig.
Unlted States -2.261 468 .024
vs. Japan
United States
vs. China 2'5” 372 '010
China
vs. Japan 5070 448 .000

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

Table 18: T-test results of four scales between males and females across
three countries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T score Df Sig.

Aggress 4.789 647 .000
ARGap 2.744 644 .006
ARGav -5.080 643 .000
Assert 2.852 647 .004

 

 

 

 

82

Table 19: T-test results of four scales between males and females in the
United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U. S. T score Df Sig.
Aggress 5.424 198 .000
ARGap 5.795 196 .000
ARGav -6.491 197 .000

Assert 4.437 197 .000

 

 

Table 20: T-test results of four scales between males and females In Japan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Japan T score Df Sig.
Aggress 3.596 270 .000
ARGap -.1 57 267 .876
ARGav -3.01 1 265 .003

Assert 2.308 269 .022

 

 

 

Table 21: T-test results of four scales between males and females in China

 

 

 

 

 

 

China T score Df Sig.
Aggress -.844 1 17 .400
ARGap -.065 1 17 .948
ARGav -1.110 117 .269

Assert -.260 1 17 .795

 

 

 

 

83

 

 

 

Appendix B

Figures

84

Figure1: Line graph of mean scores for the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale by
country and sex

 

l
l
/'

13«

124

 

 

 

 

(I)

(1)

LL!

8:9 111 SEX

$2 "

E 104 ' male
0

E 9 . ‘ female

US JAPAN CHINA

 

COUNTRY

Figure2: Line graph of mean scores for the ARGap Scale by country and
sex

17.5

 

17.01

 

16.5-

16.0 -

 

15.54

15.0«

14.5 1

14.0 1

 

 

Mean ARG AP

13.5 i -
us JAPAN CHINA

 

COUNTRY

85

Figure 3: Line graph of mean scores for the ARGav Scale by country and
sex

 

 

a .5
O) -F
_ - - ...._.._7 1.... _ .___. __ 1

A
N
.-1

an.
A
l—_.__. .11.... ..
I
I

 
 

15
I
l
\
\
1..-- “1-11.--- -1-.- _._1____\__.\ _-___-_ .___t

‘0

Mean ARG AV
m

|
l
l
l
i
.1
l

 

7
US JAPAN CHINA

 

COUNTRY

Figure 4: Line graph of mean scores for the Assertiveness Scale by country
and sex

18

 

16-1

 

 

Mean ASSERT

 

 

COUNTRY

86

Appendix C

Questionnaires and Research Consent Form

87

Directions: The following questions are concerned with how we try to get people to
comply with our wishes. Indicate how often each statement is true for you personally
when you try to influence other people. Use the following scale.

1 = almost never true

2 = rarely true

3 = occasionally true

4 = often true

5 = almost always true

10. I am extremely careful to avoid attacking a person's intelligence when l attack their
ideas.

11.When individuals are very stubborn I use insults to soften the stubbornness.

12. I try very hard to avoid having people feel bad about themselves when I try to
influence them.

13. When people refuse to do a task I know is important, without good reason I tell
them they are unreasonable.

14. When other do things I regard as stupid, I try to be extremely gentle with them.
15. If individuals I am trying to influence really deserve it I attack their character.

16. When people behave in ways that are in poor taste, I insult them to shock them into
proper behavior.

17. I try to make people feel good about themselves even when their ideas are stupid.

18. When people simply will not budge on a matter of importance I lose my temper and
say rather strong things to them.

19. When people criticize my shortcomings, I take it in good humor and do not try to get
back at them.

20. When individuals insult me, I get a lot of pleasure out of really telling them off.
21 .When I dislike individuals greatly, I try not to show it in what I day or how I say it.

22. I like poking fun at people who do things which are very in order to stimulate their
intelligence.

23. When I attack people's ideas I try not to damage their self-concepts.

24. When I try to influence others, I make a great effort not to offend them.

88

25. When people do things which are mean or cruel, l attack their character in order to
help correct their behavior.

26. I refuse to participate in arguments when they involve personal attacks.

27. When nothing seems to work in trying to influence others, I yell and scream in order
to try and get some movement from them.

28. When I am not able to refute others' positions, I try to make them feel defensive in
order to weaken their positions.

29. When an argument shifts to personal attacks I try hard to Change the subject.
Directions: The following scale asks you to evaluate how you feel about a number of
issues. After reading each statement, indicate how much you agree or disagree using
the following scale.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Undecided
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
30. I should be judged on my own merit.
31. l voice my opinions in group discussions.
32. I feel uncomfortable disagreeing with my group.
33. I conceal my negative emotions so I won’t cause unhappiness in my group.
34. My personal identity, independent of others is very important to me.
35. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent upon others.
36. I act as a unique person, separate from others.
37. I don’t like depending upon others.
38. My relationships with others in my group are more important than my

personal accomplishments.

39.My happiness depends on the happiness of those in my group

89

40. I often consider how I can be helpful to specific others in my group.
41. I take responsibility for my own actions.
42. It is very important for me to act as an independent person.

43. l have an opinion about most things; I know what I like, and I know what I
don’t like.

44. I enjoy being unique and different from others.

45. I don't change my opinions in conformity with those of the majority.
46. Speaking up in a work/task group is not a problem for me.

47. Having a lively imagination is important to me.

48. Understanding myself is a major goal in my life.

49. I enjoy being admired for my unique qualities.

50. I am careful to maintain harmony in my group.

5 1. When I’m with my group, I watch my words so I won’t offend anyone.
52. I would sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

53. I try to meet demands of my group, even if it means controlling my own
desires.

54. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making
decisions.

55. I should take into consideration my parents’ advice when making education
and career plans.

56. I act as fellow group members would prefer me to.

57. The security of being an accepted member of a group is very important to
me.

58. If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible.

9O

Directions: The following questions ask you for your opinion about arguing about
controversial issues. Indicate how often each statement is true for you personally using
the following scale.

1 = statement is almost never true for you

2 = statement is rarely true for you

3 = statement is occasionally true for you

4 = statement is often true for you
5 = statement is always true for you

59. While in an argument, I worry that the person I am arguing with will form a negative
impression of me.

60. Arguing over controversial issues improves my intelligence.

61. I enjoy avoiding arguments.

62. Once I finish an argument I promise myself that I will not get into another one.
63. Arguing with a person creates more problems for me than it solves.

64. I have a pleasant, good feeling when I win a point in an argument.

65. When I finish arguing with someone I feel nervous and upset.

66. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.

67. I get an unpleasant feeling when I realize I am about to get into an argument.
68. I enjoy defending my point of view on an issue.

69. I am happy when I keep an argument from happening.

70. I do not like to miss the opportunity to argue a controversial issue.

71. I prefer being with people who rarely disagree with me.

72. I consider an argument an exciting intellectual challenge.

73. I find myself refreshed and satisfied after an argument on a controversial issue.
74. l have the ability to do well in an argument.

75. I try to avoid getting into arguments.

91

76. I feel excitement when I expect that a conversation I am in is leading to an
argument.

' Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you believe each of these
characteristics applies to you by marking
1 = it doesn't apply to you at all
2 = it only minimally applies to you
3 = you are undecided whether it applies to you
4 = you agree that it applies to you
5 = strongly agree that it applies to you
77. defends own beliefs
78.independent
79. forceful
80. has a strong personality
81. you say what you think
82. dominant
83. willing to take a stand
84. acts as a leader
85. aggressive
86. competitive
87. My gender is 1. male 2. female
88. My age is
1. 17 - 18
2. 19 - 20

3. 21-22
4. 23 or older

92

Research Consent Form

The purpose of this study is to assess how you would react to a complaint about your
behavior made by a neighbor. It will take approximately 40 minutes to complete this
study. When you are done we ask that you remain quietly in your seat until everyone
has completed the study.

1. Apart from your participation in this study, your actual performance in this study will
in no way affect your evaluation in this course or in any other course.

2. Any credit you may earn via participating in this study is not transferable to any other
course or any other semester.

3. Your participation in this study does nor guarantee any beneficial results to you.

4. You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.
Another assignment will be given to you if you wish to earn the extra credit points.

5. You have the right to have this study explained to you to your satisfaction.

6. The results of this study will be treated with strict confidence with regard to the data
of any participant. With this restriction, the results will be made available to you at your
request.

7. The data you provide to the researcher may be used by other scientists for
secondary analysis. Again data will be treated with strict confidence.

8. Should you have any questions, problems, complaints, or if you desire further
information, you have the right to contact the following person.

Mary Bresnahan
Department of Communication
Michigan State University

********************************************************

Given these understandings, l voluntarily agree to participate in this research as
descnbed.

Print your name

 

|D#

 

93

"I11111111111111