Over twenty-five years of publishing research articles related to the theory and

applications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.

66

“
Journal of Psychological Type® Issue 7 JUL 0 6

”
Individuals who prefer Intuition (N) and Thinking (T) are the most likely
to score high on argumentativeness, with ENTJs leading the way.

Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ®

Preferences
Donald A. Loffredo, Ed.D.
University of Houston–Victoria

Susan K. Opt, Ph.D.

Salem College

ABSTRACT cation behaviors and traits. This could have implica-

This study examined the relationship between the com- tions for the individual’s comfort and success in society.
munication trait argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs In addition, an awareness of the relationship between
Type Indicator® (MBTI®) preferences. Participants who MBTI preferences and argumentativeness might help
preferred Intuition (N) and Thinking (T) were more educators create better programs for training in argu-
likely to be argumentative than participants with mentativeness.
Sensing (S) and Feeling (F) preferences. The ENTJ type
and the NT core preference tended to score higher in INTRODUCTION
argumentativeness than other MBTI types. This study Over the past 2 decades, the communication trait
supported other research showing that people with known as argumentativeness has received increasing
different personality preferences also differ in communi- attention in communication and psychology research.

Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type

Thomas G. Carskadon, Ph.D., Editor C A P T ®
 “
60
Argumentativeness, which Infante and Rancer (1982) Argumentativeness is characterized by “advocacy
conceptualized as “a generally stable trait which pre- for and defense of positions on issues simultaneous
disposes the individual in communication situations to with the refutation of the positions other people take”
advocate positions on controversial (Infante & Rancer, 1996, p. 322).
issues and to attack verbally the posi- According to the researchers, argu-
tions which other people take on mentativeness arises out of competing
these issues” (p. 72), is viewed as . . . argumentativeness tendencies—to approach arguments

”
contributing to the individual’s partic- is considered a and to avoid arguments. “The more
ipation and success in U.S. culture. the motivation to approach argu-
constructive communi- ments exceeds the motivation to
Infante and Rancer (1996) noted
that argumentative communication is cation trait, because avoid arguments, the more argumen-
“crucial in a democracy” (p. 320). It is the messages are tative the individual is” (Rancer,
a communication pattern that helps content-oriented, 1998, p. 153). Some people are clas-
to “support, inform, and influence” sified as high argumentative (high
the workings of governmental, pri-
not oriented toward approach/low avoid) and others
vate, and public institutions in U.S. attacking an low argumentative (high avoid/low
society. Linking argumentativeness to individual . . . approach). However, Rancer also
specific MBTI preferences, then, can pointed out that two types of moder-
provide increased understanding into ates exist. Individuals can be high
the communication behavior and approach/high avoid and, despite
possibly the social experiences of the personality types. conflicting feelings, tend to argue only when they feel
For example, because the U.S. culture is one that they can “win” an argument. Others can be low
emphasizes argumentativeness, knowing the relation- approach/low avoid and, despite feeling apathetic,
ship between that communication trait and MBTI argue only when they feel they must.
preferences may provide insight into the personality Since Infante and Rancer (1982) first conceptual-
types’ participation and comfort level in such a culture. ized argumentativeness, numerous studies in both
Rancer (1998) noted that “understanding the com- communication and psychology have explored its
munication behavior of others can be enhanced by relationship to a variety of human behaviors and
knowledge of the traits that individuals possess . . .” experiences. A review of recent literature shows that
(p. 149). An initial study revealed a slight relationship researchers have given much attention to the connec-
between argumentativeness and MBTI preferences tion between argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-
(Loffredo & Opt, 1998). The purpose of this study was ness (Ifert & Bearden, 1998; Infante & Rancer, 1996)
to extend the previous research and search for signifi- because both are viewed as subcomponents of aggres-
cant correlations between argumentativeness and MBTI sive communication. Verbal aggression, in which the
preferences. person attacks the self-concept of another rather than
just the issue, is considered a destructive communica-
BACKGROUND tion strategy, whereas argumentativeness is considered
Argumentativeness can be conceptualized as one of four constructive (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Besides verbal
communication traits that form the concept known as aggressiveness, argumentativeness also has been corre-
aggressive communication. Infante (1987) viewed lated recently with variables such as culture (Toth,
aggressive communication as being controlled by these 1999), satisfaction and cohesion in group experiences
four traits, which also interact with situational factors to (Anderson & Martin, 1999), compulsive communica-
influence communication. As Rancer (1998) explained, tion (Bostrom & Harrington, 1999; Hackman, Johnson,
“Two traits (assertiveness and argumentativeness) are & Barthel-Hackman, 1995), cognitive and communica-
considered constructive, and two traits (hostility and tion flexibility (Martin, Anderson, & Thweatt, 1998),
verbal aggressiveness) are considered destructive” and persuasion (Kazoleas, 1993; Levine & Badger,
(p. 151). Rancer further noted that although all argu- 1993). Researchers in psychology have also examined
mentative behavior is aggressive, not all aggressive communication variables, as well as looking at the rela-
behavior is argumentative. tionship between argumentativeness and personality.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, July 2006

 61
For example, argumentativeness scales have been corre- talk as part of coming to conclusions. Persons
lated with the facet and domain scales of the Revised preferring Introversion, because they prefer to
NEO Personality Scale (Schill, 1996). verbalize only reasoned conclusions, were
Myers and Rocca (2001) noted that research on expected to avoid arguments and score lower in
argumentativeness has consistently indicated that argumentativeness.
subjects who score high in argumentativeness differ in
2. Persons preferring Intuition were expected to score
significant ways from participants who score low.
higher in argumentativeness, whereas people pre-
Differences in argumentativeness resulted in differences
ferring Sensing were expected to score lower.
in areas such as amount of argumentation, beliefs about
Williams and Bicknell-Behr (1992) reported that
arguing, subjects of argumentation, self-esteem, percep-
Ns scored higher on assertiveness than Ss, and
tions of social desirability, leadership, and conflict
because argumentativeness, like assertiveness, is a
strategies. In general, argumentativeness is considered a
subset of aggressive communication, the same
constructive communication trait, because the messages
relationship should exist. Also, Ns have a tendency
are content-oriented, not oriented toward attacking an
to “see potential rather than immediate reality” and
individual, and high argumentativeness scores have
“not only tolerate ambiguity, they may create it as
been linked with positive outcomes in group and
they jump from one point to another” (Nasca,
organizational experiences (Martin et al., 1998;
1994, p. 100). Because of this tendency, Ns may
Schullery, 1998). In his extensive review of argumenta-
have a higher motivation to approach argumenta-
tive literature, Rancer (1998) emphasized, “Perhaps the
tive situations as a way to explore potentialities. In
most important overall finding based on this body of
addition, Tobacyk, Driggers, and Hourcade (1991)
research is that all of the outcomes or consequences of
have shown that Intuition is significantly related to
being argumentative are positive. That is, being
high self-monitoring, which would result in Ns
motivated and skilled in argumentative communication
being more aware of the result of their behaviors in
is clearly considered positive across contexts and
a conflict situation. Thus, Ns might lean more
situations” (p. 156). Thus, a tendency for a Myers-
toward using a communication strategy such as
Briggs personality type to approach or avoid argument
argumentation, rather than verbal aggressiveness,
could have implications for that personality type’s
than Ss.
success and comfort in a variety of social contexts.
Linking argumentation to a person’s MBTI preferences 3. Persons preferring Thinking were expected to score
can increase understanding of how a particular type higher than Fs in argumentativeness, because of
communicates and provide educators with insight into the T’s tendency to compete or compromise in
how to improve the argumentative skills of the various conflict situations. In addition, Ts are noted for
types. their ability to detach themselves emotionally from
Aside from an initial study by Loffredo and Opt anxiety-producing communication situations and
(1998), no research has specifically addressed the to focus on content-oriented messages rather than
relationship between argumentativeness and MBTI on personal attacks. This appears similar to
preferences. Loffredo and Opt found only one of the Schullery’s (1998) depiction of highly argumenta-
MBTI indices, Extraversion–Introversion (E–I), corre- tive people as follows: “A highly argumentative
lated with argumentativeness. Subjects preferring individual not only provides reasons when asked,
Introversion scored significantly lower in argumenta- and approaches situations logically but also takes
tiveness than subjects preferring Extraversion. However, opportunities to argue that others might ignore”
the research was conducted on a limited sample. This (p. 348). Persons who prefer Feeling should score
study used a larger sample to repeat the earlier research lower in argumentativeness, because of their
and test the following hypotheses: tendency to collaborate or accommodate to main-
tain social harmony (Nasca, 1994). In addition,
1. As shown in the previous study, persons preferring Williams and Bicknell-Behr’s (1992) research on
Extraversion were expected to exhibit a tendency assertiveness suggests that Fs tend to be more
to approach arguments, because of the excitement sensitive to the opinions of others. This might
and challenge of the situation and their need to motivate Fs to avoid argumentativeness.

Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Preferences

 62
4. No relationship was expected between Judging (J) age, class rank, school). The researchers scored the
and Perceiving (P) preferences and argumentative- ARG Scale.
ness, because this particular index is primarily an Data Analysis. The study’s design was quasi-
indicator of the dominant core personality process. experimental and identified MBTI type preferences as
Previous research on the communication traits of quasi-independent variables and the communication
communication apprehension and receiver appre- variable of argumentativeness as a dependent measure.
hension showed no correlation with J and P (Opt To complete analysis, independent-measures t tests
& Loffredo, 2000; Opt & Loffredo, in press). were used to identify significant differences between the
pairs of MBTI type preferences on argumentativeness.
METHOD An independent-measures t test was also used to
Participants. The sample consisted of 200 subjects (65 identify a significant difference by gender on argumen-
males, 135 females) who agreed to participate in the tativeness. To minimize inflation of Type I error, the
study for extra academic credit in their classes at the Bonferroni adjustment was used, and the rejection
University of Houston-Victoria. The participants ranged level of the t test for each type preference was set
in age from 21 to 69 years, with an average age of 34.8 at alpha = .0125. A one-way independent-measures
(6 participants did not include their age) and standard ANCOVA was used to identify significant differences by
deviation of 10.2 years. As expected, the distribution complete MBTI type on the measure of argumentative-
was somewhat positively skewed (younger rather than ness. A one-way independent-measures ANOVA was
older). The subjects were juniors and seniors, with also used to identify significant differences by core
majors in the arts and sciences, education, and busi- personality traits (NF, NT, SF, ST) on argumentativeness.
ness. The type distribution of the total sample is shown A one-way independent-measures ANCOVA, with
in TABLE 1 (SEE PAGE 63). gender as a covariate, was used to examine the relation-
Instruments. Each participant completed two ship between gender and T–F preferences. Finally, a
instruments: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G forward inclusion stepwise multiple regression was
Self-Scorable (revised) measure and Infante and used to determine the relative strength of the predictors
Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness Scale. The Argu- (gender, type preference pairs, core personality traits,
mentativeness Scale (ARG) is a 20-item self-report complete MBTI type) of argumentativeness.
instrument that uses Likert-type scales that range
from almost never true (1) to almost always true (5). RESULTS
It was developed in a series of factor-analytic studies. TABLE 2 (SEE PAGE 64) summarizes the findings
The instrument assesses a person’s tendency to revealed by the independent-measures t tests. As can
approach argument and tendency to avoid argument. be seen, Extraverts scored higher than Introverts on
Respondents are considered high or low in argumenta- argumentativeness, but the difference was not signifi-
tiveness if their score is one standard deviation above cant at the .0125 level. Subjects preferring Intuition
or below the mean for the normative sample. Scores scored significantly higher than participants preferring
within one standard deviation are considered as moder- Sensing on argumentativeness. Ts scored significantly
ate in argumentativeness. Infante and Rancer (1996) higher than Fs on argumentativeness, and no significant
reported reliabilities in the .80–.90 range for the ARG difference was found between Js and Ps.
Scale. Infante and Rancer (1982) provided evidence of An independent-measures t test revealed a statisti-
convergent, concurrent, and discriminant validity. cally significant difference between males (M = 6.73, SD
Several studies since 1982 have also supported the = 12.78) and females (M = -1.19, SD = 13.33) on the
instrument’s validity (Infante & Rancer, 1996). measure of argumentativeness, t(198) = 4.02, p < .001.
Participants completed the MBTI instrument in a A one-way independent-measures ANOVA
classroom setting or at the Office of Student Services revealed a statistically significant difference by complete
under the guidance of a counselor trained in MBTI test- MBTI type on argumentativeness, F(15, 184) = 3.92,
ing procedures or a licensed psychologist. Participants p < .001. The effect size measured by partial eta squared
scored their MBTI results and then were debriefed was .24. Post hoc tests revealed the following:
about the MBTI. Next, they completed the ARG Scale at
home and provided demographic information (gender, 1. ENTJ participants (M = 15.62, SD = 10.63) scored

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, July 2006

 63

Table 1. MBTI® Type Distribution of the Total Sample.

The Sixteen Complete Types Dichotomous Preferences

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E n = 112 (56.0%)
n = 22 n = 17 n=4 n = 11 I n = 088 (44.0%)
(11.0%) (8.5%) (2.0%) (5.5%)
+++++ +++++ ++ +++++ S n = 118 (59.0%)
+++++ ++++ + N n = 082 (41.0%)
+
T n = 096 (48.0%)
F n = 104 (52.0%)

J n = 127 (63.5%)
P n = 073 (36.5%)
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=8 n=9 n = 13 n=4
Pairs and Temperaments
(4.0%) (4.5%) (6.5%) (2.0%) IJ n = 54 (27.0%)
++++ +++++ +++++ ++ IP n = 34 (17.0%)
++ EP n = 39 (19.5%)
EJ n = 73 (36.5%)

ST n = 64 (32.0%)
SF n = 54 (27.0%)
NF n = 42 (21.0%)
NT n = 4040 (20.0%)
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
n=9 n=6 n = 15 n=9 SJ n = 86 (43.0%)
(4.5%) (3.0%) (7.5%) (4.5%) SP n = 32 (16.0%)
+++++ +++ +++++ +++++ NP n = 41 (20.5%)
+++ NJ n = 41 (20.5%)

TJ n = 74 (37.0%)
TP n = 30 (15.0%)
FP n = 43 (21.5%)
FJ n = 53 (26.5%)
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 25 n = 22 n = 10 n = 16 IN n = 32 (16.0%)
(12.5%) (11.0%) (5.0%) (8.0%) EN n = 50 (25.0%)
+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ IS n = 56 (28.0%)
+++++ +++++ +++ ES n = 62 (31.0%)
+++ +
ET n = 59 (29.5%)
EF n = 53 (26.5%)
IF n = 43 (21.5%)
IT n = 45 (22.5%)

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Types

n % n % n %
E–TJ 41 20.5 I–TP 12 6.0 Dt. T 53 26.5
E–FJ 32 16.0 I–FP 22 11.0 Dt. F 54 27.0
ES–P 15 7.5 IS–J 39 19.5 Dt. S 54 27.0
EN–P 24 12.0 IN–J 15 7.5 Dt. N 39 19.5
N = 200 + = 1% of N

Donald A. Loffredo and Susan K. Opt

Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Preferences

 64

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Argumentativeness by Type Preference.

Personality Preference Mean Standard Deviation

Introversion -0.75 14.18

Extraversion 3.34 13.06
t(198) = -2.18, p < .036

Sensing -1.21 12.22

Intuition 5.50 14.74
t(198) = -3.15, p < .001

Thinking 6.01 12.85

Feeling -3.30 12.94
t(198) = 5.10, p < .001

Judging 2.10 14.06

Perceiving 0.56 13.02
t(198) = 0.77, p < .45
N = 200

significantly higher than ISFP participants (M = 1. NT core personality participants (M = 10.95, SD =

-7.33, SD = 14.32). 11.93) scored significantly higher than NF core
personality participants (M = 0.31, SD = 15.40).
2. ENTJ participants (M = 15.62, SD = 10.63) scored
significantly higher than ISFJ participants (M = 2. NT core personality participants (M = 10.95, SD =
-7.59, SD = 9.33). 11.93) scored significantly higher than ST core
personality participants (M = 2.92, SD = 12.51).
3. ENTJ participants (M = 15.62, SD = 10.63) scored
significantly higher than ESFP participants (M = 3. NT core personality participants (M = 10.95, SD =
-10.50, SD = 10.95). 11.93) scored significantly higher than SF core
personality participants (M = -6.23, SD = 9.80).
4. ENTJ participants (M = 15.62, SD = 10.63) scored
significantly higher than ESFJ participants (M = A one-way ANCOVA with gender as a covariate
-3.27, SD = 7.69). revealed a statistically significant difference between Ts
(M = 6.01, SD = 12.85) and Fs (M = -3.30, SD = 12.94)
5. ENTJ participants (M = 15.62, SD = 10.63) scored
on argumentativeness, F(1, 197) = 15.08, p < .001.
significantly higher than INFJ participants (M =
Although Ts scored significantly higher than Fs with the
-13.25, SD = 20.12).
effect of gender statistically removed, the effect size as
The means and standard deviations for all 16 measured by partial eta squared was only .07, so the
complete types on argumentativeness are displayed in significant difference was quite small.
TABLE 3 (SEE PAGE 65) in rank order. A forward inclusion stepwise multiple regression
A one-way independent-measures ANOVA revealed using the same predictors as above, identified the T–F
a statistically significant difference by core personality preference pair as the strongest single predictor of argu-
traits (NF, NT, SF, ST) on argumentativeness, F (3, 196) mentativeness (R2 = .116, F [1, 198] = 26.04, p < .001).
= 15.01, p < .001. The effect size as measured by partial Together the T–F preference pair and complete MBTI
eta squared was .19. Post hoc tests revealed the following: type were a strong predictor of argumentativeness (R2 =

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, July 2006

 65

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Argumentativeness by Complete MBTI® Type in
Descending Order of Argumentativeness.

MBTI Type n M SD

ENTJ 16 15.62 10.63

INTJ 11 9.00 14.40
INTP 4 7.00 4.97
ENTP 9 6.78 11.73
ESTJ 25 4.28 10.55
ESTP 9 4.11 9.17
ENFP 15 3.47 16.08
ISTJ 22 2.86 15.85
INFP 13 0.92 10.92
ENFJ 10 0.20 16.87
ISTP 8 -2.50 11.61
ESFJ 22 -3.27 7.69
ISFP 9 -7.33 14.32
ISFJ 17 -7.59 9.33
ESFP 6 -10.50 10.95
INFJ 4 -13.25 20.12

.195, F [2, 197] = 23.89, p < .001). The T–F preference literature that males tend to be more argumentative
pair, complete MBTI type, and gender combination was than females (Cross, 1999; Rancer, 1998), a finding
the strongest predictor of argumentativeness (R2 = .217, replicated in this study.
F [3, 196] = 18.10, p < .001). The remaining predictors The results, however, did not support an earlier
could not predict any further unique variance in the finding in which the E–I preferences were linked with
criterion variable, argumentativeness, so they were not argumentativeness. This suggests that argumentative-
entered into the analysis. ness is a communication trait that reflects a person’s
internal perceiving and judging processes as opposed to
DISCUSSION the way in which a person externalizes those processes.
The increased sample size in this study elevated the In other words, a person’s tendency to argue may be
power of the statistical tests used, which revealed more an outcome of how that person processes informa-
several differences between MBTI preferences on tion than how he or she communicates that information.
argumentativeness. As expected, participants preferring Furthermore, although the NT core preference scored
N and T scored higher on argumentativeness, thus higher in argumentativeness as would be expected, the
showing a greater tendency to approach arguments. fact that the T–F index was the strongest predictor of
Also as expected, subjects preferring S and F scored argumentativeness suggests that this communication
lower on argumentativeness, thus showing a greater trait is most connected to a person’s perception of rela-
tendency to avoid arguments. This is consistent with tionship. Argumentativeness is conceptualized as being
previous research by Williams and Bicknell-Behr a content-oriented communication strategy, which fits
(1992), which showed similar results on assertiveness. well with the “detached” nature of Ts, whereas Fs would
It has also been well documented in communication find this more difficult and might either avoid what they

Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Preferences

 66
see as conflict or, when unable to avoid it, use a more developed to help students become aware of and
relationship-oriented strategy in aggressive communica- improve their argumentative abilities. Cognitive train-
tion situations. This assumption could be further tested ing, topical systems, and argument-generating systems
by examining verbal aggressiveness as related to person- have been used to help students gain the tools needed
ality type. for effective argumentation. However, an awareness
Within the NT personality types, ENTJs tended to of the relationship between the MBTI personality
score the highest in argumentativeness. This finding fits preferences and argumentativeness might help create
with the ENTJ personality type descriptors provided by better programs for enhancing argumentativeness.
Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, and Hammer (1998). ENTJs’ For example, being aware that persons preferring
strengths center around organizing, problem-solving, Sensing might avoid argument because of their focus
decision-making, analytical thinking, and long-range on detail and literal interpretation could help trainers
planning skills. High argumentativeness would support find strategies to help the Ss follow the abstractions
and/or be an outcome of these skills. of arguments. Understanding that Fs will typically be
In general, this study supported other research that concerned about the impact of their argument on
shows that people with different personality preferences the relationship, as “detached” as the argument might
vary in communication behaviors and traits, which be, might help trainers find ways to modify the T-like
could have implications for an individual’s comfort and approach that is assumed in argumentation work.
success in society. For example, research has shown Several avenues of research related to the MBTI
numerous benefits to being high in argumentativeness and argumentativeness need to be explored. One direc-
(Rancer, 1998). “Arguing stimulates curiosity and tion is to examine in more detail how the personality
increases learning because we seek out more informa- preferences might combine to temper or motivate argu-
tion on the issues we argue about” (p. 156). In his mentation. For example, do NFs, SFs, and STs fall into
summary of the literature on argumentativeness, Rancer the category that Rancer (1998) called moderate
noted that persons who score high in argumentativeness or apathetic arguers? Research also needs to examine
tend to use more diverse strategies to persuade, are the contrasting negative communication trait, verbal
viewed as more credible, and tend to be more success- aggressiveness. Do correlations exist between the
ful in organizational settings. This raises the question of personality preferences and verbal aggressiveness as
whether certain personality types will be more socially they do with argumentativeness? Are Fs more likely
involved and successful because of their tendency to to use verbal aggressiveness in conflict situations?
argue. This study’s findings suggest that ENTJs would Understanding what communication researchers
probably be more participative and hold positions of consider the constructive and destructive communica-
leadership in U.S. culture at least in part because of their tion patterns of the various MBTI types can help
high argumentativeness scores. However, future increase the researchers’ knowledge of the types and
research needs to explore this finding with a larger help each type learn more effective ways of communi-
sample size, because other personality types with the cating with each other.
NT core also had a tendency to score higher in As this study has indicated, the MBTI types vary in
argumentativeness. their tendency to approach and avoid argument.
Training people to become more effective arguers Overall, the relationship between personality type and
or persuaders has been one of the goals of communi- argumentativeness needs more examination, especially
cation instruction since the days of Plato and Aristotle. in a culture that tends to emphasize and promote
Rancer (1998) noted, “The teaching of skills for argumentativeness as a way to participate and contri-
advocacy and for the defense of positions and for the bute to society. A clearer understanding of all person-
refutation of the positions other people take remains a ality types and their communicative experiences can
valued and fundamental objective of the communica- help all have more positive outcomes in group and
tion curriculum” (p. 321). Several programs have been social experiences.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, July 2006

 67
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Thweatt, K. S. (1998).
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, Aggressive communication traits and their relationships with
consensus and satisfaction in small groups. Communication the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Communication
Reports, 12(1), 21–31. Flexibility Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
Blickle, G. (1997). Argumentativeness and the facets of the big five. 13(3), 531–540.
Psychological Reports, 81(3), 1379–1385. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L.
Bostrom, R. N., & Harrington, N. G. (1999). An exploratory (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
investigation of characteristics of compulsive talkers. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Communication Education, 48(1), 73–80. Psychologists Press, Inc.
Cross, V. E. (1999). An investigation into the relationship among Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumen-
gender, argumentativeness, and empathy. Dissertation tativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom.
Abstracts International, 59(08): 4522B. Western Journal of Communication, 65(2), 113–138.
Hackman, M. Z., Johnson, C. E., & Barthel-Hackman, T. (1995). Nasca, D. (1994, February). The impact of cognitive style on
Correlates of talkaholism in New Zealand. Communication communication. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 99–107.
Research Reports, 12(1), 53–60. Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2000). Rethinking communication
Ifert, D. E., & Bearden, L. (1998). The influence of argumentative- apprehension: A Myers-Briggs perspective. The Journal of
ness on verbal aggression on responses to refused requests. Psychology, 134(5), 556–570.
Communication Reports, 11(2), 145–155. Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2006). Receiver apprehension and
Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & U. A. Myers-Briggs personality type. Journal of Psychological Type,
Day (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 66(3), 15–22.
157–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rancer, A. S. (1998). Argumentativeness. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and
and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 149–170). Cresskill, NJ:
Assessment, 46, 72–80. Hampton Press, Inc.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and Schill, T. (1996). Self-defeating personality, argumentativeness,
verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. and assertive self-statements. Psychological Reports, 79(3),
In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 1103–1106.
319–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schullery, N. M. (1998). The optimum level of argumentativeness
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: for employed women. The Journal of Business Communication,
An interpersonal model and measure. Communication 35(3), 346–368.
Monographs, 53, 61–69. Tobacyk, J. J., Driggers, E. C., & Hourcade, J. (1991). Self-moni-
Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness on resistance toring and psychological type: A social cognitive information
to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 20(1), processing model. Journal of Psychological Type, 22, 33–38.
118–137. Toth, B. J. (1999). The Hatfields and the McCoys: Beliefs about
Levine, T., & Badger, E. E. (1993). Argumentativeness and resist- arguing and aggressive communication in the Appalachian
ance to persuasion. Communication Reports, 6(2), 71–78. culture. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(04): 939A.
Loffredo, D. A., & Opt, S. K. (1998). Relating the MBTI to commu- Williams, S. B., & Bicknell-Behr, J. (1992). Assertiveness and
nication apprehension, receiver apprehension, and argumen- psychological type. Journal of Psychological Type, 23, 27–37.
tativeness. Journal of Psychological Type, 47, 21–27.

Argumentativeness and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Preferences

 68
Donald A. Loffredo, Ed.D., is Associate Professor of Psychology and is the psychology practicum and internship
coordinator at the University of Houston–Victoria. He holds a doctorate in counseling psychology from the University
of Houston Central Campus, a master of arts degree in agency counseling from Rhode Island College, and a bachelor
of arts degree in psychology from the University of Rhode Island. His research interests include test construction,
communication, multicultural issues, and MBTI® preferences and communication patterns. His other MBTI research
has examined the relationship between type preferences and communication apprehension, receiver apprehension,
and argumentativeness. He finds the MBTI measure to be a useful framework for counseling individuals and couples
and for helping them understand similarities and differences in communication patterns.

Susan K. Opt, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Communication at Salem College in Winston–Salem, NC. She holds
a doctorate in communication from The Ohio State University, a master of arts in journalism from Ohio State, and a
bachelor of fine arts degree from Wright State University. Her research interests include communication and culture,
the rhetoric of social intervention, and MBTI preferences and communication patterns. Her other MBTI research has
examined the relationship between preferences and communication apprehension, receiver apprehension, and
argumentativeness. She finds that the MBTI tool provides a useful framework for helping students understand their
similarities and differences in communication patterns.

C O N TA C T

Donald A. Loffredo, Ed.D.

Associate Professor of Psychology
University of Houston–Victoria
3007 N. Ben Wilson Road
Victoria, TX 77901
(361) 570-4209
[email protected]

This Journal is being made available through the collaborative efforts of Dr. Tom Carskadon, Editor of the Journal of Psychological Type, and
the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc., CAPT, worldwide publisher. Dr. B. Michael Thorne serves as Executive Editor of the
Journal of Psychological Type.

Journal of Psychological Type is a trademark or registered trademark of Thomas G. Carskadon in the United States and other countries.

CAPT is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the meaningful application and ethical use of psychological type as measured through the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in
the United States and other countries.

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. and CAPT are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type in the United States and other countries.

Copyright © 2006 by Thomas G. Carskadon, Editor.

ISSN 0895-8750.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, July 2006