Abstract
This article discusses the work of Professor Andrew S. Rancer and his contributions to theory-building and application efforts of argumentative and aggressive communication. Germinal training efforts in constructive and destructive communication are presented, empirical efficacy and learning outcomes highlighted, and implications for training professionals are discussed. Finally, insights into argumentative and aggressive communication training are offered.
Arguably, the roots of communication training can be traced back to antiquity. In fact, argumentative communication, in particular, was a major facet of the communication philosophy of Aristotle. This Greek philosopher and rhetorician developed his Aristotelian argument approach to persuasion. Also, known as classical argument, there were five elements to putting forth a successful argument. These elements consisted of introduction of the issue, presentation of your position, addressing/reflecting the opposing argument(s), providing proof of your position, and the presentation of your conclusion (Infante et al., 2017). Such a focus on argument and argumentation had traditionally been treated via a humanistic approach to research. In the early to mid-1950s, theory-building efforts on argument and argumentation began to be conceptualized and empirically assessed from a social scientific perspective.
This corpus of research has provided scholars and practitioners with voluminous findings and insights into the importance of understanding and assessing persuasive and argumentative communication and the offering of pedagogical and andragogical techniques to present arguments effectively. These efforts have been presented under subject titles such as assertiveness, conflict resolution and management, situational deescalation, and critical thinking to name but a few. One of the more fruitful conceptualizations of this form of communication training focused on the communication traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. More specifically, these were the training on argument creation, argument delivery, and understanding/changing the predispositions and behaviors that people have toward arguing and aggressive communication. It is with this focus that the work of Andrew S. Rancer will be discussed.
Rancer has long been associated with the theory and research on argumentative and aggressive communication. For over 40 years, his research, teaching, and application efforts have provided scholars and practitioners with the fundamental concepts and advanced research findings that continue to inform contemporary efforts in the area of aggressive communication. These efforts are ubiquitous in a myriad of communication texts, research programs, and training and development efforts.
The Early Years
Rancer’s dissertation (Kent State University, 1979) titled “An Examination of the Impact of Selected Interpersonal and Situational Variables on Argumentativeness” was directed by Professor Dominic A. Infante and set forth the trajectory for which the communication trait of Argumentativeness was conceptualized and psychometrically measured (see Infante & Rancer, 1982). Since the initial publication in the conceptualization and measurement of argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982), there have been a plethora of studies validating the predisposition of argumentativeness. This germinal article introduced the communication trait of Argumentativeness, which is defined as the predisposition to approach/engage in communication situations where a person advocates positions on controversial issues while simultaneously refuting the positions that other people take on those issues. This tendency to engage in argumentative communication has been traditionally treated as an antecedent construct or independent variable in communication contexts, such as organizational communication, training and development, interpersonal communication, instructional communication, mass and mediated communication, health communication, small group communication, and forensic communication as well as other contexts contained within the other social sciences and humanities (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2014, for a comprehensive review).
In a similar vein, Infante and Wigley (1986) developed the construct of verbal aggressiveness, which, similar to argumentativeness, is an approach-related aggressive communication trait as opposed to avoidance-based communication traits, such as communication apprehension and reticence. Verbal aggressiveness is distinct from argumentativeness in that it is defined as the predisposition to attack the self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the positions they take on controversial issues. As such, both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness have traditionally been studied together in scores of research studies (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006).
Originally, the two aggressive traits were conceptualized as having an inverse relationship with one another (i.e., an increase in one communication trait brings about a decrease in the other communication trait), but more recent research findings suggest a positive relationship between the two (i.e., both communication traits move in the same direction with one another). That is, the assumption was that a person higher in the trait of argumentativeness would also report lower levels of verbal aggressiveness. More recently, this assumption has beenquestioned by research that suggests people reporting increased levels of argumentativeness may also report increased levels of verbal aggressiveness.
Given that both of these communication traits were originally conceptualized from the interactionist perspective (Infante & Rancer, 1982; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Magnusson, 1976, 1980), both traits were assumed to be influenced by situational influences, such as training efforts. The interactionist trait perspective holds that the development of any behavioral predisposition (i.e., personality or communication trait) is a joint function of our biological predispositions as well as socially learned tendencies (Magnusson & Endler, 1977). It is the focus on the social learning aspect of argumentative and aggressive communication that formed the foundation of Rancer’s training and development efforts. That is, by focusing on the situational factors (e.g., situation, conversational topic, beliefs about arguing, and relational dynamics) associated with argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, successful modification of both traits can be realized (Rancer et al., 1985; Rancer et al., 1992).
Perhaps the most significant training effort in argumentative and aggressive communication occurred in the work of Rancer and his colleagues (Rancer et al., 2000; Rancer et al., 1997). These training efforts attempted to train adolescents to be more motivated and skilled in argumentative communication. It featured the development of a training program for adolescent students to more effectively generate arguments. Consistent with theoretical assumptions, such training should have the longitudinal effects of communication trait modification. Adapting the Inventional System of Argument Generation developed by Infante (1988), Rancer et al. (1997) taught these students a pneumonic device (an adaptation of Infante’s Inventional System) that followed the theme of a diner/restaurant. That is, this adaptation consisted of Peanut (i.e., problem component), Butter (i.e., blame component), Soda (i.e., solution component), and Crackers (consequence component). Each component had requisite subcategories reflective of a menu one would find in a diner. For example, for the Soda (solution) component, sub-categories included the benefits of implementing the proposed solution as well as the drawbacks of implementing the proposed solution.
Utilizing a pretest-posttest quasi-equivalent groups design, Rancer et al. (1997) provided one week of argumentation training. This effort resulted in statistically significant differences in levels of trait argumentativeness and overall number of arguments generated when comparing the experimental group (i.e., students receiving the training) to the control group (i.e., students receiving no training). The group receiving the training on the Inventional System significantly increased their motivation to argue (ARGgt) from pre- to posttest and significantly increased their ability to generate arguments from pre- to posttest. These findings served as a watershed moment for communication scholars in general and training and development practitioners in particular because of the training’s temporal-based effects (i.e., sustained change over time) and empirical-based findings (Rancer et al., 2000).
Since the study’s original publication, the adaptation of the Inventional System for adolescents has received considerable attention from academics and training and development practitioners (see Rancer & Avtgis, 2014). These research findings serve as an exemplar of the many training and development efforts as well as the future possibilities available to scholars and practitioners interested in argumentative and aggressive communication. The overall body of research produced by Rancer and his colleagues are but a beginning in a burgeoning area of communication training and development efforts.
Conversation With Professor Andrew Rancer
In collaborating with Rancer in our book Argumentative and Aggressive Communication: Theory, Research, and Application (2006), we invited some of the top scholars in this area of research to comment in their own words/opinions as to the past, present, and future of argumentative and aggressive communication scholarship. These authors provided such unique and organic responses that we included each contribution verbatim in the book. In keeping with this similar knowledge collection modality, I invited Dr. Rancer to respond to a series of questions concerning the discipline of Training and Development in general, and the training efforts in argumentative and aggressive communication in particular (A. Rancer, personal communication, September 27, 2022). These responses provided by Professor Rancer are unedited:
1. What drew you to the teaching and practice of Training and Development?
My first exposure to Training and Development (i.e., T&D) occurred when I learned about organizational development and organizational analysis in my doctoral program in Communication at Kent State University. One of my professors, Dr. William Gorden, returned to campus after attending a workshop on the ICA Communication Audit sponsored by the International Communication Association. Upon being introduced to the program’s purposes and use, I became interested in conducting communication audits within organizations. Of course, the results of a communication audit often suggest the need for organizational development (i.e., organizational change) and training.
When I became a faculty member at Emerson College in 1979, the area of organizational communication was becoming a prominent context in the discipline of Communication Studies. In addition to this, the Boston, Massachusetts, area was fast becoming the East Coast hub for high technology organizations. Many organizations were becoming known as extremely successful and innovative in the area of new technology. As a consequence, companies had the means and the need for communication professionals to conduct communication audits of their organizations. They were also interested in managing conflict and change within their organizations as well as enhancing the overall communication climate of their company. As such, one such organization contacted myself and a colleague, Professor Kevin Greeley, and asked us to perform a communication audit on their organization. Upon completion and presentation of the audit’s findings, we were asked to train their employees on managing organizational change, team building, and managing organizational conflict. As a result of this experience, I became quite interested in communication consulting and training.
In the years that followed, Dr. Dominic Infante and I created the Argumentativeness Scale, and the conceptualization of “Aggressive Communication.” Understanding differences between constructive and destructive communication styles became a topic that I researched, taught, consulted, and trained individuals from different organizations for over 40 years.
2. How do you successfully implement good communication theory into the extremely applied nature of training and development efforts?
It is my belief that communication theory and research undergird training and development efforts. That is, without a foundation in communication theory, efforts to conduct communication audits and interventions would be conducted in a haphazard and idiosyncratic fashion, subject to the whims of the organizational communication researcher and trainer. From the research on small-group communication, persuasion, relational communication, superior- subordinate communication, communication personality and traits, and language to name a few, organizational development and training professionals are able to draw from the theoretical developments in these areas to design and deliver interventions which can strengthen the communication within organizations.
3. What types of different audiences have you trained?
Throughout my career, I have engaged in training efforts which includes many different types of audiences, including bank employees, college and university groups, insurance executives, members of American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), later named the Association for Talent and Development STD (now ATD), among others.
4. How do you usually assess outcomes? Why?
Perhaps the most important element in any T&D effort is assessing the efficacy of your training (a.k.a., training assessment). Training outcomes consist of the assessment of program objectives that are or are not fulfilled at the conclusion of the T&D effort. There are three macro-dimensions of trainee learning that can be assessed. The first is the assessment of affective learning. This reflects the positive or negative feelings that trainees have toward the training or specific aspects of the training (e.g., a particular exercise, the training as a whole, etc.).
Basically, affective learning can be assessed through questions, such as “did the trainees like your program?” and “did they find it valuable to them personally and/or professionally?” This is often accomplished through having the participants complete a post-training survey. Such a posttraining survey is most effective when administered (i.e., online or paper) to participants a few weeks after the program.
The next form of assessment is cognitive learning and is considered a crucial form of assessment in that it focuses on assessing the degree to which trainees engage in cognitive learning. That is, did the trainees learn the content or concepts underlying your program? Cognitive learning is best assessed through administering a set of brief questions to participants repeatedly throughout the training. Often considered the ultimate outcome in determining the success/failure of any training effort reflects the degree to which the trainees can apply what they have learned during and after the training. This type of learning is known as behavioral learning. That is, by the end of the program, did the trainees acquire the skills and behaviors you wanted them to acquire? Can they competently engage in the advocated skills and behaviors? Behavioral learning tends to be more difficult to assess than affective and cognitive learning due to its’ demonstrative nature of assessment. An effective way to overcome such challenging assessment is by having the trainees frequently demonstrate the skills and behaviors you are advocating as well as having well-designed activities and exercise throughout the program. Such assessment can provide insight into the degree to which the trainees can perform the behaviors you were advocating correctly and the degree to which these behaviors were engaged in incorrectly and thus in need of improvement.
One example the various forms of learning assessment comes from a training effort we conducted many years ago on seventh-graders from a Pittsburgh Pennsylvania area school district. We trained students on how to generate arguments using Infante’s (1988) Inventional System.
During the program, the students were asked to develop arguments for a proposition before and after learning the Inventional System. We found that students generated significantly more arguments in support of the proposition after they were trained with the system (i.e., cognitive learning). In addition, students reported enjoying the program and found it valuable to them after the training through a posttraining questionnaire (i.e., affective learning). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, parents reported that their children were better “arguers” in general and argued in a more constructive way than they did before completing the training (i.e., behavioral learning), indicating the longitudinal effects of the training.
5. Where do you see the future evolution of T&D?
It is my belief that training and development will continue to utilize technology to its fullest extent. This is already happening to training, with more programs being delivered online via eLearning, virtual training, synchronous and asynchronous training, and mobile-learning to name but a few. eLearning is training that is largely conducted via computers, tablets, and smartphone connected to the Internet and/or a Learning Management System (e.g., Desire2Learn, Blackboard, Moodle). However, it is my belief that face-to-face (FTF) training will never be completely supplanted by eLearning, especially training in the communication arts and sciences.
Communication skills training in general, and presentational skills in particular, such as negotiation and conflict management, optimally benefit from having trainees interact with each other in the same physical space in an effort to help build constructive and interactive behaviors not afforded by other training platforms.
6. Do you see T&D communication as emerging as an independent subdiscipline with communication (as opposed to a mishmash of instructional/organizational/interpersonal/small-group, etc.)?
It is my belief that Training and Development is already a subdiscipline within the communication discipline, especially under the context of Organizational Communication. Although concepts and theories under the headings of small-group communication, instructional communication, relational and interpersonal communication, and organizational communication provide unique insights and content into the area of T&D, training and development has developed its own content with its own lexicon. There is also a plethora of textbooks written by communication scholars available with the title “Training and Development” (see, e.g., Beebe, Mottet, & Roach, 2021). Additionally, a number of colleges and universities regularly offer courses titled “Training” and/or “Training & Development” in their standard catalog of course offerings.
Conclusion
This article highlighted the importance of argumentative and aggressive communication for training and development professionals. Also introduced was the work of an early scholar and practitioner in this area of study, Andrew S. Rancer. His work on argumentative and aggressive communication, in particular, has and will continue to provide generations of practitioners with effective and innovative techniques for communication training. Further, Dr. Rancer’s career, spanning over 40 years, emphasized outcome assessment not only as a means to document training effort efficacy but also as important empirical data for scholarly investigation. The merging of scholarship and practice provides a wealth of information for many interested publics including the disciplines of communication studies, organizational psychology, and human resources to name but a few. It becomes an imperative for communication scholars and practitioners to consider the dramatic impact that argumentative and aggressive communication has on society and the role that effective training and development efforts have on quality-of-life issues.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.