A Test of the Relationship Between Argumentativeness and Individualism/Collectivism in the United States and Finland

Croucher, Stephen M.; Galy‐Badenas, Flora; Jäntti, Piia; Carlson, Emily; Cheng, Ziying

doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1155046

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the affective method of persuasion) rather than by rigorous standards (Patai, 1973; also see Kochman, 1981). Research has also shown that "collectivistic" cultures have generally been found to have lower levels of argumentativeness, compared to "individualistic" cultures (Croucher et al, 2016;Hsu, 2007).…”

Section: Methods Of Persuasion: a Cultural Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

When context trumps culture: Persuasion in international business disputes

Zaidman

Itzhaki

Shenkar

2018

Int'l Jnl of Cross Cultural Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persuasion plays an important role in international business interactions. Within this domain, it is often argued that persuasion is a form of communication and as such embedded in cultural norms. It is also argued that forms of persuasion differ across cultures. The data described in this study of persuasive tactics deployed by Israeli and Indian business professionals in their attempts to resolve disputes with their partners suggest otherwise. These data mainly comprise 142 coded letters, addressed to the correspondents' business partner and to the mediator. The quantitative results of the study show similarities in the choice of persuasive tactics employed by Israeli and Indian correspondents, when writing to each other and when writing to the mediator. The quantitative and qualitative results show that these research subjects, from two culturally different populations, constructed their persuasion tactics and communication in a similar manner. Hence, despite the apparent cultural and communication differences between them, they both employed similar communication tactics. These intriguing data are explained in the light of the fact that both Indian and Israeli subjects were experiencing a situation which they subjectively perceived as one involving a threat of meaningful loss. These perceptions and emotional responses led the participants toward similar communication behavior. This study contributes to international management research, and particularly to intercultural communication research, by demonstrating that contextual conditions do cause culturally different populations to communicate similarly.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Persuasion: a Cultural Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

When context trumps culture: Persuasion in international business disputes

Zaidman

Itzhaki

Shenkar

2018

Int'l Jnl of Cross Cultural Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They do not tend to verbally attack the positions of others. (Croucher, Galy-Badenas, J€ antti, Carlson, & Cheng, 2016). In turn, Aycan, Schyns, Sun, Felfe, and Saher (2013) offered evidence suggesting that Pakistan is a VC-country.…”

Section: Selecting Finland and Pakistan As Targets Of Empirical Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Comparison of Motivational Patterns in Sustainable Food Consumption between Pakistan and Finland: Duties or Self-Reliance?

Rahman

Luomala

2020

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explores organic food consumption motivations in Pakistan and Finland. It links the findings to life goals typifying vertically collectivistic and horizontally individualistic cultures in order to produce a fuller understanding of crosscountry variation in sustainable consumption. This study employs a means-end chain methodology, using a hardladdering technique in Pakistan (n ¼ 101) and Finland (n ¼ 193) to collect the data. The key implications are that organic food choice motivations both converge and diverge between these countries and that culturally shaped life goals can be used to enrich their interpretation and advance theory building in further research.

show abstract

“…Argumentativeness research is increasingly conducted outside of the US and cross-culturally. In fact, as researchers have asserted argumentativeness as a trait is a culturally universal trait (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014), the 20-item argumentativeness measure or variations of it have been translated into many languages including Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, French, German, Finnish, Spanish, Slovakian, Romanian, Russian, Turkish and other languages (Avtgis and Rancer, 2002; Croucher et al , 2013, 2016, 2018; Gronostay, 2019; Hsu, 2007; Park and Kim, 1992; Subanaliev et al , 2018; Suzuki and Rancer, 1994). Argumentativeness studies conducted outside of the US have shown that non-US based samples tend to differ in levels of argumentativeness from US-based samples.…”

Section: Argumentativeness Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies exploring Australia, New Zealand, Bulgaria and the United Arab Emirates, for example, have reported higher levels of argumentativeness than US-Americans (Avtgis and Rancer, 2002; Avtgis et al , 2008; Rapanta and Hample, 2015). Research has reported mixed results for nations such as India and Finland (Croucher et al , 2009, 2016; Klopf et al , 1991; Rapanta and Hample, 2015). In cross-cultural and non-US based studies of argumentativeness, it is common for many researchers to attribute differences in levels of argumentativeness to varying levels of individualism/collectivism, power distance, high/low context, self-construal and/or gender roles in societies (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014 for a review).…”

Section: Argumentativeness Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In cross-cultural and non-US based studies of argumentativeness, it is common for many researchers to attribute differences in levels of argumentativeness to varying levels of individualism/collectivism, power distance, high/low context, self-construal and/or gender roles in societies (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014 for a review). While some researchers have ran validity studies of the argumentativeness measure or variations of it outside the US, these studies have not retained the 20-item scale (Croucher et al , 2016, 2018; Suzuki and Rancer, 1994) or have used only a 10-item or eight-item argumentativeness measure (Avtgis et al , 2008; Subanaliev et al , 2018). Other have relied on the work of Infante and Rancer (1982) to demonstrate validity in non-US samples or not reported validity analysis results (Croucher et al , 2009, 2010; Hsu, 2007; Klopf et al , 1991; Rapanta and Hample, 2015; Xie et al , 2015).…”

Section: Argumentativeness Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multi-national validity analysis of the argumentativeness measure

Croucher

Kelly

Burkey

et al. 2020

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The argumentativeness measure has been used in more than a 100 studies since 1982. The measure was developed and validated within a US university/college student sample. Despite its intended use, the measure is regularly used outside of the US and outside of the university/college setting without tests of validity. There is also intense debate as to the dimensionality of the measure, with one camp defending the bi-dimensionality of the measure and another proposing uni-dimensionality. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the utility of the measure outside of its intended population. Design/methodology/approach A total of seven samples were collected (n = 1860) from the UK, Germany, France, Turkey, the Philippines, Nicaragua and the US. In this study, Infante and Rancer’s (1982) original 20-item argumentativeness measure was used to assess argumentativeness. Confirmatory factor analyses was used to test content validity. Findings Fit statistics were consistently poor for the unidimensional factor structure. As there is debate as to whether the measure is uni or bi-dimensional, a bi-dimensional fit was also analysed. The measure performed slightly better in each sample using a bi-dimensional factor structure. However, fit statistics were still poor for each sample. Research limitations/implications Specifically, the seven samples are convenience samples. While such a sampling technique does limit the generalizability of a study’s findings, convenience samples are common when using the argumentativeness measure. These results present avenues for exploring the dimensionality of the argumentativeness measure and for revisiting cross-cultural examinations of argumentativeness. Practical implications Factor structure is a critical issue in validity. Whether authors specify their prediction or not, factor structure is always hypothesized as part of a study when measurements are used, and therefore, should be examined in every study as part of the scientific process. Making claims about human behaviour based upon measures with mis-specified factor structures or other validity issues can lead to the perpetuation of misinformation within the literature. Originality/value This is one of the few studies to empirically explore the psychometric properties of one of the most used measures in argument/conflict research. In doing so, this study enhances the understanding of decades of argumentativeness research.

show abstract

A Test of the Relationship Between Argumentativeness and Individualism/Collectivism in the United States and Finland

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

When context trumps culture: Persuasion in international business disputes

When context trumps culture: Persuasion in international business disputes

A Comparison of Motivational Patterns in Sustainable Food Consumption between Pakistan and Finland: Duties or Self-Reliance?

A multi-national validity analysis of the argumentativeness measure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About