Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management

Previous research suggests that altering predispositions toward communication may be an effective prerequisite in training efforts that emphasize communication skill development. Utilizing a theoretical framework that maintains that a predisposition is controlled by a set of beliefs, this study sought to (a) identify beliefs about arguing that could explain variance in argumentativeness, and (b) determine beliefs that discriminate individuals who vary in the trait. Five composite beliefs about arguing (enjoyment, self-concept, pragmatic outcomes, dysfunctional outcomes, and ego-involvement) were found to explain significant variance in underlying motivation to argue and to discriminate between individuals who vary in the predisposition. Implications of the identification and use of these beliefs for communication pedagogy and curriculum design in argumentation and conflict management courses are discussed.