Using a convenience sample, 172 college students' (M age = 20.2 yr., SD = 2.5) motives for communicating with their instructors and their own verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness were studied using the Argumentativeness Scale, the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale, and the Student Motives to Communicate Scale. Significant negative relationships were obtained between students' self-reports of argumentativeness and the sycophantic motive and between students' self-reports of verbal aggressiveness and the functional motive, but generally, students' motives to communicate with their instructors generally were not associated with their self-reported aggressive communication behaviors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
InfanteD. A. (1987) Aggressiveness. In McCroskeyJ. C. & DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 157–192.
2.
InfanteD. A., & RancerA. S. (1982) A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72–80.
3.
InfanteD. A., & RancerA. S. (1996) Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: a review of recent theory and research. In BurlesonB. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 319–351.
4.
InfanteD. A., & WigleyC. J.III. (1986) Verbal aggressiveness: an interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61–68.
5.
MartinM. M.MyersS. A., & MottetT. P. (1999) Students' motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155–164.
6.
MartinM. M.ValencicK. M., & HeiselA. D. (2002) The relationship between students' communication apprehension and their motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 19, 1–7.
7.
MyersS. A.EdwardsC.WahlS., & MartinM. M. (2007) The relationship between perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication Education, 56, 495–508.
8.
MyersS. A.MartinM. M., & MottetT. P. (2002) Students' motives for communicating with their instructors: considering instructor socio-communicative style, student socio-communicative orientation, and student gender. Communication Education, 51, 121–133.
