Relationships between group skills, temperament, and argumentativeness

Communication Research Reports

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 246-257

  Schullery, Nancy M ^a   Schullery, Stephen E ^b  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038051219     PISSN: 08824096     EISSN: 17464099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08824090209384853     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ainsworth, S.J., 2000. Teamwork 2000: Multifunctional teams help companies cut through bureaucracy and unleash creativity to improve their bottom line. Chemical & Engineering News, 77: 54–59.
2. Allen, M., Hample, D., and Preiss, R., Argumentativeness: Understanding the communication profile using meta‐analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association. Washington, D.C. May.
3. Anderson, C. M., and Martin, M. M., 1999. The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication Reports, 12: 21–31.
4. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., and Heisel, A. D., 1998. Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65: 197–219.
5. Benne, K. D., and Sheats, P., 1948. Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4: 41–49.
6. Berens, L. V., 2000. Understanding yourself and others: An introduction to temperament 2.0, Huntington Beach, CA: Telos Publications.
7. Bolton, R., and Bolton, D. G., 1996. People Styles at Work, New York: American Management Association.
8. Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, M. W., 1985. Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach, New York: Plenum.
10. Forsyth, D. R., 1990. Group dynamics, 2nd ed., Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11. Gherardi, S., 1995. Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Guffey, M.E., 2000. Business communication: Process & product, 3rd ed., New York: South‐Western.
13. Hamilton, M. A., and Mineo, P. J., 2002. “ Argumentativeness and its effect on verbal aggressiveness: A meta‐analytic review ”. In Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta‐analysis, Edited by: Allen, M., Preiss, R. W., Gayle, B. M., and Burrell, N., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Hammer, A. L., and Huszczo, G. E., 1996. “ Teams ”. In MBTI applications, Edited by: Hammer, A. L., 81–103. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
15. Hammer, A. L., and Mitchell, W. D., 1996. The distribution of MBTI types in the US by gender and ethnic group. Journal of Psychological Type, 37: 2–15.
16. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., and Woodman, R. W., 1989. Organizational behavior, 5th ed., St. Paul, MN: West.
17. Infante, D.A., 1985. Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 13(1): 33–44.
18. Infante, D.A., 1989. Response to high argumentatives: Message and sex differences. The Southern Commmunication Journal, 54: 159–170.
19. Infante, D. A., and Rancer, A. S., 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46: 72–80.
20. Infante, D. A., and Rancer, A. S., 1996. “ Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research ”. In Communication yearbook, Vol. 19, 319–351.
21. Johnson, D. A., 1996. “ The Myers‐Briggs type differentiation indicator measures the big five ”. In Measures of the Five Factor Model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory, Edited by: Newman, J., Newport Beach, CA: Center for Application of Psychological Type.
22. Keirsey, D., 1998. Please understand me II: Temperament, character, & intelligence, Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
23. Keirsey, D., and Bates, M., 1978. Please understand me: An essay on temperament styles, Del Mar, CA: Promethean Books.
24. Littlejohn, S. W., 1992. Theories of human communication, 4th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
25. McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T., 1989. Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the Five Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57 (1): 17–40.
26. McCrae, R. R., and John, O. P., 1992. An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175–215.
27. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., and Hammer, A. L., 1998. MBTI Manual, 3rd ed., Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
28. Newman, J., 1996. “ Trait theory, type theory and the biological basis of personality ”. In Measures of the Five Factor Model and psychological type: A major convergence of research and theory, Edited by: Newman, J., Newport Beach, CA: Center for Application of Psychological Type.
29. Nutt, P. C., 1989. Making tough decisions: Tactics for improving managerial decision making, San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
30. Onyekwere, E., Rubin, R.B., and Infante, D.A., 1991. Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego‐involvement. Communication Quarterly, 39(1): 35–47.
31. Reinsch, N. L., and Shelby, A. N., 1997. What communication abilities do practitioners need? Evidence from MBA students. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(4): 7–29.
32. Salazar, A. J., 1996. Ambiguity and communication effects on small group decision‐making performance. Human Communication Research, 23: 155–192.
33. Schullery, N. M., 1998. The optimum level of argumentativeness for employed women. Journal of Business Communication, 35: 346–367.
34. Schullery, N. M., 1999. Argumentative men: Expectations of success. Journal of Business Communication, 36: 362–381.
35. Schullery, N. M., 2001. [Correlation of verbal aggressiveness with argumentativeness]. Unpublished raw data
36. Schullery, N. M., and Gibson, M. K., 2001. Working in groups: Identification and treatment of students’ perceived weaknesses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64: 9–30.