The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness
Abstract
A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness is reported. Argumentativeness was conceptualized as a trait Which is composed of the tendency to approach arguments and the tendency to avoid arguments. A 20-item, self-report scale was developed in a series of three factor analytic studies. The internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities of the scale were high. A series of additional studies yielded considerable evidence as to the validity of the scale. The conceptualization of argumentativeness accounts for state as well as trait components. The state components consisted of the individual's perceptions of the probability and importance of success and failure in a particular argumentative situation. A hypothesis was supported which posited response to a particular argument would be predicted better by trait and state components together than by the trait component alone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043445 · Cited by 3,706
Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research
McCROSKEY, J. C. (1977) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x · Cited by 890
Cited by
Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629 · Cited by 2,675
Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology
CHINN, C. A., BUCKLAND, L. A., & SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · Cited by 524
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 · Cited by 310
Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness: A Review of Recent Theory and Research
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.1996.11678934 · Cited by 267
Self-citationThe effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1982-02
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-80
- ISSN
- 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7752
- OpenAlex
- W1976358832
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
- The paper
- Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A Conceptualization and Measure of Argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
