This article was downloaded by: [Boston College]On: 05 October 2013, At: 03:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

The predictive validity of the verbal aggressivenessscaleRebecca M. Chory‐Assad a

a Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University,108 Armstrong Hall, Box 6293, Morgantown, WV, 26506Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Rebecca M. Chory‐Assad (2002) The predictive validity of the verbal aggressiveness scale, CommunicationResearch Reports, 19:3, 237-245, DOI: 10.1080/08824090209384852

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384852

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Predictive Validity of the Verbal Aggressiveness Scale

Rebecca M. Chory-AssadWest Virginia University

This study examined the predictive validity of Infante and Wigley's (1986) 20-itemVerbal Aggressiveness Scale (VAS) and the 10-item aggression and 10-itembenevolence components of the VAS proposed by Beatty, Rudd, and Valencic (1999).Individuals' scores on the 20 self-report VAS items were obtained and approximatelyfour weeks later their aggressive communication during an interaction was assessed.Results indicate that the 20-item VAS and the proposed 10-item benevolencecomponent of the VAS predicted frequency and rate of aggressive communication, whilethe proposed 10-item aggression component of the VAS and aggressive communicationwere not related at a statistically significant level.

Infante and Wigley (1986) define verbal aggressiveness as a trait that involves"attacking the self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person'sposition on a topic of communication" (p. 61), and recommend their VerbalAggressiveness Scale (VAS) as a measure of the trait. Infante and Wigley state that VAis characterized by the tendency to attack another's character, competence,background, or physical appearance, to use maledictions (wishing harm on another)and/or nonverbal emblems (kinesic behaviors that are functionally equivalent towords), and/or to tease, ridicule, threaten, or swear (Infante & Wigley, 1986; Infante,Sabourin, Rudd, & Shannon, 1990). Scores on the VAS have been shown to be related to

Rebecca M. Chory-Assad (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 2000) is an Assistant Professor inthe Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, 108 Armstrong Hall,Box 6293, Morgantown, WV 26506. This report is drawn from the author's doctoral dissertation,which was directed by Ron Tamborini, Associate Professor of Communication at Michigan StateUniversity. The author would like to thank Ron Tamborini for his guidance in conducting thisresearch. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented to the Interpersonal Communica-tion Division of the National Communication Association at their annual meeting in Atlanta,GA, November, 2001.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 19, Number 3, pages 237-245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

238 - Communication Research Reports/Summer 2002

cognitive complexity, communication apprehension, social desirability, verbalhostility, self-esteem, marital satisfaction, communicator image, satisfaction with job-related outcomes, selection of social influence messages, and numerous other outcomes(Infante & Gorden, 1985,1987; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Rancer, Kosberg, & Silvestri, 1992).

Although extensive research using the VAS has been conducted, only its concurrent(e.g., Infante & Wigley, 1986) and construct validity (e.g., Rancer, Baukus, & Amato,1986) have been examined, though scholars also suggest examining its predictivevalidity (DeWine, Nicotera, & Parry, 1991; Rubin, 1994). Furthermore, the validity ofthe two-factor version of the VAS proposed by Beatty, Rudd, and Valencic (1999) hasnot yet been demonstrated. The proposed two-factor VAS is made up of an aggressioncomponent consisting of the 10 negatively-worded VAS items in which agreementindicates VA, and a benevolence component consisting of the 10 positively-wordedVAS items in which disagreement indicates VA. The present study assessed thepredictive validity of the 20-item VAS (Infante & Wigley, 1986) and the proposed 10-item aggression and benevolence components of the VAS (Beatty et al., 1999).

EMPIRICAL RATIONALEValidity

Validity is the extent to which a test or scale measures what it is intended to measure(Kerlinger, 1986). For the most part, scores from self-reports or other-reports have beenused to help establish the validity of the VAS (e.g., Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989;Infante & Gorden, 1985,1989,1991; Infante & Wigley, 1986; Lim, 1990). Although thesestudies have increased our confidence in the scale's ability to measure tendenciestoward VA, observing communicative behavior could provide even more evidence ofthe VAS's validity. As Kerlinger (1986) asserts, "Important as is asking about behavior,there is no substitute for seeing, as directly as possible, what people actually do whenconfronted with different circumstances and different people" (p. 499). He furtherinsists that observations be used when researchers aim to study inherently interactiveand interpersonal variables and relationships that involve actual behavior.

The predictive validity of the VAS should be established to show that thepredisposition the scale does measure is in fact related to aggressive communication,rather than a perception that one engages in VA or used VA in the past. Predictivevalidity involves assessing scores on the given measure and then assessing scores on thereal variable of interest at some time in the future (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981;Kerlinger, 1986). Accordingly, the predictive validity of the VAS was examined here byobtaining individuals' VAS scores and four to nine weeks later assessing theiraggressive communication during an interpersonal interaction.

Hypothesis and Research QuestionsAs previously mentioned, studies using the self-report and other-report 20-item

VAS have pointed to its validity in predicting VA. Therefore, it is expected that scoreson the VAS will be related to aggressive communication behavior.

HI: Scores on the VAS and Hie frequency and rate of engaging in aggressivecommunication will be positively related.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Verbal Aggressiveness Predictive Validity - 239

Although there is substantial self- and other-report evidence to suggest that the 20-item VAS is valid, there is no empirical evidence showing that the proposed 10-itemaggression and 10-item benevolence factors of the VAS (Beatty et al., 1999) arepredictive of aggressive communication. Thus, the following research questions wereput forth:

RQ1: What is the relationship between scores on the proposed aggressioncomponent of the VAS and the frequency and rate of engaging inaggressive communication?

RQ2: What is the relationship between scores on the proposed benevolencecomponent of the VAS and the frequency and rate of engaging inaggressive communication?

The frequency of aggressive communication refers to the total number of aggressivemessages communicated during the interpersonal interaction. The rate is the ratio ofaggressive communication frequency to total message (both aggressive and non-aggressive) frequency. Including a measure of rate provides some insight into the rolethat aggressive messages play in interactions relative to the roles played by othermessage types.

METHODSThe data reported in this study were collected as part of a larger study not reported

here. Participants were 87 undergraduates (63% female, 89% White) in acommunication course at a large midwestern university in spring 2000. Their averageage was 21.2 years with a mean household income of $58,300. Four weeks prior to thelab study, participants' trait VA was assessed by the 20-item self-report VerbalAggressiveness Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Scale items were evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to stronglyagree. The standard item alpha of the scale was .81 and the mean was 2.45 (SD = 0.54).The aggression and benevolence components of the VAS suggested by Beatty and hiscolleagues (1999) were composed of the 10 VAS items in which agreement indicates VAand the 10 VAS items worded in a non-aggressive manner (disagreement = VA),respectively. The standard item alpha of the proposed aggression scale was .68, with amean of 2.38 (SD = .60), and the standard item alpha of the proposed benevolence scalewas .76, with a mean of 3.48 (SD = .63). The proposed aggression and benevolencefactors of the VAS were negatively correlated (r = -.55, p < .05).

In the lab, each participant discussed a bogus student policy with a confederate.The confederates were five female and one male undergraduate who were trained todisagree with and counter-argue with participants. The first two minutes of thediscussion were videotaped through a one-way glass and transcribed. Using thetranscriptions and the videotapes, participants' communication was coded for frequencyand types of aggressive communication. Each independent thought was classified asaggressive or not, and each aggressive statement was then categorized according to thetype of aggressive message it contained.

Although Infante and his colleagues suggest various behaviors as VA inconceptualizing trait VA, the VAS directly assesses only character and competence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

240 - Communication Research Reports/Summer 2002

attacks, insults, ridicule, and teasing. Other items consist of the tendency to say strongthings and to tell others off, among other things. The VAS also refers to nonverbalbehaviors such as yelling. These characteristics of VA may be expressed in forms otherthan those suggested by Infante and Wigley, but cited by others as VA (e.g., Buss &Perry, 1992; Joy, Kimball, & Zabrack, 1986; Leyens, Camino, Parke, & Berkowitz, 1975;Potter, 1997; Potter & Vaughan, 1997). For example, saying strong things may includeexpressing dislike for the other or his/her ideas, or having angry outbursts.

To more fully encompass the scope of aggressive behaviors suggested by the VAS,aggressive communication was defined as any statement that attacked the self-conceptor ideas of another person(s) (e.g., the confederate, the board of trustees) or entity (e.g.,the university) in an angry, rude, loud, disrespectful, or mean-spirited manner. Assuch, the categories of aggressive messages included Infante and Wigley'smaledictions, ridicule/mocking, swearing, threats, and attacks on competence,character, background, and physical appearance, as well as Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack's(1986) sarcasm, rejection, dislike, and demands.

To assess their interrater reliability, three female undergraduates coded 130statements that were not part of the final sample. A version of Cohen's kappa (Potter &Levine-Donnerstein, 1999) was employed as the index of interrater reliability. Thepercent agreement among the coders in classifying a statement as aggressive or not was84% with a kappa of .78. The percent agreement in categorizing the aggressivestatements according to type was 89% with a kappa of .89 as well. After these levels ofreliability were reached, each judge independently coded about one-third of theparticipants' videotaped behaviors.

The total number of participant statements ranged from 3 to 30, with a mean of 13.0(SD = 5.10). The frequency of aggressive messages ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean of1.00 (SD = 1.33). The rate of aggressive communication was calculated by dividing theparticipant's number of aggressive statements by his/her total number of statements.The mean aggressive communication rate was 0.08 (on average, 8% of the statementswere aggressive). Table 1 displays the frequency of aggressive communication types.

RESULTSMultiple regression was used to examine the data in the present study. Participant

sex, age, race, and income level were entered first into the regression model becausepast research has indicated that these variables often account for statistically significantfindings in aggression-related studies (DeWine et al., 1991; Greenberg & Dervin, 1970;Infante, 1987; Infante, Trebing, Sheperd, & Seeds, 1984; Infante & Wigley, 1986;McLaughlin, Leonard, & Senchak, 1992; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Roberto & Finucane,1997; Robinson & Bachman, 1972). The confederate variable was correlated withaggressive communication frequency (r =• .29, p < .05). The confederate variable wasalso correlated with total statements (r = .27, p < .05). Due to these correlations, theconfederate variable was entered into the regression model with the demographics.After this block was entered, the trait VA, proposed aggression, or proposedbenevolence variable was entered. This method allows the given scale's ability topredict aggressive communication to be assessed after the effect of the other variableshas been accounted for.

The hypothesis predicted that VAS scores would be positively related to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Verbal Aggressiveness Predictive Validity - 241

TABLE 1.Descriptive statistics for aggressive communication by type.

Aggressive Communication Type

Competence AttacksDislikeCharacter AttacksSwearingRejectionRidicule/MockingThreatBackground AttacksPhysical Appearance AttacksSarcasmMaledictionDemand

ALL TYPES

Mean Frequency

0.340.210.180.170.070.010.0100000

1.00

N

3018161561100000

87

Standard Deviation

0.630.550.470.510.300.110.11

1.33

frequency of communication and the rate of aggressive communication. Results showthat after accounting for the confederate and demographic variables, trait VA predictedfrequency of engaging in aggressive communication at a statistically significant level,F (6, 80) = 4.10, p < .05. Trait VA, however, did not predict rate of aggressivecommunication, F (6, 80) = 2.07, p > .05. Furthermore, trait VA accounted for astatistically significant increase of 4% in the variance in frequency of aggressivecommunication, R2 = .24, F (1, 80) = 4.47, p < .05, accounted for by the model. Thehypothesis was partially supported.

The first research question inquired about the relationship between scores on theproposed aggression component of the VAS and frequency and rate of aggressivecommunication. Results reveal that after accounting for the confederate and thedemographic variables, the overall model predicted frequency of aggressivecommunication, F (6, 80) = 3.66, p < .05. The results for the proposed aggressioncomponent, however, were not statistically significant, f = 1.52, p > .05; F (1,80) = 2.30,p > .05. Results were not statistically significant for the overall model in predicting rateof aggressive communication, F (6, 80) = 1.63, p > .05. Results also indicate that theproposed aggression component did not predict rate of aggressive communication at astatistically significant level, f = 1.22, p > .05; F (1, 80) = 1.50, p > .05.

Research question two examined the relationship between the proposedbenevolence component of the VAS and frequency and rate of aggressivecommunication. Results indicate that after accounting for the confederate and thedemographic variables, the proposed benevolence dimension predicted frequency ofaggressive communication at a statistically significant level, F (6,80) = 4.12, p < .05. Theproposed benevolence component also predicted rate of aggressive communication ata statistically significant level, F (6, 80) = 2.24, p < .05. The proposed benevolencedimension accounted for a statistically significant increase of 4% in the variance infrequency of aggressive communication accounted for by the model, R2 = .24, F (1, 80) =4.55, p < .05. Finally, the proposed benevolence dimension accounted for a statisticallysignificant increase of 5% in the variance in rate of aggressive communication accountedfor by the model, R2 = .14, F (1,80) = 4.79, p < .05. Table 2 summarizes the results.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

242 - Communication Research Reports /Summer 2002

TABLE 2.

Results of the multiple regression analyses.

Criterion Predictor j3 /-value R R2

Frequency of Aggressive Communication20-itemVAS 0.22* 2.12* 0.49* 0.24*Aggression 0.16 1.52 0.46 0.22Benevolence -0.22* -2.13* 0.49* 0.24*

Rate of Aggressive Communication20-itemVAS 0.22* 1.98* 0.37* 0.14*Aggression 0.14 1.22 0.33 0.11Benevolence -0.24* -2.19* 0.38* 0.14*

*p<.05Note: A block composed of participant sex, age, race, income level, and the confederate were entered into theregression model prior to the above predictors being entered.

DISCUSSIONResults indicate that Infante and Wigley's (1986) 20-item Verbal Aggressiveness

Scale (VAS) and the 10-item benevolence component of the VAS proposed by Beatty etal. (1999) predicted aggressive communication at a statistically significant level, whilethe 10-item aggression component of the VAS proposed by Beatty et al. (1999) did not.Although these findings provide modest support for the claim that the VAS may bemultidimensional, some limitations to the study must be noted before any conclusionscan be reached.

First, the lack of findings regarding the proposed 10-item aggression component ofthe VAS may be due to the composition and size of the sample. The relatively lownumber of participants' aggressive messages and the rather low mean on the proposedaggression component scale suggest the possibility that only a small number ofparticipants were actually aggressive. A sample of predominantly non-aggressivepeople would likely reduce the variance found in response to the aggressioncomponent scale items, and thereby lower the inter-item correlations and the resultingreliability estimate for the measure. The aggression component's reliability of .68 issomewhat low, which may have hindered its ability to predict aggressivecommunication in the present study.

Although the proposed aggression component's scale reliability may have beenlow in the current study, it may be higher in future studies given the relationshipbetween sample size and stability of reliability estimates. Through its effect onsampling error, the relatively small sample may have affected the inter-itemcorrelations in a manner that reduced the reliability of the scale. Future studiesinvolving more participants may yield a higher reliability, increasing the potential forthe scale to predict aggressive communication. Similarly, the relatively small samplesize likely affected the stability of the regression coefficients found in the study. Futureresearch with larger samples may yield not only higher reliability estimates, but morestable, and perhaps different, relationships than those observed here.

In addition to sample size and make-up, the sex of the confederate may also haveimpacted the present study's results. Having five female and only one male confederatemay have contributed to a potential sex-bias in that participants may have felt morecomfortable engaging in aggressive communication with a confederate of one sex

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Verbal Aggressiveness Predictive Validity - 243

versus the other. Systematically examining the roles of participant and confederate sexmay further clarify the relationships between the VAS and aggressive communication.Finally, observing one two-minute conversation between strangers is not the most idealcontext for testing the scale's validity. Studying the validity of the VAS in predictingaggressive communication in more natural settings, with longer discussion times, andthrough repeated measures of participants' communication would enable scholars tomore accurately evaluate the measure.

In designing the VAS, Infante arid Wigley determined that the emergence of twoseparate factors represented a unidimensional scale with the latent variable of item-wording creating the second factor. However, Beatty et al. (1999) suggest that the VASmay actually be multidimensional, and the present study provides some preliminarysupport for their claim. Inconsistent with Beatty et al.'s (1999) results, however, is thecurrent study's findings that the predictive ability of the 20-item VAS and the proposedbenevolence (versus aggression) component were virtually identical. This result couldbe interpreted as suggesting that the predictive power of the VAS lies in the 10 itemsworded in a non-aggressive manner. Given the limitations of the present study,however, this speculation is tentative at best.

As Beatty and his colleagues (1999) recommend, research involving data setscontaining the 20-item VAS should use the two proposed factors as separate predictorsof the dependent variable(s) to assess the relative association of each factor with theoutcome variable(s). If a great deal of additional evidence supporting a two-factorstructure of the VAS is obtained, future research should then seek to determine theunderlying construct(s) represented by the factors. For example, Beatty et al. (1999)suggest that the 10 positively-worded items may represent intentional and consciousefforts to communicate in a certain way (e.g., "I try very hard..." and "I make a greateffort..."), while the 10 negatively-worded items may measure aggressiveness.

Although the present study offers potentially valuable insight to the VAS, it isimportant to keep in mind that the method used here represents an initial attempt atappraising the predictive validity of the scale. The limitations of this method describedearlier underscore the unquestionable need for continued research involving Infanteand Wigley's (1986) 20-item VAS and the 10-item benevolence and aggressioncomponents of the VAS proposed by Beatty et al. (1999). Only after continuedthoughtful study of the VAS and its proposed components can the results obtainedthrough their use be appropriately interpreted.

REFERENCESBeatty, M.J., Rudd, J.E., & Valencic, K.M. (1999). A Re-examination of the verbal aggressiveness

scale: One factor or two? Communication Research Reports, 16, 10-17.Buss, A.H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 63, 452-459.DeWine, S., Nicotera, A.M., & Parry, D. (1991). Argumentativeness and aggressiveness: The flip

side to gentle persuasion. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 386-411.Ghiselli, E.E., Campbell, J.P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences.

New York: Freeman Press.Greenberg, B.S. & Dervin, B. (1970). Use of the mass media by the urban poor. New York: Praeger.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

244 - Communication Research Reports/Summer 2002

Infante, D.A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J.C. McCroskey & J.A. Daly (Eds.). Personality and inter-personal communication (pp. 157-194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Infante, D.A., Chandler, T.L., & Rudd, J.E. (1989). The test of an argumentative skill deficiencymodel of interpersonal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163-173.

Infante, D.A. & Gorden, W.I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness aspredictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 12, 117-125.

Infante, D.A. & Gorden, W.I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles: Implica-tions for independent-mindedness and upward effectiveness. Central States Speech Journal, 38,73-80.

Infante, D.A. & Gorden, W.I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style aspredictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37, 81-90.

Infante, D.A. & Gorden, W.I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of an argumentative andaffirming model of supervisors' communicative behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communi-cation, 55, 294-304.

Infante, D.A., Sabourin, T.C., Rudd, J.E., & Shannon, E.A. (1990). Verbal aggression in violentand nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361-371.

Infante, D.A., Trebing, J.D., Sheperd, P.E., & Seeds, D.E. (1984). The relationship ofargumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 67-77.

Infante, D.A. & Wigley, C.J., III (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and mea-sure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Joy, L.A., Kimball, M.M., & Zabrack, M.L. (1986). Television and children's aggressive behavior.In T.M. Williams (Ed.). The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities (pp.303-603). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Pub-lishers.

Leyens, J., Camino, L., Parke, R.D., & Berkowitz, L. (1975). Effects of movie violence on aggres-sion in a field setting as a function of group dominance and cohesion. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 32, 346-360.

Lim, T.S. (1990). The influences of receivers' resistance on persuaders' verbal aggressiveness.Communication Quarterly, 38, 170-188.

McLaughlin, I.G., Leonard, K.E., & Senchak, M. (1992). Prevalence and distribution of premaritalaggression among couples applying for a marriage license. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 309-319.

Paik, H. & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516-546.

Potter, W.J. (1997). The problem of indexing risk of viewing television aggression. Critical Studiesin Mass Communication, 14, 228-248.

Potter, W.J. & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis.Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.

Potter, W.J. & Vaughan, M. (1997). Antisocial behaviors in television entertainment: Trends andprofiles. Communication Research Reports, 14, 116-124.

Rancer, A.S., Baukus, R.A., & Amato, P.P. (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness,and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3, 28-32.

Rancer, A.S., Kosberg, R.L., & Silvestri, V.N. (1992). The relationship between self-esteem andaggressive communication predispositions. Communication Research Reports, 9, 23-32.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Verbal Aggressiveness Predictive Validity - 245

Roberto, A.J. & Finucane, M. (1997). The assessment of argumentativeness and verbal aggres-siveness in adolescent populations. Communication Quarterly, 45, 21-36.

Robinson, J.P. & Bachman, J.G. (1972). Television viewing habits and aggression. In G.A. Comstock& E.A. Rubinstein (Eds.). Television and social behavior, reports and papers, volume III: Televisionand adolescent aggressiveness. A technical report to the surgeon general's scientific advisory commit-tee on television and social behavior (pp. 372-382). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Rubin, R.B. (1994). Verbal aggressiveness scale. In R.B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, and H.E. Sypher(Eds.). Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 387-392). New York: Guilford Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Col

lege

] at

03:

24 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013