Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness () in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akkermans, A., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Labrie, N., Henselmans, I., & van Laarhoven, H.
    2018 “The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2): 181–203. 10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk [Google Scholar]
  2. Argumentation and Patient Centered Care
    Argumentation and Patient Centered Care 2018Special Issue of the Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), ed. ByA. F. Snoeck Henkemans, R. Pilgram, and N. Labrie.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Avtgis, T., & Rancer, A. S.
    (Eds.) 2010Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855423
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855423 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bigi, S.
    2010 “Institutional constraints on the (un) sound use of the argument from expert opinion in the medical context”. InProceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 “The persuasive role of ethos in doctor-patient interactions”. Communication & Medicine, 8(1): 67. 10.1558/cam.v8i1.67
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v8i1.67 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012 “Evaluating argumentative moves in medical consultations”. Journal of Argumentation in Context1(1): 51–65. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.05big
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.05big [Google Scholar]
  7. Charles, C., Gafni, A., and Whelan, T.
    1997 “Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)”. Social Science and Medicine, 44(5): 681–692. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1999 “Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model”. Social Science and Medicine, 49(5): 651–661. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(99)00145‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Degner, L. F., and Sloan, J. A.
    1992 “Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play?” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45(9): 941–950. 10.1016/0895‑4356(92)90110‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. DeWine, S., Nicotera, A. M., and Parry, D.
    1991 “Argumentativeness and aggressiveness: The flip side of gentle persuasion.” Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3): 386–411. 10.1177/0893318991004003008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318991004003008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dowling, R. E., and Flint, L. J.
    1990 “The argumentativeness scale: Problems and promise”. Communication Studies, 41(2), 183–198. 10.1080/10510979009368300
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979009368300 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eemeren, F. H. van
    2010Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Vol.2). John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, F. H. van, and Grootendorst, R.
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion (Vol.1). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1992Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2004A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol.14). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Frosch, D. L., and Kaplan, R. M.
    1999 “Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions”. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(4): 285–294. 10.1016/S0749‑3797(99)00097‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00097-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hample, D.
    2018Interpersonal arguing. Peter Lang. 10.3726/b12877
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12877 [Google Scholar]
  18. Infante, D. A.
    1982 “The argumentative student in the speech communication classroom: An investigation and implications”. Communication Education, 31(2): 141–148. 10.1080/03634528209384671
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528209384671 [Google Scholar]
  19. Infante, D. A., and Rancer, A. S.
    1982 “A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1): 72–80. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1996 Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 19(1): 319–352. 10.1080/23808985.1996.11678934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678934 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kazoleas, D.
    1993 “The impact of argumentativeness on resistance to persuasion”. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 118–137. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1993.tb00318.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00318.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Labrie, N. H. M.
    2012 “Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions: Two cases in point”. Argumentation, 26(2): 171–199. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9228‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9228-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Labrie, N. H. M., and Schulz, P. J.
    2014a “Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor–patient communication”. Health communication, 29(10): 996–1008. 10.1080/10410236.2013.829018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.829018 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014b “The effects of general practitioners’ use of argumentation to support their treatment advice: Results of an experimental study using video-vignettes”. Health Communication, 30(10): 951–961. 10.1080/10410236.2014.909276
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.909276 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2014c “Quantifying doctors’ argumentation in general practice consultation through content analysis: Measurement development and preliminary results”. Argumentation, 29(1): 33–55. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9331‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9331-5 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015 “Exploring the relationships between participatory decision-making, visit duration, and general practitioners’ provision of argumentation to support their medical advice: Results from a content analysis”. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(5): 572–577. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.01.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.01.017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levine, T. R., & Kotowski, M. R.
    2010Measuring argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Psychometric concerns and advances. InT. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp.67–81). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, W., Kao, A., Kuby, A., Thisted, R. A.
    2005 “Not all patients want to participate in decision making”. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(6): 531–535. 10.1111/j.1525‑1497.2005.04101.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04101.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Murray, E., Pollack, L., White, M., and Lo, B.
    2007 “Clinical decision-making: Patients’ preferences and experiences”. Patient education and counseling, 65(2): 189–196. 10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B., & Infante, D. A.
    1991 “Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement”. Communication Quarterly, 39(1), 35–47. 10.1080/01463379109369781
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369781 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pilgram, R.
    2010 “A doctor’s argumentation by authority as a strategic manoeuvre”. InProceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2012 “Reasonableness of a doctor’s argument by authority: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1): 33–50. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.04pil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.04pil [Google Scholar]
  33. Pilgram, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    2018 “A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision-making”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2): 161–176. 10.1075/jaic.18027.pil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil [Google Scholar]
  34. Rancer, A. S., and Avtgis, T. A.
    2006Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rubinelli, S.
    2013 “Argumentation as rational persuasion in doctor-patient communication”. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 46(4): 550–569. 10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0550
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0550 [Google Scholar]
  36. Salmon, P.
    2015 “Argumentation and persuasion in patient-centred communication”. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(5): 543–544. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sandman, L., and Munthe, C.
    2010 “Shared decision-making, paternalism and patient choice”. Health Care Analysis, 18(1): 60–84. 10.1007/s10728‑008‑0108‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-008-0108-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schultz, B.
    1982 “Argumentativeness: Its effect in group decision-making and its role in leadership perception”. Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 368–375. 10.1080/01463378209369473
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378209369473 [Google Scholar]
  39. Singh, J. A., Sloan, J. A., Atherton, P. J., Smith, T., Hack, T. F., Huschka, M. M., and Degner, L. F.
    2010 “Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: a pooled analysis of studies using the Control Preferences Scale.” The American journal of managed care, 16(9): 688.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Labrie, N., and Pilgram, R.
    2018 “Argumentation and patient centered care”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2): 117–119. 10.1075/jaic.18026.sno
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18026.sno [Google Scholar]
  41. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., and Wagemans, J.
    2012 “The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision-making”. InBetween Scientists and Citizens. Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, ed. byJ. Goodwin. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation. 10.31274/sciencecommunication‑180809‑83
    https://doi.org/10.31274/sciencecommunication-180809-83 [Google Scholar]
  42. Willems, S., De Maesschalck, S., Deveugele, M., Derese, A., and De Maeseneer, J.
    2005 “Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference?” Patient education and counseling, 56(2): 139–146. 10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.011 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error