1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Dutch are often thought of as direct, verbally aggressive, and argumentative. Yet, evidence for this stereotype is lacking. This study explores argumentative predispositions in the Netherlands. In a survey, Dutch students’ ( = 133) argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and conflict personalization were measured. The effects of gender and education were assessed. To explore the role of Dutch culture on argumentativeness, comparisons to U.S. students (benchmark) were made. Overall, Dutch students showed orientations, expectations, and understandings of argumentation as being useful and enjoyable, and seemed to experience argumentation predominantly positive. Males were more aggressive than females, and students in higher professional and university (preparatory) education were more constructive than students in vocational education. In contrast to expectations, Dutch students did not appear more predisposed to argue than U.S. students. Dutch students prioritized prosocial behaviors and professional reflection, thereby tempering aggression in arguing. Thus, argumentativeness is certainly not merely (stereo)typically Dutch.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19009.lab
2020-10-28
2020-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bradley, K., and Charles, M.
    2009 “Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries”. American Journal of Sociology114: 924–976. 10.1086/595942
    https://doi.org/10.1086/595942 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cohen, J.
    1969Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Demir, Y., and Hample, D.
    2019 “A cross-cultural study of argument orientations of turkish and american college students: Is silence really golden and speech silver for Turkish students?Argumentation, doi:  10.1007/s10503‑019‑09483‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09483-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Douglas, P.
    1992Dissing the Dutch. All’s Fair in Love and War. Retrieved fromwww.newnetherlandinstitute.org/files/2613/6700/9122/DISSING_THE_DUTCH.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Driessen, C.
    2009 “Beleefdheid is de meeste Nederlanders totaal vreemd”. NRC. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2009/08/01/beleefdheid-is-de-meeste-nederlanders-totaal-vreemd-11762668-a781449
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, van F. H.
    2015 “The Language of Argumentation in Dutch”. InReasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. byF. H. van Eemeren, 27–30. Argumentation Library; No. 27. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Hample, D.
    2003 “Arguing skill.” InHandbook of communication and social interaction skills, ed. byJ. O. Greene and B. R. Burleson, 439–478. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 “Orientations to Interpersonal Arguing in Chile and Around the World”. Cogency7(2): 61–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2018Interpersonal Arguing. New York, NY: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b12877
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12877 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hample, D. and Anagondahalli, D.
    2015 “Understandings of arguing in India and the United States: Argument frames, personalization of conflict, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44: 1–26. 10.1080/17475759.2014.1000939
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2014.1000939 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hample, D. and Cionea, I. A.
    2010 “Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness”. InArguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research, ed. byT. A. Avtgis and A. S. Rancer, 372–387. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hample, D. and Dallinger, J. M.
    1995 “A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument”. Communication Quarterly, 43: 297–319. 10.1080/01463379509369978
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379509369978 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hample, D., Han, B., and Payne, D.
    2010 “The aggressiveness of playful arguments”. Argumentation, 24: 405–421. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9173‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9173-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hample, D. and Irions, A.
    2015 “Arguing to display identity”. Argumentation, 294: 389–416. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9351‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hample, D., Lewinski, M., Sàágua, J. and Mohammed, D.
    2015 “A descriptive and comparative analysis of arguing in Portugal”. Paper presented to themeeting of the European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, Portugal.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hill, K.
    2019 “Where does the expression “to get one’s Dutch up” come from and what does it mean?” Retrieved fromhttps://zippyfacts.com/where-does-the-expression-to-get-ones-dutch-up-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean/
  18. Hofstede, G.
    2011 “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context”. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 21.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hofstede Insights
    Hofstede Insights 2019 “Country comparison”. Retrieved fromhttps://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-netherlands,the-usa/
  20. Hornikx, J. and Hoeken, H.
    2007 “Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality”. Communication Monographs, 474: 443–463. 10.1080/03637750701716578
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701716578 [Google Scholar]
  21. Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S.
    1982 “A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46: 72–80. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13 [Google Scholar]
  22. Infante, D. A. and Wigley, C. J.
    1986 “Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure.” Communication Monographs, 53: 61–69. 10.1080/03637758609376126
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376126 [Google Scholar]
  23. Marrewijk, A. van
    2012 “Cross cultural management: Hybridization of dutch–indian work practices in geographically distributed it projects”. International Journal of Business Anthropology, 22.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mecking, O.
    2018 “Where Dutch directness comes from”. BBC Travel. Retrieved fromwww.bbc.com/travel/story/20180131-where-dutch-directness-comes-from
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Nuffic
    Nuffic 2018 “Education and diplomas the Netherlands”. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nuffic.nl/en/subjects/education-and-diplomas-the-netherlands/
  26. Ojajärvi, A., and Kokko, H.
    2010 Organising a multicultural event: case: Erasmus IP 2010: innovative approaches in multicultural tourism education. Bachelor thesis, Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences JAMK, Minna Junttila.
  27. Rancer, A. S. and Avtgis, T. A.
    2014Argumentative and aggressive communication, 2d ed.New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rapanta, C. and Hample, D.
    2015 “Orientations to interpersonal arguing in the United Arab Emirates, with comparisons to the United States, China, and India”. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44: 263–287. 10.1080/17475759.2015.1081392
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1081392 [Google Scholar]
  29. Santibáñez, C. and Hample, D.
    2015 “Orientations toward interpersonal arguing in Chile”. Pragmatics, 25: 453–476. 10.1075/prag.25.3.06san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.3.06san [Google Scholar]
  30. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., and Allik, J.
    2008 “Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 168–182. 10.1037/0022‑3514.94.1.168
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schullery, N. M. and Schullery, S. E.
    2003 “Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education.” Western Journal of Communication, 672: 207–233. 10.1080/10570310309374767
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310309374767 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ten minutes with 2015, March7. 10 minutes with Geert Hofstede on Long versus Short Term Orientation01032015. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAJclwfyCw
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tops, G. A. J., Dekeyser, X., Devriendt, B., and Geukens, S.
    2001 “Dutch speakers”. Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems, ed. byM. Swan and B. Smith, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667121.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667121.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Vossestein, J.
    2010Dealing with the Dutch. Volendam: LM Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Waheed, M., and Hample, D.
    2016 “Argumentation in Malaysia and how it compares to the US, India, and China.” Annual conference of the International Communication Association, Fukuoka, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. White, C. and Boucke, L.
    2013The Undutchables. Lafayette: White Boucke Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wijst, P. van der
    1995 “The perception of politeness in Dutch and French indirect requests”. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 154: 477–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Xie, Y., Hample, D. and Wang, X.
    2015 “A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict”. Argumentation, 293: 265–284. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9352‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9352-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19009.lab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19009.lab
Loading

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