1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Bulgarian people have a long history and an enduring national identity, significantly defined by their continuing allegiance to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Here we investigate how Bulgarians understand the prospect of interpersonal argument. Our instruments assess Bulgarians’ arguing motivations, their understandings of the practice of arguing face to face, their emotional reactions to interpersonal disagreement, their tolerance of status inequalities in society, and their willingness to argue at work. We have data from 287 Bulgarians (39% male, 61% female), having an average age of 37 years. We uncovered very few differences between men and women. We found older Bulgarians less eager to argue in typical social situations, though they were not hesitant to argue with their superiors at work. They were more polite and cooperative when they did argue. Bulgarians who were most comfortable with status inequities in society were reluctant to argue with their superiors, were noticeably willing to produce arguments, and generally had an aggressive impolite profile of arguing orientations. Poland and Ukraine are natural comparisons because of their shared political histories in the last several generations. We also do a comparison with the U.S., as a general standard of comparison because our theories and measures originated in the U.S.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23015.val
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Balducci, M.
    2023 Linking Gender Differences with Gender Equality: A Systematic-Narrative Literature Review of Basic Skills and Personality. Frontiers in Psychology141. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blötner, C., Bergold, S.
    2021 To Be Fooled or not to Be Fooled: Approach and Avoidance Facets of Machiavellianism. Psychological Assessment34(2). Preprint.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Charles, M.
    2017 Venus, Mars, and math: Gender, societal affluence, and eighth graders’ aspirations for STEM. Socius31: 1–16. 10.1177/2378023117697179
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117697179 [Google Scholar]
  4. Charles, M., & Bradley, K.
    2009 Indulging our gendered selves? sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology1141: 924–976. 10.1086/595942
    https://doi.org/10.1086/595942 [Google Scholar]
  5. Christie, R., & Geis, F.
    1970Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clench-Aas, J., & Holte, A.
    2021 Political Trust Influences the Relationship Between Income and Life Satisfaction in Europe: Differential Associations With Trust at National, Community, and Individual Level. Frontiers in Public Health91 (629118). 10.3389/fpubh.2021.629118
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.629118 [Google Scholar]
  7. Debowska-Kozlowska, K., & Hample, D.
    2022 Agreement builds and disagreement destroys: How Polish undergraduates and graduates understand interpersonal arguing. Argumentation. 10.1007/s10503‑022‑09570‑w
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09570-w [Google Scholar]
  8. Falk, A., Hermle, J.
    2018 Relationship of Gender Differences in Preferences to Economic Development and Gender Equality. Science362(6412) 10.1126/science.aas9899
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899 [Google Scholar]
  9. Генджова, А. [ Gendjova, A.
    ] 2017 Ученически нагласи, свързани с науката и учените: стереотипи, особености, приложения [School Students’ Attitudes Related to Science and Scientists: Stereotypes, Specifics, Applications]. Chemistry: Bulgarian Journal of Science Education261: 139–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Герджиков, Г. [ Gerdzhikov, G.
    ] 2003 [1984]Преизказването на глаголното действие в българския език [Reporting Verb Actions in the Bulgarian Language]. София: УИ Св. Климент Охридски [Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridksi University].
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, E.
    1959The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, P. D., & Wenzel, J. W.
    1979 Proverbs and practical reasoning: A study in socio-logic. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65(3): 289–302. 10.1080/00335637909383480
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335637909383480 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hample, D.
    2005Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018Interpersonal arguing. New York: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b12877
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12877 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2022China as a cultural locus: An empirical approach to studying interpersonal arguing. Paper presented atthe International Symposium on Argument and Culture, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou China, January.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A.
    2010 Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness. InT. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp.372–387). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hample, D., Han, B., & Payne, D.
    2010 The aggressiveness of playful arguments. Argumentation241: 405–421. 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9173‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9173-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hample, D., & Irions, A.
    2015 Arguing to display identity. Argumentation291: 389–416. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9351‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hample, D., Leal, F., & Suro, J.
    2021 Arguing in Mexico: How uniquely Mexican is it?Journal of Intercultural Communication Research50 (4): 389–408. 10.1080/17475759.2021.1910066
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.1910066 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M.
    2010Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3d. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S.
    1982 A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment461: 72–80. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13 [Google Scholar]
  22. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J.
    1986 Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs531: 61–69. 10.1080/03637758609376126
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376126 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jonason, P.
    2020 Country-Level Correlates of the Dark-Triad Traits in 49 Countries. Journal of Personality88(6). 10.1111/jopy.12569
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12569 [Google Scholar]
  24. Khomenko, I., & Hample, D.
    2019 Comparative analysis of arguing in Ukraine and the USA. InB. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp.628–639). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Khomenko, I., Hample, D., & Santibáñez, C.
    2022Connections between age and interpersonal arguing in Ukraine. Paper presented to the European Conference on Argumentation, Rome, September.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mamberti, J. & Hample, D.
    2022 Interpersonal arguing in Argentina. Argumentation and Advocacy. 10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984Online First
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2022.2137984 [Google Scholar]
  27. Неделчева, Т. [ Nedelcheva, T.
    ] 2018 Етичното в българската народопсихология [The Ethical in the Bulgarian National Psychology]. Етически изследвания [Studies in Ethics] 3(2).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ницолова, Р. [ Nitsolova, R.
    ] 2008Българска граматика. Морфология. [Bulgarian Grammar. Morphology.] София: УИ Св. Климент Охридски [Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridksi University].
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A.
    2014Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application, 2d. ed.New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tilkidjiev, N.
    2011 Trust and Well-Being: Bulgarian in a Comparative Perspective. Slovak Journal of Political Sciences11(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Valchev, H.
    2022 The Cultural Embeddedness of Arguments Raised as a Part of the Bulgarian Debate About the Ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Argumentation361: 177–202. 10.1007/s10503‑021‑09560‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-021-09560-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T.
    2011 Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing231: 193–210. 10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.578059 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23015.val
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.23015.val
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