Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 13:3 (2024) ► pp.400–427
Fool them before they fool you
An investigation of Bulgarian cultural inclinations, motivations, understandings, and emotional reactions to interpersonal arguing
Published online: 21 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23015.val
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23015.val
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 ad hominem 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Bulgarian culture relevant to argumentation
- 2a.General introduction
- 2b.Vocabulary related to interpersonal arguing
- 2c.Folk tales
- 2d.Sayings
- 2e.Machiavellianism and lack of interpersonal trust
- 2f.General relational and epistemic attitudes
- 2g.Sex differences
- 3.Research aims
- 3a.How we summarize national orientations to interpersonal arguing
- 3b.Specific research aims
- 4.Method
- 4a.Respondents
- 4b.Instrumentation
- 5.Results
- 5a.Bulgarian mean scores
- 5b.Sex and age
- 5c.Correlations among power distance, motivations, frames, and personalization
- 6.Discussion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (32)
Balducci, M. 2023. Linking
Gender Differences with Gender Equality: A Systematic-Narrative Literature Review of Basic Skills and
Personality. Frontiers in Psychology 141.
Blötner, C., Bergold, S. 2021. To
Be Fooled or not to Be Fooled: Approach and Avoidance Facets of Machiavellianism. Psychological
Assessment 34(2). Preprint.
Charles, M. 2017. Venus,
Mars, and math: Gender, societal affluence, and eighth graders’ aspirations for
STEM. Socius 31: 1–16.
Charles, M., & Bradley, K. 2009. Indulging
our gendered selves? sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of
Sociology 1141: 924–976.
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
Health 91 (629118).
Debowska-Kozlowska, K., & Hample, D. 2022. Agreement
builds and disagreement destroys: How Polish undergraduates and graduates understand interpersonal
arguing. Argumentation.
Falk, A., Hermle, J. 2018. Relationship
of Gender Differences in Preferences to Economic Development and Gender
Equality. Science 362(6412)
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
Education 261: 139–154.
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].
Goodwin, P. D., & Wenzel, J. W. 1979. Proverbs
and practical reasoning: A study in socio-logic. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 65(3): 289–302.
2022. China
as a cultural locus: An empirical approach to studying interpersonal arguing. Paper presented
at the International Symposium on Argument and Culture, Sun Yat-Sen
University, Guangzhou
China, January.
Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. 2010. Taking
conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness. In T. 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.
Hample, D., Han, B., & Payne, D. 2010. The
aggressiveness of playful
arguments. Argumentation 241: 405–421.
Hample, D., Leal, F., & Suro, J. 2021. Arguing
in Mexico: How uniquely Mexican is it? Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research 50 (4): 389–408.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures
and organizations: Software of the mind (3d. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. 1982. A
conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality
Assessment 461: 72–80.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. 1986. Verbal
aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication
Monographs 531: 61–69.
Jonason, P. et al. 2020. Country-Level
Correlates of the Dark-Triad Traits in 49 Countries. Journal of
Personality 88(6).
Khomenko, I., & Hample, D. 2019. Comparative
analysis of arguing in Ukraine and the USA. In B. 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.
Khomenko, I., Hample, D., & Santibáñez, C. 2022. Connections
between age and interpersonal arguing in Ukraine. Paper presented to the European Conference on
Argumentation, Rome, September.
Mamberti, J. & Hample, D. 2022. Interpersonal
arguing in Argentina. Argumentation and Advocacy. Online First
Неделчева, Т. [ Nedelcheva, T.] 2018. Етичното в българската
народопсихология [The Ethical in the Bulgarian National
Psychology]. Етически изследвания [Studies in Ethics] 3(2).
Ницолова, Р. [ Nitsolova, R.] 2008. Българска граматика.
Морфология. [Bulgarian Grammar.
Morphology.] София: УИ Св. Климент Охридски [Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridksi University].
Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. 2014. Argumentative
and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application, 2d.
ed. New York: Peter Lang.
Tilkidjiev, N. 2011. Trust
and Well-Being: Bulgarian in a Comparative Perspective. Slovak Journal of Political
Sciences 11(1).
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
