Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.219–242

A Dutch dose of dissent

Exploring the role of gender, education, and culture on Dutch students’ argumentative predispositions

 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
 | University of Maryland
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’ (N = 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.
Keywords: argumentativeness, argumentative predispositions, argument frames, education, gender, Netherlands, students, taking conflict personally, United States, verbal aggressiveness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Measurements
      • Socio-demographic variables
        • Argumentativeness
        • Verbal aggressiveness
        • Argument frames
        • Taking conflict personally
    • 2.4Analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Scale reliability and validity
    • 3.2Dutch students’ argumentative predispositions
    • 3.3Gender and argumentative predispositions
    • 3.4Educational level and argumentative predispositions
    • 3.5A comparison between Dutch students’ and U.S. students’ argumentative predispositions
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Discussion
    • 4.2Strengths and limitations
    • 4.3Implications
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19009.lab
References (38)
References
Bradley, K., and Charles, M. 2009. “Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries”. American Journal of Sociology 1141: 924–976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, P. 1992. Dissing the Dutch. All’s Fair in Love and War. Retrieved from [URL]
Driessen, C. 2009. “Beleefdheid is de meeste Nederlanders totaal vreemd”. NRC. Retrieved from [URL]
Eemeren, van F. H. 2015. “The Language of Argumentation in Dutch”. In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by F. H. van Eemeren, 27–30. Argumentation Library; No. 27. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D. 2003. “Arguing skill.” In Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, ed. by J. O. Greene and B. R. Burleson, 439–478. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2005. Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2015. “Orientations to Interpersonal Arguing in Chile and Around the World”. Cogency 7(2): 61–80.Google Scholar
2018. Interpersonal Arguing. New York, NY: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 441: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D. and Cionea, I. A. 2010. “Taking conflict personally and its connections with aggressiveness”. In Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research, ed. by T. A. Avtgis and A. S. Rancer, 372–387. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.Google Scholar
Hample, D. and Dallinger, J. M. 1995. “A Lewinian perspective on taking conflict personally: Revision, refinement, and validation of the instrument”. Communication Quarterly, 431: 297–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D., Han, B., and Payne, D. 2010. “The aggressiveness of playful arguments”. Argumentation, 241: 405–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D. and Irions, A. 2015. “Arguing to display identity”. Argumentation, 2941: 389–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D., Lewinski, M., Sàágua, J. and Mohammed, D. 2015. “A descriptive and comparative analysis of arguing in Portugal”. Paper presented to the meeting of the European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Hill, K. 2019. “Where does the expression “to get one’s Dutch up” come from and what does it mean?” Retrieved from [URL]
Hofstede, G. 2011. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context”. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 211.Google Scholar
Hofstede Insights. 2019. “Country comparison”. Retrieved from [URL]
Hornikx, J. and Hoeken, H. 2007. “Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality”. Communication Monographs, 4741: 443–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Infante, D. A. and Rancer, A. S. 1982. “A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 461: 72–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Infante, D. A. and Wigley, C. J. 1986. “Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure.” Communication Monographs, 531: 61–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marrewijk, A. van. 2012. “Cross cultural management: Hybridization of dutch–indian work practices in geographically distributed it projects”. International Journal of Business Anthropology, 221.Google Scholar
Mecking, O. 2018. “Where Dutch directness comes from”. BBC Travel. Retrieved from [URL]
Nuffic 2018. “Education and diplomas the Netherlands”. Retrieved from [URL]
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.Google Scholar
Rancer, A. S. and Avtgis, T. A. 2014. Argumentative and aggressive communication, 2d ed. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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, 441: 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santibáñez, C. and Hample, D. 2015. “Orientations toward interpersonal arguing in Chile”. Pragmatics, 251: 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 941: 168–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schullery, N. M. and Schullery, S. E. 2003. “Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education.” Western Journal of Communication, 6721: 207–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten minutes with. 2015, March 7. 10 minutes with Geert Hofstede on Long versus Short Term Orientation 01032015. Retrieved from [URL]
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. by M. Swan and B. Smith, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vossestein, J. 2010. Dealing with the Dutch. Volendam: LM Publishers.Google Scholar
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
White, C. and Boucke, L. 2013. The Undutchables. Lafayette: White Boucke Publishing.Google Scholar
Wijst, P. van der. 1995. “The perception of politeness in Dutch and French indirect requests”. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 1541: 477–502.Google Scholar
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, 2931: 265–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Labrie, Nanon H.M., Anne A.M.W. van Kempen, Marleen Kunneman, Sylvia A. Obermann-Borst, Liesbeth M. van Vliet & Nicole R. van Veenendaal
2025. Effects of reasoned treatment decision-making on parent-related outcomes: Results from a video-vignette experiment in neonatal care. Patient Education and Counseling 133 ► pp. 108625 ff. DOI logo
Hoogenboom, Lilian M., Maria T.M. Dijkstra & Bianca Beersma
2024. Conflict personalization: a systematic literature review and the development of an integrative definition. International Journal of Conflict Management 35:2 ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 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.