Identifying and characterizing goals of dating partners engaging in serial argumentation.

• Author: Bevan, Jennifer L.

Although the nature of interpersonal argumentation continues to be of interest to scholars of both argumentation and relational communication (e.g., Canary, Brossmann, Brossmann, & Weger, 1995; Hample et al., 1999; Trapp, 1989), one aspect continues to receive minimal research attention: arguments that extend beyond a single, isolated encounter. Thus far, only limited research has investigated these serial arguments, defined as "a set of argumentative episodes that focus on a particular issue" (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, p. 329). Serial arguments are consistent with O'Keefe's (1982) concept of [argument.sub.2] and often have no discernible beginning or end (Trapp, 1990). Interpersonal arguments can "reflect on the health of romantic involvements" (Canary et al., 1995, p. 184) and reconciliation of clashing goals is "one of the most difficult and important problems encountered in any relationship" (Peterson, 1989, p. 330). Thus, examining partners' goals in a serial argument is important because both partners continually must seek agreement on the issue at hand. Further, the consequences of serial argument can extend beyond the argument itself into other facets of the partners' relationship. Understanding why partners enter into a serial argument thus can illuminate the relationship between serial arguments and relational health. This study enlarges the body of research on serial arguments by identifying and categorizing the goals that motivate dating partners as they engage in ongoing argument with one another.

THE NATURE OF SERIAL ARGUMENTS

In an interpersonal relationship context, argument can refer to "convergence-seeking discourse" that involves the partners' agreement or understanding about a topic and progress toward agreement about potential future actions (Canary et al., 1995, p. 185). Further, although they can be prompted by conflict, characterized by disagreement and reason-giving, and employed to resolve conflict (Trapp, 1989), arguments involve both cooperative and competitive behaviors, whereas conflict is primarily competitive (Canary et al., 1995). Previous research on interpersonal argument has employed conversation analysis techniques to analyze argument structures (e.g., Canary et al., 1995), has utilized diary and survey methods to study the arguments conducted by "naive social actors" (e.g., Benoit & Benoit, 1987; Hample et al., 1999), and has examined the communicative strategies that participants report selecting when arguing (e.g., Hample & Dallinger, 1987).

Despite this interest in interpersonal argument, only three published studies have focused specifically on serial arguments (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000; Trapp & Hoff, 1985). Different serial arguments may enact different strategies, but are bound together by persistent topics or issues (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000). Thus, focusing exclusively on a single argument encounter with an identifiable beginning and end (e.g., Hample et al., 1999) sheds little light on the characteristics and effects of continuing disputes.

In fact, argument and conflict often go unresolved and thus can recur. For example, Benoit and Benoit (1987) found that arguments with relational partners most often were terminated without resolution, by changing the subject, not speaking to one another, or physically leaving. Hample et al.'s (1999) research on arguments that are avoided or cut short implies that these arguments are incomplete and may later become serial in nature. Similarly, Vuchinich (1987) reports that conflict in nondistressed families can end in a standoff, where the argument is dropped without resolution, or in withdrawal, where one individual overtly ends the conflict by refusing to speak or leaving the room. Together, standoff and withdrawal account for 65% of methods used by families to stop conflict (Vuchinich, 1987). Most of Klos and Singer's (1981) sample of late adolescents and young adults reported continuing interpersonal stress, defined in part as unresolved conflict, in their close relationships. Such unresolved conflicts generally are believed to have negative relational implications (e.g., Lloyd, 1987; Turk & Monahan, 1999). In short, extant research has noted the prevalence of unresolved disagreements and conflict between relational partners, which suggests the possibility that an argument will become serial.

When Trapp and Hoff (1985) set out to define relational aspects of conflict, they discovered the presence of recurring arguments in a broad spectrum of close relationships, including romantic partnerships, friendships, and family relationships. This discovery led to the development of a serial argument model in interpersonal relationships. This model begins with the antecedent condition of incompatibility concerning either an issue or the arguers' relationship. Upon sensing this incompatibility, two primary processes are enacted as a serial argument arises: one person's decision to confront the other; and the actual act of arguing. In addition, two secondary processes occur: "heating up," in which the partners ask themselves whether the issue and/or the relationship is sufficiently important to attempt resolution; and "simmering down," in which a cooling off period precedes the partners' further attempts to resolve the argument. The model's consequent conditions include an end to the argument and a resolution of the incompatibility. The process of heating up and simmering down can occur any number of times and half of the 12 dyads examined by Trapp and Hoff (1985) had not reached resolution at the conclusion of their interviews. In fact, Johnson and Roloff (1998) note that serial arguments can range in length from a few hours to a lifetime.

Benoit and Benoit (1987) found support for Trapp and Hoffs serial argument model. They reported that arguments between relational partners (including family members, friends, romantic partners, and co-workers) recurred in "subsequent arguments with the same person" in approximately 40% of instances (p. 469). More recently, Johnson and Roloff (1998, 2000) examined the impact of serial arguments on the quality of a dating couple's relationship. They found that perceived resolvability, not the quantity of argument episodes, was "the most important feature of serial arguing" (Johnson & Roloff, 2000, p. 677). Perceived resolvability was positively related to relational quality and predicted relational quality better than did frequency of argument's occurrence. Perceived resolvability also was negatively related to occurrence of destructive conflict patterns in the initial confrontation (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). A later study confirmed a positive relationship between perceived resolvability and a couple's use of relationally affirming behaviors and a negative association between perceived resolvability and damaging relational impacts of serial argument (Johnson & Roloff, 2000).

This study investigates dating partners' objectives when engaging in serial argument. It elaborates Trapp and Hoff's (1985) model in two ways. First, the antecedent incompatibility that arises between relational partners can concern goals (Peterson, 1989); identifying these goals will clarify the reasons why partners enter into a serial argument episode. Second, identifying these goals will facilitate study of their effect upon communication patterns in an argument episode. In short, specifying goals promises to enhance our knowledge of the process of arguing serially and may suggest ways in which communication during these arguments may be improved. Although goals and functions in conflict behaviors have been investigated (e.g., Canary, Cunningham, & Cody, 1988; Newton & Burgoon, 1990a, 1990b), they have not been studied in serial arguments in close personal relationships. We now turn to issues related to the study of communication goals in the interpersonal context.

GOALS IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Characteristics of Goals

A growing body of research focuses upon the interaction between goals and human communicative patterns. Individuals are assumed to enter into situations for the purpose of attaining certain goals that they hope will satisfy their particular needs, wants, and other basic drives (Graham, Argyle, & Furnham, 1980). In fact, Berger (1997, p. 17) asserted, "most human conduct is goal-directed." A goal is defined as "a state of affairs, whether a bodily or mental state, behavior of self or others, or condition of the physical world, which is consciously desired, or is pursued without awareness, and gives satisfaction when attained" (Graham et al., 1980, pp. 345-346). Although not all goals are conscious, purpose, agency, and awareness generally are assumed to be present when individuals pursue goals (Dillard, 1990a). Further, although a goal's outcome may not be predicted accurately or consciously, "in the ordinary give-and-take exchanges of daily living, each person usually has some idea about the way interaction might end and values certain outcomes over others" (Peterson, 1989, p. 340).

Goals are useful as a stimulus for planning which then enables one to act (Dillard, 1997). Goals also enable one to explain the behavior of others and to parsimoniously summarize and segment social reality (Dillard, 1997; Schrader & Dillard, 1998). At the broadest level, messages provide clues to communicators' goals during interactions (Benoit & Cahn, 1994). Indeed, every communication transaction can be viewed as attempting, explicitly or implicitly, to accomplish three objectives: the interpersonal objective(s) of establishing or maintaining a relationship with another person; the identity objective(s) of presenting a desirable self-image and maintaining a specific identity; and the instrumental objective(s) of defining the situational task (Clark & Delia, 1979). A single interaction can pursue all three objectives (Clark & Delia, 1979).

Thus, in a given communication episode, specific goals relevant to...