Associations among romantic attachment, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness in romantic relationships.

• Author: Weger, Harry Jr.
• Position: Report

Arguments between romantic partners play a pivotal role in the quality and trajectory of relationships (Gottman & Notarius, 2002). Arguing effectively means, at least in part, that couples avoid excessive negativity (Christensen & Walczynski, 1997; Walton, 1989) and approach disagreements with at least some optimism that discussing differences of opinion will yield positive results (Hample, Thompson-Hayes, Wallenfelsz, Wallenfelsz, & Knapp, 2005; Johnson & Roloff, 1989). Many people, however, find themselves in arguments that spiral out of control into rounds of name calling, shouting, and worse. Indeed, research indicates that unhappy spouses sometimes are more effective arguers with total strangers than with the person whom they promised to love, honor, and cherish forever (Birchler, Weiss, & Vincent, 1975; Ryder, 1968). Why is it that so many people dread disagreements with romantic partners and/or save their worst invective for those whom they are supposed to love the most? The research presented here aids our understanding of the genesis of unproductive argumentative dialogue in romantic dyads by investigating links between people's cognitive representations of their romantic relationships and their predispositions toward arguing with their romantic partners.

PRODUCTIVE AND UNPRODUCTIVE ARGUMENTATION

Productive argumentation proceeds via moves that advance a disagreement toward a rationally acceptable conclusion (Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992; Walton, 1989). While logical adequacy is a component of this conceptualization, the approach taken here concentrates on the functional qualities of argumentation as a goal-directed communication activity aimed at managing both the disagreement and the relationship. At least two qualities of argumentation are associated with productive and unproductive outcomes. One involves the tendency to approach arguments as an opportunity to challenge and defend standpoints using argumentation based on reasoning and evidence. A second is the propensity to avoid issuing personal attacks, or ad hominem argumentation. Research emphasizes the importance of these qualities in managing disagreements in romantic relationships. For example, romantic partners who supply reasons in support of assertions are perceived more positively than those who do not (Canary, Brossmann, Brossmann, & Weger, 1994; Canary, Weger, & Stafford, 1991). Also, family and organizational disagreements are perceived to be more constructive when characterized by argumentative, rather than verbally aggressive, behaviors (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994). Finally, rational discussion that also avoids ad hominem arguments positively affects relationship and task outcomes across interpersonal and small group contexts (for a review, see Weger, 2001).

ARGUMENTATIVENESS, VERBAL AGGRESSIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVE ARGUMENTATION

This investigation will examine two predispositions associated with engaging in productive interaction during disagreements. One predisposition is argumentativeness (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006). People who are argumentative tend to enjoy arguing and engage in defending their own standpoints while attacking the standpoints, rather than the character, of their opponent (Infante & Rancer, 1982). People high in argumentativeness generally engage in more fimctional kinds of argumentation behaviors. For example, individuals high in argumentativeness are less verbally aggressive (Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, & Seeds, 1984), use more evidentiary appeals in supporting standpoints (Ifert & Bearden, 1998), exhibit more cognitive and communication flexibility (Martin, Anderson, & Thweat, 1998), are more competent critical thinkers (Koehler & Neer, 1997), and are less likely to experience marital violence (Infante, Chandler, & Rudd, 1989) than people who are low in argumentativeness.

The research on trait argumentativeness has been criticized for relying on written responses to hypothetical situations. This method of eliciting arguments may not necessarily capture the complexities of message production in situations involving oral interaction, resulting in an overestimation, or oversimplification, of the actual influence of the trait on argumentation behavior in situ. Two studies address this issue by examining the influence of argumentativeness on argumentation behavior during dyadic discussions.

First, Levine and Boster (1996) videotaped disagreements between pairs of strangers who were either matched (i.e., High-High or Low-Low) or mismatched (i.e., High-Low) on trait argumentativeness. They coded the number of arguments produced by each person in the dyad. Results indicated that one's own level of argumentativeness did not predict the number of arguments one produced. Instead, the number of arguments depended upon the combination of one's own and one's partner's level of argumentativeness: Those high in argumentativeness and paired with a partner low in argumentativeness produced significantly more arguments than all other pairings.

Second, Semic and Canary (1997) examined the relationship of argumentativeness to the development of arguments during disagreements between friends. Their major finding contradicted Levine and Boster's (1996) results: Friends high in argumentativeness and paired with a similarly argumentative partner (High-High) developed their arguments the most while High-Low pairings developed their arguments the least.

Methodological differences may have contributed to these contradictory findings. In Levine and Boster's (1996) study, participants were strangers whereas Semic and Canary's (1997) dyads consisted of friends. In addition, the studies used different procedures for eliciting argumentative dialogue from their participants. Finally, Levine and Boster (1996) measured the number of arguments made by each person while Semic and Canary (1997) measured argument development. It is possible that their findings may not be contradictory at all, because the studies observed argumentation in different kinds of relationships and operationalized argument frequency differently. (1)

The second predisposition linked to productive and unproductive argumentation is verbal aggressiveness. Infante and Wigley (1986) conceptualize verbal aggressiveness as a predisposition to attack "the self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person's position on a topic of communication" (p. 61). Modern theory suggests that arguments repair conversations or relationships by resolving differences of opinion (Walton, 1989). From this functional standpoint, arguments that prevent the resolution of a disagreement based on the merits of each side's position are "fallacious" or "dysfunctional" (e.g., Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992). Equivalent to the social scientific concept of verbal aggressiveness is the traditional humanistic concept of ad hominem ("to the man") argumentation. Many scholars note that ad hominem is a particularly unproductive argumentative strategy (Walton, 1998). Abusive ad hominem disrupts the development of a discussion and refocuses actors' attention on defending their identities rather than on resolving the dispute. Behaviors such as name calling, shouting down the opponent, making threats, and other aggressive tactics can result in digressions and make resolving a disagreement difficult, if not impossible, once personal attacks have been issued (Jacobs, Jackson, Stearns, & Hall, 1991; Retzinger, 1991).

Research indicates that a predisposition for verbal aggressiveness predicts the use of character attacks in disagreements (Infante, Riddle, Horvath, & Tumlin, 1992). Verbally aggressive individuals also offer less evidence in support of their assertions (Ifert & Bearden, 1998), although one's partner's level of verbal aggressiveness might complicate this tendency (Semic & Canary, 1997). People high in verbal aggressiveness engage in nonrational, antisocial argumentation strategies such as teasing, attacking the competence and personal appearance of their opponent, and swearing more than people low in verbal aggressiveness (Infante et al., 1992). Taken together, research indicates that a tendency toward greater verbal aggressiveness disposes one to engage in less productive argumentation behaviors.

Attachment Orientation as a Predictor of Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness

Attachment theory has its foundations in the work of John Bowlby (1969) and Mary Ainsworth and colleagues (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). In its original form, attachment theory attempted to explain patterns of mother-infant bonding. Subsequently, Hazan and Shaver (1987) revised it in order to explain adult romantic love in terms of attachment styles. Their treatment of adult attachment carried on the tradition, which conceptualized attachment styles as discreet categories. More recently, however, research has focused on two dimensions of relationship perceptions that form the basis upon which people cognitively represent attachment figures (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The first dimension is anxious attachment (or simply anxiety; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), which involves a person's fear of rejection or abandonment by a romantic partner and the degree to which a person thinks obsessively about their relationships. The second dimension is avoidant attachment (or simply avoidance). This dimension involves a person's beliefs about the costs and benefits associated with becoming close to another person. Highly avoidant individuals are uncomfortable becoming close largely because they do not want to depend on others and because they are not trusting of others. People who are securely attached tend to be low in both avoidance and anxiety. That is, securely attached individuals tend to be comfortable depending on others and experience only mild fear or anxiety that their attachment figures (e.g...