Serial argument topics.

• Author: Cionea, Ioana A.
• Position: Report

Recurring arguments have the potential to disturb or re-route the normal flow of relationships. Whether such arguments occur in friendships, romantic relationships, professional relationships, or family relationships, their resurfacing indicates unresolved matters among arguers, including accumulated frustrations, negative feelings, and resentment. These arguments have been labeled serial arguments (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). Recent research has paid attention to these exchanges in a variety of contexts or relationship types (e.g., Bevan, 2010, 2014; Hample & Allen, 2012; Hample & Krueger, 2011; Hample & Cionea, 2012; Hample & Richards, 2015; Hample, Richards, & Na, 2012; A. Johnson, Averbeck, Kelley, & Liu, 2011; Radanielina-Hita, 2010). Research has also examined various aspects of the serial arguing process, from psychological well-being, to goals arguers pursue in such exchanges, and effects these arguments have on arguers' relationship (e.g., Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008; Bevan, Hale, & Williams, 2004; Bevan, Tidgewell, Bagley, Cusanelli, Hartstern, Holbeck, & Hale, 2007; A. Johnson & Cionea, in press; K. Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b). However, little research (an exception is Bevan, Hefner, & Love, 2014) has paid attention to the topics of such arguments. Two ways of thinking about serial argument topics should be productive: distinguishing among topic types and between disagreement types.

The topic type distinction has well-established importance for arguing. A. Johnson (2002, 2009, 2011) found that whether an argument is about a personal matter or about a public matter affects who argues about each topic, arguers' level of involvement, and the stakes of the argument. Applied to serial arguments, this finding suggests that arguments in friendships may differ from serial arguments in romantic relationships; or arguers may be more involved in personal serial arguments than in public serial arguments. Though they were not quite implementing A. Johnson's categories of topic types, K. Johnson and Roloff (1998) found that serial arguments arising from violated expectations (probably personal topics) were perceived as less resolvable than arguments arising from other issues, but that arguments arising from differences in perceptions or values (possibly personal or public topics) did not differ from arguments in which such differences did not exist. These results suggest that resolvability (and perhaps other variables, too) may differ based on the topic's nature.

Other topic distinctions have been made previously, including that of disagreement type. Newell and Stutman (1988) characterized social confrontation episodes as involving either disagreements over behaviors or ideas. In the serial argument context, this distinction and consequent findings suggest that repetitive arguments about behaviors may unfold differently and have distinct consequences for the two arguers as compared to disagreements over ideas. The latter may be less harmful, potentially shorter, or less frequent than the former. Thus, knowledge about whether and/or how types of topics affect the serial argument process and arguers' behaviors can contribute more detail to the literature on this subject. Moreover, such knowledge may extend beyond serial arguments, as Bevan et al. (2014) found that topics of argument in romantic relationships did not differ based on whether the argument was serial or nonserial.

This manuscript investigates topics of serial arguments that occur in a variety of relationships. Argument topics are coded in light of the topic and disagreement distinctions mentioned to examine their possible relationships with several variables studied in the context of serial arguments: goals, tactics, and outcome measures (i.e., resolvability, civility, and satisfaction). In addition, potential differences based on individuals' sex are examined.

DISAGREEMENT AND TOPIC TYPES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SERIAL ARGUMENT VARIABLES

Newell and Stutman (1988) distinguished between forms of disagreements (i.e., arguments). Disagreements over behaviors deal with a difference in the status quo that prevents a person from achieving his or her goals. For example, if someone wanted to go out with his or her friend, but the latter did not answer the phone, an argument with the friend could express frustration about not being able to accomplish the goal of spending time together. Disagreements over ideas involve a difference as well, but the purpose of a confrontation is not necessarily resolution; such exchanges may be pursued for fun, and may end without any resolution (Newell & Stutman, 1988). For example, if two friends argued about which sports team was best, their argument would not necessarily have to reach a conclusion. They may never change each other's minds, but they could argue about this topic frequently to amuse themselves.

This original distinction was complemented by A. Johnson's (2002) distinction between two types of topics in an argument: personal topics (i.e., issues directly related to the relationship between arguers, such as household chores or hurt feelings) and public topics (i.e., issues outside the arguers' relationship, such as politics or sports). A. Johnson, Hample, and Cionea (2014) detailed the typical differences these two topic types have on arguments. For example, one's level of involvement is generally higher in personal arguments and the stakes are probably also higher compared to public arguments. In addition to this distinction, we propose a third type category of topic type in this paper: professional topics (i.e., issues directly related to professional matters, the execution of one's job, work performance, or work-related tasks, such as scheduling, work compensation, and responsibilities in the workplace). This type of argument is likely to occur in the workplace and may affect organizational climate or group interactions. The examination of professional serial argument topics extends the literature on argumentation and organizational communication.

To our knowledge, only a few studies have explicitly explored the behavior/idea and personal/public topic distinction. In the current report, we examine them in the context of previously studied serial argument variables. Specifically, individuals' inclination to approach arguments, argument goals (i.e., the end states people wish to achieve in serial arguments), argument tactics (i.e., the strategies people use to reach those desired end states), and outcomes, such as perceived resolvability, relational satisfaction, and civility, are examined.

First, approach, which assesses respondents' motivation to engage in a serial argument, is examined. Approach is a general impulse that becomes more concrete in the form of specific goals individuals pursue. Argument goals (Bevan et al., 2004; Bevan et al., 2007) include two positive ones, four negative ones, and one that can be either positive or negative, depending on the final outcome of the serial argument. Positive expressiveness and mutual understanding are the positive goals; negative expressiveness, dominance, the aim to change the target, and the intention to hurt the other to benefit one's self are the negative goals; and surveillance of the relationship to decide relational continuation is the ambivalent goal. Tactics analyzed in serial arguments have included integrative tactics (aimed at mutually satisfactory solutions) and distributive tactics (aimed at gains at the other person's expense). Two other tactics examined are included in the demand/withdraw pattern. In one, the...