Stress in serial arguments: implications of seeking mutual resolution, listening, and hostility.

• Author: Liu, Esther
• Position: Report

STRESS IN SERIAL ARGUMENTS: IMPLICATIONS OF SEEKING MUTUAL RESOLUTION, LISTENING, AND HOSTILITY

Conflicts that are difficult to resolve in one encounter can become a serial argument. When such arguing becomes scripted and involves distributive actions or maladaptive sequences such as demand/withdraw, counter-complaining, and mutual hostility (e.g., Johnson & Roloff, 1998; Reznik & Roloff, 2011), pessimism about conflict resolution can arise, which relates to lower relational quality (Johnson & Roloff, 2000a). Individuals can avoid these problems by seeking mutual agreement in serial arguments (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008). This serial argument goal stimulates behaviors that achieve high joint benefits and mutually satisfying outcomes (e.g., Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). However, individuals report that enacting integrative behaviors is stressful (Reznik, Roloff, & Miller, 2010), as it involves cognitively effortful performance of multiple tasks (e.g., conversational management, problem analysis, and emotional control). Continued use of integrative behaviors in recurring arguments may be particularly distressing, similar to the impaired well-being of individuals who are highly committed to goals in conditions that do not facilitate goal attainment (Brunstein, 1993).

Reznik, Roloff, and Miller (2012) found a negative relationship between listening and post-episodic hyperarousal, implying that listening may not involve a tradeoff between the abilities to resolve conflict and manage stress. However, considerable debate exists over the effectiveness of active listening in solving chronic relational problems (Hafen & Crane, 2003). Indeed, some argue that active listening makes a partner angrier (Gottman, 2011). Thus, regulating one's emotional reactions to a partner's hostile attack could make listening very stressful (Broadwell & Light, 2005). Although listening can be a functional response to conflict, researchers have not yet examined how a partner's negative behaviors might influence listening-related stress. This study explores how mutual resolution goal importance, listening, and post-episodic hyperarousal relate to a partner's enactment of hostile behavior. Based on prior research, we explore two models treating partner hostility as a mediator and as a moderator.

MUTUAL RESOLUTION GOAL IMPORTANCE AND INTEGRATIVE COMMUNICATION

Serial arguments are goal-directed processes that can focus on the individual, task, or relationship (Bevan, Hale, & Williams, 2004). Mutual resolution is a common serial argument goal that seeks a fulfilling outcome for both partners (Bevan et al., 2008). Integrative communication is a form of cooperative behavior aimed at reaching an agreement that meets both partners' needs. Pursuing cooperative goals is positively related to enacting integrative conflict behaviors (Hample & Allen, 2012). Moreover, consideration of a partner's needs is positively related to listening during conflict episodes (Klein & Lamm, 1996).

Reznik et al. (2012) found that engaging in listening during an episode of serial arguing is negatively related to post-episodic hyperarousal, which constitutes emotional, cognitive, and physical manifestations arising from excessive vigilance and an exaggerated startle response. Unfortunately, their research did not provide insights into the cause of this relationship. The present study tests whether stress associated with listening could be positively related to a partner's hostile behaviors such as blaming language and criticism. A serial argument can result from an individual becoming angry and losing control (Johnson & Roloff, 2000b). Some individuals report that they can predict the occurrence of an episode of serial arguing based on their partner's negative mood (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). If so, a partner may engage in hostile behavior, which could influence how listening relates to stress in two different ways.

PARTNER HOSTILITY AS A MEDIATOR

One school of thought suggests that listening may reduce a partner's anger and thereby decrease the likelihood of a partner's hostility, making the listener feel less stressed. By listening to the partner, individuals may acquire useful information about their partner's concerns and better manage the conflict. During conflict, individuals often focus on presenting, explaining, and defending their own positions, with little attention paid to the views of their counterpart (Rapoport, 1960). Such a singular focus reduces mutual understanding and awareness of the misunderstanding. To overcome this problem, individuals can adopt a bilateral focus that involves soliciting information from the other side and actively listening (Walcott, Hopmann, & King, 1977).

Active listening may have positive effects on partners by defusing their anger, which prevents conflict escalation. When individuals feel listened to, they also feel valued (Floyd, 2014). Active listening allows partners to feel understood, which leads to greater conversational satisfaction (Weger, Castle Bell, Minei, & Robinson, 2014). These positive feelings may reduce a partner's anger and hostility, which in turn can reduce the listener's post-episodic stress. If so, as stated in HI, individuals who hold mutual resolution goals may be able to avoid post-episodic stress through listening to their partner, which reduces the likelihood of their partner's hostility (see Figure 1).

HI: The importance of mutual resolution goals relates negatively to post-episodic hyperarousal through listening and partner hostility.

PARTNER HOSTILITY AS A MODERATOR

Simply listening to one's partner may be insufficient to reduce a partner's negative emotions. Active listening involves two components. One is exerting effort to understand what a partner is communicating and the second is engaging in behaviors indicative of listening (e.g., paraphrasing, summarizing, probing, giving feedback, and reflecting). Both components are necessary for successful conflict management. For example, listening without a behavioral component does not provide new information or change a partner's negative cognitions, which can maintain a partner's anger (Parlamis, 2012). In such cases, a partner may engage in hostile behaviors (Novaco, 2007).

Moreover, active listening may not assuage a partner's anger. Gottman (1999) suggests that 69% of the couples in his studies have perpetual problems that may recur over several years. In such cases, active listening may be ineffective. When summarizing his research on active listening, Gottman (2011) writes:

The problem with active listening is that in order for it to be effective, the speaker needs to be "down-regulated" (so that he or she is not in attack mode) which rarely happens in conflict. More often, the speaker begins the interaction with hostility and anger, and studies show that very few people can be constructive as listeners in these situations, (p.22)

In effect, listening to the hostile communication of a partner involves processing information that is extremely critical of oneself, which has negative implications for conflict outcomes and the well-being of the recipient.

Negative behaviors in conflict such as personal criticism are often reciprocated (Rodriguez Mosquera, Fischer, Manstead, & Zaalberg, 2008) and relate to greater cardiovascular reactivity (Broadwell & Light, 2005) and emotional flooding (Sotskova, Woodin, & Gou, 2014). Individuals who are not listening closely to their partner could potentially deflect such stress through less emotional and cognitive engagement. However, individuals who pay greater attention to a partner tend to experience more cross-over of negative affect from their partner (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). If so, as specified in H2, the relationship between listening and post-episodic hyperarousal will be moderated by the partner's hostile behavior.

H2: At low levels of partner hostility, listening relates negatively to post-episodic hyperarousal, but at high levels of partner hostility, the relationship is positive.

Our analysis also implies that the indirect relationship of mutual resolution goal importance with post-episodic hyperarousal through listening will be moderated by partner hostility (see Figure 2). Although mutual resolution may be a less attainable goal at high levels of partner hostility, individuals may still remain committed to it, which reflects a maladaptive goal persistence that relates to psychological distress (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Vitaliano et al., 1990). If so the importance of achieving mutual resolution goals should be positively related to listening, which in turn will be associated with higher levels of hyperarousal. Conversely, when hostility is low, individuals holding mutual resolution goals should experience little stress after listening to their partner.

H3: At low levels of partner hostility, the indirect relationship between importance of mutual resolution goals to post-episodic hyperarousal through listening is negative, but at high levels of partner hostility...