When serial arguments predict harm: examining the influences of argument function, topic of the argument, perceived resolvability, and argumentativeness.

• Author: Johnson, Amy Janan
• Position: Report

Trapp and Hoff (1985) claim most arguments reoccur over time in interpersonal relationships. These types of arguments are called serial arguments. Previous research on serial arguments has illustrated the importance of this interpersonal process to relational quality (K. Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000). Malis and Roloff (2006a) also point to the need for an assessment of the psychological well being of relational partners who engage in serial arguments. In addition to supplementing this existing area of research, this study examines the effects the topic of the serial argument has on relationships. This essay examines features of serial arguments that predict whether these arguments lead to perceived relational harm and perceived harm to the arguing individual depending on serial argument topic.

Several studies examining serial arguments have suggested that the perceived resolvability of the argument is a very important factor in determining whether the argument will be related to relational harm (e.g., K. Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Other studies have examined how serial arguments are related to personal outcomes such as physical health including stress, thought avoidance, and hyperarousal (e.g., Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b). However, these studies have not considered the potential impacts the argument topic has on the argument. A. Johnson (2002) argued personal-issue and public-issue arguments have differing relational effects. Considering the relative influence of argument type on resolvability and the results of serial arguing, this study examines how the topic of the argument relates to the perceived resolvability of the argument topic, how the function the argument serves in the relationship relates to perceived harm, and how the argumentativeness of the arguer relates to perceived harm. As such, this essay seeks to further understand which serial arguments are associated with perceived harm for the individuals arguing.

SERIAL ARGUMENTS

K. Johnson and Roloff (1998) defined a serial argument: "A serial argument exists when individuals argue or engage in conflict about the same topic over time, during which they participate in several (at least two) arguments about the topic" (p. 333). Roloff and his colleagues have engaged in a series of studies examining serial arguments. Several themes have emerged from this research. The first is the importance of examining the perceived resolvability of the argument. For example, K. Johnson and Roloff (1998) found that it was the perceived resolvability of the topic rather than the frequency of the serial argument that was positively related to both satisfaction with and commitment to the relationship. A second theme from Roloff's line of research is that perceptions about serial arguments can be tied to mental and physical health. Roloff and his colleagues have examined several variables related to personal health, such as perceived stress after the serial argument, whether individuals report avoiding thoughts about the argument, whether they report feeling hyperaroused by the argument, and whether thoughts about the argument intrude upon their daily lives (Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b). Malis and Roloff found that perceived resolvability was negatively related to stress. They also found that perceived resolvability was associated with thought avoidance and less hyperarousal (Malis & Roloff, 2006a). This essay will further examine the processes that predict whether serial arguments are perceived to cause harm to the relationship or the individual arguing. It clarifies the link between perceived resolvability and harm by examining the topic of the serial argument. It also examines two new variables to the literature on serial argument, the function that the argument plays for the relationship and the argumentativeness level of the individual.

ARGUMENT TYPE AND THE PERCEIVED RESOLVABILITY OF THE SERIAL ARGUMENT

Prior research on serial arguments has not distinguished between public-issue and personal-issue arguments. Two types of interpersonal argument have previously been distinguished: disagreements about behaviors and disagreements about ideas (Newell & Stutman, 1988). A. Johnson (2002) extended this differentiation by defining public-issue and personal-issue arguments. Public-issue arguments focus on concerns outside an interpersonal relationship, and any potential behavioral implications are not as closely tied to the day-to-day functioning of the interpersonal dyad (e.g., voting behavior). Examples of public-issue argument topics include politics, women's right to choose abortion, the environment, and many other topics people argue about in their everyday lives. Personal-issue arguments focus on issues related to the interpersonal relationship of the arguing parties. These issues may refer directly to each person's behavior in the relationship or indirectly by relating to other intimates' behavior (e.g., arguing about in-laws). These arguments focus on dyadic interdependence and involve interference with one individual's goals (Newell & Stutman, 1988). Examples of personal-issue arguments include household chores, one's hurt feelings, and many other topics that affect how people interact with one another.

The distinction between the two types of argument is important when considering whether a serial argument will be perceived as harming a relationship. A study by Villagran, Johnson, Villagnan, and Wittenberg (2001) found that individuals who watched two friends engage in a personal-issue argument thought that whether the argument was resolved was more likely to affect friendship satisfaction than when the friends were shown engaging in a public-issue argument. Therefore, one should take into account the topic of the argument when seeking to understand the relationship between resolvability of the argument and perceived harm from a serial argument.

Some serial argument studies have not focused on the argument topic (e.g., Benoit & Benoit, 1987; Trapp & Hoff, 1985). The research by Roloff and colleagues indirectly recorded the topics by asking why the argument topic was perceived as problematic, and 32% reported violated expectations, 63% reported differing perspectives on the relationship, and 33% reported incompatible values or beliefs (K. Johnson & Roloff, 1998). These descriptions appear to indicate topics that have been considered both public- and personal-issue arguments (A. Johnson 2002; A. Johnson, Becker, Wigley, Haigh, & Craig, 2007). This discussion leads to the following hypothesis and research question:

H1: The topic of the argument and perceived resolvability of a serial argument should interact to predict perceived relational harm.

RQI: Do the topic of the argument and perceived resolvability interact to predict perceived personal harm from the argument?

ARGUMENT FUNCTION AND SERIAL ARGUMENT HARM

Whether a serial argument is related to relational or personal harm should also be related to the function that it plays in the interpersonal relationship. A functional approach to serial arguments focuses on the question of why individuals argue in their interpersonal relationship and the purposes that such arguing serves rather than how individuals argue. A. Johnson (2009) delineated five functions for interpersonal arguments: gaining or giving knowledge, general talk, expressing one's views, solving behavioral incompatibilities, and portraying oneself in a positive light. A. Johnson (2009) found that public-issue and personal-issue arguments differed in the types of functions that they served. Public-issue arguments fulfilled the following functions more often than personal-issue arguments: gaining or giving knowledge, expressing one's views, and passing the time. Personal-issue arguments fulfilled the following functions more often: portraying oneself in a positive light and resolving behavioral incompatibilities.

Although the links between argument topic and argument functions may be somewhat clear, the subsequent connections to serial arguing and relational and personal harm are not as evident. A. Johnson (2009) found the functional approach useful for explaining how various argument topics are perceived differently in interpersonal relationships. However, to what extent do these argument functions predict perceived relational or personal harm from a serial argument?

RQ2: Does the function that a serial argument serves predict perceived relational harm?

RQ3: Does the function that a serial argument serves predict perceived personal harm from the argument?

ARGUMENTATIVENESS AND SERIAL ARGUMENT HARM

Whether serial arguments predict perceived relational and personal harm probably depends on an individual's argumentativeness level. Individuals who are high in argumentativeness are more likely to approach (or seek out and engage in) arguments (Infante & Rancer, 1982) as well as produce more arguments than individuals low in argumentativeness (Levine & Boster, 1996). When the argument is iterative rather than singular, Weger (2006) reports individuals who are more likely to approach arguments do so because arguing is considered an enjoyable activity. Conversely, those who are more avoidant will find...