Argument interdependence: Connections to serial argument goals and tactics in romantic relationships

Abstract

This study examined the predictive utility of a new construct—argument interdependence—on serial argument goals (positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to change the other person, negative expressiveness, dominance, desire to hurt the other while benefitting the self, and relational termination), tactics arguers report using to accomplish their goals (integrative and distributive), and arguers’ change in relational satisfaction following an episode of their serial argument. Participants (N = 675) provided cross-sectional data via an online questionnaire. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to examine the study’s predictions. Argument interdependence was associated with four of the seven goals examined: positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to hurt other, and relational termination. It was also associated with integrative tactics both directly and indirectly, and distributive tactics indirectly. Mutual understanding was positively associated, whereas dominance and hurting the other while benefiting the self were negatively associated, with integrative tactics. Relational expressiveness was negatively associated, whereas negative expressiveness, changing the other, dominance, and hurting the other while benefiting the self were positively associated, with distributive tactics. Both tactics were related to changes in relational satisfaction, as were indirect effects from argument interdependence and goals. We discuss these results by focusing on the contributions argument interdependence makes to serial argument literature.

Keywords

Interdependence theory perceived argument interdependence serial argument goals serial argument process model structural equation modeling

Repetitive conflicts can take their toll on a relationship. Individuals who are unable to solve an issue may gradually become entrenched in their positions, the hope of compromise and resolution further and further away. This possibility of increased negativity and stress as the conflict evolves has motivated several inquiries into the phenomenon of serial arguments—conflicts “about the same topic, over time, during which [individuals] participate in several (at least two) arguments about the topic” (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, p. 333; Trapp & Hoff, 1985).

Several recent studies have examined the dynamic nature of serial arguments from a dyadic perspective, based on both partners’ perceptions and behaviors (Bevan, 2014; Worley & Samp, 2016, 2018). For example, Bevan (2014) found that one’s perception of their partner’s conflict goals influenced one’s own conflict tactics. Additionally, Bevan (2014) and Worley and Samp (2016, 2018) found associations between one’s perception of their partner’s conflict behavior and one’s own perception of conflict resolvability. These findings indicate serial arguments behavior is, to a certain extent, interdependent.

This study furthers the idea of interdependence in serial arguments by examining a new concept, proposed by Johnson and Cionea (2016): argument interdependence. This concept captures “the degree to which the two arguers depend on each other to resolve the serial argument issue” (Johnson & Cionea, 2015, n. p.). Reframing partners’ approach to a serial argument from an individual standpoint to an interdependent standpoint may result in less detrimental effects on arguers and their relationship; those who cultivate interdependence may fare better in their serial arguments than those who do not. Initial support for this proposition has been promising (Johnson & Cionea, 2016), and this research continues the inquiry into this new concept. Specifically, this study examines how perceived argument interdependence is related to partners’ serial argument goals and the tactics they use to pursue such goals. The study is anchored in two theoretical perspectives: interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and the goals–plans–action (GPA) framework (Dillard, 1990, 2008). Also examined are the relationships that these goals–tactics combinations have to changes in arguers’ relational satisfaction following an episode of their serial argument. Previous research has demonstrated goals and tactics influence arguers’ satisfaction with their relationship (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008; Hample, Richards, & Na, 2012).

Being engaged in a serial argument affects individuals’ psychological and physical well-being (Malis & Roloff, 2006), regardless of whether the communication enacted is constructive or destructive (Reznik, Roloff, & Miller, 2010). Serial arguing can lead to relational termination, avoidance/alienation from the other person or family, and increased tension and inefficiency in the workplace. By the same token, serial arguments can have positive effects on relationships. For example, believing the serial argument issue is resolvable is associated with increased relational satisfaction (Hample & Cionea, 2012). In addition, this study examines perceived argument interdependence and serial arguments in romantic relationships. Serial arguments occur frequently in these relationships and knowledge about their effects has multiple practical applications to interpersonal communication.

Interdependence and the serial argument process

Argument interdependence

Interdependence theory contends that an interaction between two individuals depends on both individual and situational factors (Holmes, 2002). “Each situation specifies the ways in which two persons are dependent on and influence each other with respect to their outcomes (hence, the interdependence)” (Holmes, 2002, p. 3). Thus, individuals affect each other in an interaction, and they are interdependent to the extent that their behaviors, feelings, or thoughts depend in some way on the other person’s behaviors, feelings, or thoughts (Kelley et al., 2003). During an interaction, individuals engage in a transformation process, in which they reconceptualize or reformulate the given situation “in respect to the behavioral choices it affords and to the consequences of various actions” (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978, p. 17). This transformation process is interdependent in that the outcomes are based on both individuals’ past and present actions; they are a joint consequence of reformulating the initial interaction layout, so interactants can obtain better, mutually desirable outcomes (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).

Argument interdependence is rooted in these theoretical considerations about situations that trigger interdependence and was developed from the general idea of relational interdependence. Argument interdependence captures the degree of interdependence in respect to the issue that has led to the arguers’ repetitive disagreement, the extent to which partners are bound together by a given argument topic and “need each other, need each other’s input, and need to work together to resolve the issue that has caused the serial argument to occur in the first place” (Johnson, Cionea, & Bostwick, 2015, n. p.). It presupposes some level of cooperation between the two arguers in respect to their serial argument topic. Thus, argument independence is a situational feature, an environmental characteristic (in the language of interdependence theory) that contributes to shaping the initial layout of the argumentative interaction. As a situational feature, argument interdependence is an antecedent of a specific episode of the serial argument in which arguers may use various strategies to achieve a mutually desirable outcome, such as resolution of the issue. For instance, imagine two spouses engaged in a serial argument about which house to buy; one prefers a move-in ready house, whereas the other would like to purchase a fixer-upper. The topic, which house to buy, creates argument interdependence insofar as they perceive it as binding them together (i.e., if they believe they must work together to figure out the answer to this issue).

This new construct differs from relational interdependence, which focuses on the degree to which each member of a relationship is dependent on the other for the rewards and costs associated with the relationship. In interpersonal relationships, individuals often become more interdependent with one another over time and become better at predicting how their partner will respond to a situation. Perceived argument interdependence, however, focuses on the extent of each interactant’s perceived interdependence in respect to the topic of the argument, in a specific serial argument, not in the relationship, overall, or in other arguments, tasks, or relational issues for which partners may depend on each other. This more specific concept should predict serial argument behaviors better than the more general variable of relationship interdependence.

Johnson and Cionea (2015) have examined how argument interdependence relates to other measures that examine the strength of connection between two individuals: the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollen, 1992), which is a measure of closeness; the Dependency in Romantic Relationships scale (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998), which is a measure of general dependence; and the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) scale (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000), which is a measure of general interdependence. The study (N = 129) found that argument interdependence was distinct from these other measures, with the following correlations (average power = .59): IOS and argument interdependence, r = −.09, n.s.; dependency and argument interdependence, r = .29, p = .001; RISC and argument interdependence, r = .44, p = .000.

Argument interdependence may be objective or subjective (i.e., perceived). It is possible to determine, objectively, the degree to which a serial argument topic creates a certain level of argument interdependence by following the matrix procedures outlined by Kelley and Thibaut (1978). It is also possible to examine the subjective perception of argument interdependence that individuals have in a serial argument. Whether accurate or not, and whether shared by partners or not, this perceived argument interdependence is important to examine as it affects partners’ subsequent behaviors. For example, in a serial argument about how the family money is spent, one partner may believe there is a high degree of argument interdependence as financial decisions should not be made without the other party’s input. The other partner may believe there is a low degree of argument interdependence as each individual ought to be able to decide independently how to spend the common money. The perception of argument interdependence that each party has affects how they argue about this issue. Over time, these perceptions may be influenced by each partner’s behavior or beliefs about interdependence, as communicated through a serial argument episode; but each person should be able to report his or her perception of argument interdependence, at a given moment. This study investigates romantic partners’ individual and subjective perception of argument interdependence regarding a current serial argument in their romantic relationship.

Perceived argument interdependence can vary in degree, from low to high levels. Low levels of argument interdependence ought to encourage more independent action, in that each party can, on their own, obtain the best outcomes for themselves (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). For example, two friends who engage in a serial argument about which football team is best can each, individually, watch their preferred team and reinforce their beliefs about the team’s superiority. Higher levels of argument interdependence, though, ought to encourage more coordinated joint actions, “in which the two persons act in an agreed-on, coordinated manner, in the interest of providing each one with better outcomes than are available by individual action” (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978, p. 283). For instance, the two spouses needing to buy a house together will most likely have to coordinate their decision to obtain the desired outcome of buying a house that they both like, and each of them is probably aware of this interdependence. In respect to serial arguments, lower levels of perceived argument interdependence may encourage more individually-oriented goals or distributive, self-oriented strategies for addressing the issue, whereas higher levels of perceived argument interdependence may predict the likelihood that integrative strategies are chosen to address the serial argument.

However, situational features of interdependence, such as argument interdependence, do not automatically result in more cooperative or mutually beneficial outcomes, such as a resolved serial argument. Kelley et al. (2003) explain that the same situation may yield different outcomes, depending on whether participants have competing or cooperative motives. In the case of serial arguments, the situation may vary in the degree of argument interdependence but, in addition, person factors (such as the motives, needs, or behavioral tendencies that the two arguers exhibit) will contribute to how the argument is handled (Kelley et al., 2003). The arguers’ goals, argumentative choices, and moves are the second major element that will determine how a serial argument proceeds and how a certain serial argument episode affects arguers’ interpersonal relationship. A discussion of these considerations is presented in the next section.

A focus on argument interdependence highlights what partners have in common in respect to a serial argument and how they can work together to resolve the serial argument. Conflict resolution can potentially move from positional, competitive orientations to integrative, collaborative orientations that aim at mutually beneficial outcomes, not win–loss scenarios. Conflict research has shown that such cooperative approaches yield better outcomes, more mutual support, more positive feelings, and, overall, more supportive relational environments than competition or independence (Tjosvold, 1998). Johnson, Cionea, and Bostwick (2015) have found preliminary support for these propositions: Higher perceived argument interdependence from one party in the serial argument predicted higher perceived resolvability, more relational satisfaction, and less relational harm from the serial argument.

Serial argument goals

According to interdependence theory, person factors represent “the particular set of properties of the person (values, motives, thoughts, etc.) that come into play when an actor is cognizant of and responsive to the interdependence situation” (Kelley et al., 2003, p. 74). In a serial argument, in addition to the perceived level of argument interdependence, arguers’ own motivations affect how they approach the argument. Such motivations can be partially captured by serial argument goals because goals encapsulate what individuals wish to accomplish through an interaction (Dillard, 1990, 1997). In addition, Hample (2016) has argued that situational characteristics can predict individuals’ primary goals in an interaction. Therefore, we propose that perceived argument interdependence functions as a situational characteristic that, along with the serial argument goals arguers deemed important to pursue, lays out the initial situational matrix to be transformed via the tactics arguers use during a specific serial argument episode to produce certain outcomes (in this study, effects on relational satisfaction are examined).

In serial argument studies, goals have been examined based on the GPA model (Dillard, 1990) and have been conceptualized and measured based on Bevan, Hale, and Williams’ (2004) initially developed list, which was refined by Bevan et al. (2007), Bevan, Finan, and Kaminsky (2008), and Bevan (2014). The current list includes seven goals: positive relational expressiveness (expressing positive feelings about the relationship or the other person), mutual understanding (negotiating and achieving a compromise), negative expressiveness (expressing frustration and exasperation), changing the other person (modifying the other’s behavior and habits), dominance (seeking control of the issue or the argument), hurting the other while benefiting the self (getting revenge or wounding the other person in order to make one feel better), and relational termination (decreasing the relationship’s intimacy or even terminating it).

Serial argument goals have been examined as predictors of various strategies that individuals may use, such as the demand-withdraw pattern (Hample & Cionea, 2012; Hample & Richards, 2015), and integrative and distributive tactics (Bevan et al., 2008; Hample & Krueger, 2011). This study proposes that the degree of perceived argument interdependence ought to influence what goals arguers perceive as important to pursue while interacting during an episode of their serial argument. Higher perceived argument interdependence means more input, coordination, and collaboration with one’s partner, hence promoting more of a “we” attitude. Those who perceive the issue of their serial argument needs both partners to accomplish resolution will act accordingly to cultivate a cooperative layout of the argumentative situation. Therefore, higher perceived argument interdependence ought to lead to the pursuit of more positive goals. By the same token, negative goals ought to be less important when perceived argument interdependence is higher because such self-oriented motivations would counter the cooperative tone of the situation. These negative goals may be pursued when perceived argument interdependence is low because arguers do not feel as dependent on the other person for resolving their serial argument or may perceive they can control and dictate the outcomes of their argument without being cooperative. Therefore, the following is proposed:

H1: Perceived argument interdependence is associated positively with (a) positive relational expressiveness and (b) mutual understanding but is associated negatively with (c) negative expressiveness, (d) changing the other, (e) dominance, (f) hurting the other while benefitting the self, and (g) relational termination.

Serial argument tactics

The second component of the GPA framework, plans (defined as schemes individuals devise to accomplish their goals; Dillard, 1990), has been adapted to serial argument research by examining the use of integrative and distributive tactics (Bevan et al., 2008; Cionea, Van Gilder, & Bruscella, 2017; Hample et al., 2012). Integrative tactics are mutually-oriented, cooperative moves that acknowledge both parties’ concerns and interests. Distributive tactics are self-oriented, competitive moves that focus on one’s own interests, often at the expense of the other party (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997). Early research into serial arguments (Bevan et al., 2008) has proposed that positive serial argument goals lead individuals to use integrative tactics, whereas negative goals lead to reliance on distributive tactics. These propositions have been partially supported in numerous studies (Bevan et al., 2008; Cionea et al., 2017; Hample et al., 2012).

Additionally, perceptions of the other person’s goals affect the importance one places on one’s own goals. According to interdependence theory, the behavioral patterns of one individual communicate his or her intentions and desires for what their partner should do (e.g., “I will be cooperative if you will”), which results in a more cooperative interaction (Kelley et al., 2003, p. 71). Additionally, research has found that not only do one’s serial argument goals influence one’s conflict strategy usage but also one’s perception of their partner’s serial argument goals influences one’s own strategies (Bevan, 2014). Thus, perceptions about cooperation and mutuality (such as those captured by perceived argument interdependence) ought to be positively associated with integrative tactics and negatively associated with distributive tactics, which are usually unilateral and competitive. Therefore, the following are proposed:

H2: Perceived argument interdependence is associated (a) positively with integrative tactics and (b) negatively with distributive tactics.

H3: (a) Positive relational expressiveness and (b) mutual understanding are associated positively with integrative tactics, whereas (c) negative expressiveness, (d) changing the other, (e) dominance, (f) hurting the other while benefiting the self, and (g) relational termination are associated negatively with integrative tactics.

H4: (a) Positive relational expressiveness and (b) mutual understanding are associated negatively with distributive tactics, whereas (c) negative expressiveness, (d) changing the other, (e) dominance, (f) hurting the other while benefiting the self, and (g) relational termination are associated positively with distributive tactics.

Furthermore, the effects of perceived interdependence embedded in a situation, as Kelley et al. (2003) explain, affect subsequent behaviors in an interaction, or the choice of strategies that individuals use in an argument. Therefore, it is feasible that perceived argument interdependence might have not only direct effects on goals and tactics but also indirect effects on behavioral strategies, through goals. Therefore, the following is asked:

RQ1: Does perceived argument interdependence have indirect effects on (a) integrative and (b) distributive tactics?

Outcomes of serial arguments

Finally, following process models tested in previous serial argument studies (i.e., models connecting goals to tactics and various outcomes), this study also examines the outcome of goals and tactics combinations on changes in arguers’ satisfaction with their relationship related to a serial argument episode as well as any indirect effects that perceived argument interdependence may have on such changes in satisfaction. This assessment of satisfaction is important because it evaluates the specific damage or improvement that engaging in another episode of a serial argument is perceived to have on arguers’ relationship. Several studies have found integrative tactics are related positively with satisfaction, whereas distributive tactics are related negatively with satisfaction (Cionea et al., 2017; Hample & Richards, 2015). These findings are reasonable; positivity ought to trigger more integrative approaches, and this cooperative tone is likely to increase one’s satisfaction with the relationship and one’s positive regard for the other person. Negativity is likely to be amplified by more competitive, self-interested strategies that result in less respect and a less welcoming relational climate. Also, one’s perception of how their partner has communicated during a conflict episode influences one’s own perception about the argument (Worley & Samp, 2016). Therefore, individuals who are perceived to communicate in a more integrative manner should have partners that are more satisfied with how the argument evolved than individuals who are perceived to engage in an insulting, accusatory, or uncivil exchange. Therefore, it is proposed that:

H5: (a) Integrative tactics are associated positively and (b) distributive tactics are associated negatively with changes in relational satisfaction following an episode of a serial argument.

These changes in relational satisfaction are also likely related to the overall effect of the situation and person factors. The perception that one’s relationship has improved or has been damaged by engaging in a serial argument episode is probably dependent not only on the immediate tactics used by arguers but also on initial considerations of the argumentative situation layout, which may, indirectly, influence the argument’s outcome. The following is asked:

RQ2: Do (a) perceived argument interdependence and (b) serial argument goals have indirect effects on change in relational satisfaction following an episode of a serial argument?

Figure 1 details the proposed structural model employed to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions.

Figure 1.

Proposed model. Paths from each covariate to each goal, each tactic, and change in relational satisfaction were permitted but are not represented in the figure for visual simplicity.

Method

Participants

Seven hundred and fifty-two respondents enrolled in Communication courses for both majors and nonmajors at a large Southwestern university accessed the study. Incomplete (i.e., unfinished questionnaires) or duplicate answers (i.e., same participant completed the survey twice) as well as those with systematic missing data (e.g., entire sections of the survey were skipped) were eliminated. In addition, responses that did not include a description of the serial argument topic or those that did not indicate the frequency of respondents’ serial argument were also eliminated.

The final sample consisted of 675 undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 54 (M = 20.14, SD = 2.55). There were 430 women, 244 men, and 1 person who did not indicate his/her sex. Most participants self-identified as White (n = 496), with some self-identifying as Asian (n = 56), Hispanic or Latino/Latina (n = 37), Black or African American (n = 34), and American Indian or Alaska native (n = 22). The remaining participants selected another ethnicity (n = 9) or a combined ethnicity (n = 21). Class standing was as follows: 244 participants were freshmen, 176 were sophomores, 142 were juniors, 105 were seniors, 6 individuals identified as “other,” and 2 did not indicate their year in school. Communication majors formed roughly 20% of the sample, with a variety of other majors, such as Accounting, Biology, Business, Computer Science, Education, Energy Management, or Health and Exercise Science reported. Participants were mostly in heterosexual relationships (n = 661), and the length of their relationships ranged from 3 weeks to 13 years (M = 20.21 months, SD = 18.71 months).

Procedures

Participants were recruited from a departmental research pool and completed an online questionnaire for which they received a small amount of extra credit. First, participants completed disqualifying questions: Only those who were in a romantic relationship and currently had a serial argument with their romantic partner were allowed to participate. Participants were told that, “a serial argument occurs when the same two people engage in a conflict about the same topic over time, during which they participate in several (at least two) arguments about the topic,” based on Johnson and Roloff’s (1998) definition. Eligible participants continued to an informed consent document, and those who consented to participate then completed a series of questions that assessed characteristics of their relationship, such as their general satisfaction with their relationship and various relational dependence measures, their serial argument (i.e., description, perceptions of its frequency, information about the most recent episode), and the degree of perceived argument interdependence between themselves and their partner regarding this specific serial argument. They also indicated their goals for the serial argument, the tactics they used to pursue these goals, and the various effects of the argument (not all detailed in this manuscript), as well as demographic information. The Institutional Review Board at the university where data were collected approved the research.

Measures

Unless otherwise specified, a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) was used to measure all items. Mean, standard deviation, and reliability scores are included in Table 1. In addition to the traditional measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), coefficient H, which is a measure of the relationship between a latent factor and its indicators, is reported. The possible values for coefficient H range from 0 to 1, with values over .70 considered acceptable (Hancock & Mueller, 2001).

Table 1.

Mean, standard deviation, and reliability scores for study variables.^a

	No. of items	Observed items reliability (Cronbach’s α)	Latent factor reliability (coefficient H)	M (observed items)	SD (observed items)
Perceived argument interdependence	9	.90	.91	5.83	0.86
Positive relational expressiveness	4	.86	.86	5.60	1.22
Mutual understanding	3	.66	.71	5.15	1.14
Negative expressiveness	3	.77	.73	3.70	1.43
Change other	2	.83	.83	4.03	1.66
Dominance	3	.68	.70	3.33	1.34
Hurt other	7	.90	.92	1.73	0.93
Relational termination	3	.76	.72	1.84	1.08
Integrative tactics	5	.83	.86	5.62	0.97
Distributive tactics	5	.85	.87	2.95	1.31
Change in relational satisfaction	4	.86	.85	4.96	1.43
General dependence (covariate)	12	.90	.92	5.62	0.86
Relational self-construal (covariate)	7	.85	.86	5.23	0.88
Perceived argument frequency (covariate)	4	.90	.90	4.45	1.36

Note: N = 675.

^a Number of items retained following confirmatory factor analyses. Cronbach’s α reliabilities, means, and standard deviations are calculated based on untransformed, imputed data.

Perceived argument interdependence was measured using Johnson and Cionea’s (2015) 9-item scale. The measure asks participants to indicate the degree of perceived interdependence regarding their serial argument. Sample items include, “The two of us need to work together to address this issue,” and “It takes input from both of us to effectively argue about this topic.”

Serial argument goals were measured with 26 items adapted from Bevan et al. (2008) and Bevan (2014), measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all important, 7 = extremely important). Participants were asked to think about what they were trying to accomplish through their serial argument, then rate how important each of the statements presented were at that moment in their argument. The positive relational expressiveness goal was measured with 4 items (e.g., “To let the other person know that I care about him/her”). Mutual understanding (e.g., “To reach a mutual agreement”), negative expressiveness (e.g., “To express frustration”), change the other (e.g., “To change the other person’s behavior”), dominance (e.g., “To keep from giving in to the other person”), and relational termination (e.g., “To end the relationship with the other person”) were measured with 3 items each. Finally, hurting the other while benefitting the self was measured with 7 items (e.g., “To make the other person feel angry”).

Serial argument tactics were measured with 11 items from Hample and Krueger (2011). Participants were asked to indicate what tactics they were using at that moment in their serial argument to accomplish their goals. Six items measured distributive tactics (e.g., “I argue to defeat the other person”) and 5 items measured integrative tactics (e.g., “I seek a genuine solution that would satisfy both of us”).

Change in relational satisfaction as a result of the serial argument was measured using 7 items from Hample and Cionea (2012). Participants were asked to indicate the effect of the most recent serial argument episode on their relationship with their partner (e.g., “My relationship with the other person is more positive due to this argument”).

Covariate measures: Participants’ perception of how frequently they argued about the serial argument issue (perceived argument frequency) was measured with 4 items developed by the second author (e.g., “We argue about this topic a lot”). In addition, two dependence measures were examined: Attridge et al.’s (1998) general relational dependence measure (which includes 16 items, such as “My romantic partner’s presence makes any activity more enjoyable”) and Cross et al.’s (2000) relational interdependent self-construal scale (which includes 11 items, such as “My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am”).

Results

Prior to testing the structural equation model proposed, a series of analyses were conducted. First, multiple imputation (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2015) was used to replace a small percentage (0.24%) of data that were missing at random. Next, 38 items were transformed to reduce skewness and kurtosis, which can bias parameter estimates in SEM (Brown, 2015). The transformation equation used was Y* =(Y + k)^λ (Fink, 2009), where k = 0 for all cases, and λ = 0 or λ = 2.¹ Second, the authors examined whether any reported characteristics of the serial argument might affect the variables of interest in this study. We regressed sex, the type of relationship participants reported being in (heterosexual or homosexual), the length of their relationship, who initiated the argument, who usually brought up an episode of the serial argument, the length of time since the most recent episode, and the principal components (given some items had been transformed) for perceived argument frequency, general dependence, and relational self-construal on each goal, tactic, and change in relational satisfaction. The latter three variables (frequency, dependence, and relational self-construal) had significant effects on the variables of interest and were included as covariates in subsequent analyses.

Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) including the study variables and the continuous covariates was conducted (Brown, 2015). The CFA model was tested in LISREL 9.20 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2015) using the maximum likelihood estimation method, reading the raw data (from which the software generated a covariance matrix), allowing all latent factors to covary, and setting the first item in each scale as the marker indicator (Brown, 2015). Model fit was assessed based on Hu and Bentler’s fit indices (1999): RMSEA ≤ .06, CFI ≥ .95, and SRMR ≤ .08. The initial CFA model fit was χ² (3,311) = 7,376.13, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CI: [.041 to .044], CFI = .86, and SRMR = .06. To remedy the low CFI value, indicators whose standardized path coefficient values were ≤.50 were dropped, iteratively² (Brown, 2015). Next, the model was rerun. Based on suggested modifications, several error covariances that were theoretically justifiable given their respective indicators were worded in a similar manner (e.g., “To make the other person feel angry” and “To make the other person mad”) were implemented, iteratively.³ The revised CFA model fit was χ² (2,313) = 3,932.19, p < .001, RMSEA = .032, CI: [.031 to .034], CFI = .94, and SRMR = .05, which was deemed to be a satisfactory solution (CFI scores ≥.90 are acceptable according to Bentler, 1990).

The SEM was conducted in LISREL 9.20 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2015), using the same estimation methods and assumptions used for the CFA, all modifications made in the CFA, and the covariates mentioned (entered as exogenous factors, along with perceived argument interdependence, and allowed, by default, to covary with it). Paths from each covariate to goals, tactics, and changes in relational satisfaction were permitted. Model fit was χ² (2,343) = 4,889.25, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CI: [.039 to .042], CFI = .90, and SRMR = .07, which is an acceptable solution. Standardized, significant path coefficients are included in Figure 2 and the correlation matrix of all latent factors is included in Table 2.

Figure 2.

Results model, with standardized path coefficients. Paths from each of the three covariates are not represented in the figure but included in Table 3. Percentage of explained variance in each endogenous factor includes these covariates. Nonsignificant paths have been omitted from the figure. Note that *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Correlation matrix for latent factors.

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.
1. Perceived argument interdependence	1.00
2. General dependence	.39***	1.00
3. Relational self-construal	.22***	.23***	1.00
4. Perceived argument frequency	.09*	−.12**	.09*	1.00
5. Positive relational expressiveness	.54***	.54***	.26***	−.05	1.00
6. Mutual understanding	.60***	.38***	.22***	.05	.39***	1.00
7. Negative expressiveness	.04	−.17***	.07	.31***	−.05	.01	1.00
8. Change other	.07	−.10**	.01	.25***	−.02	.03	.09*	1.00
9. Dominance	−.15***	−.35***	.02	.32***	−.20***	−.13***	.14***	.10**	1.00
10. Hurt other	−.45***	−.49***	−.06	.06	−.36***	−.32***	.07	.02	.20***	1.00
11. Relational termination	−.45***	−.69***	−.03	.07	−.43***	−.35***	.11**	.05	.26***	.41***	1.00
12. Integrative tactics	.61***	.48***	.25***	−.02	.48***	.71***	−.05	−.04	−.29***	−.54***	−.37***	1.00
13. Distributive tactics	−.35***	−.41***	−.01	.22***	−.36***	−.30***	.19***	.16***	.58***	.60***	.30***	−.47***	1.00
14. Change in relational satisfaction	.27***	.57***	−.02	−.34***	.34***	.27***	−.20***	−.14***	−.39***	−.41***	−.41***	.39***	−.50***	1.00

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

First, in respect to the effects of perceived argument interdependence, results revealed several direct and indirect effects. Perceived argument interdependence was positively and directly related to the two positive goals (positive relational expressiveness and mutual understanding), as hypothesized in H1a and H1b. Perceived argument interdependence was related negatively to two of the negative goals [hurting the other while benefitting the self (H1f) and relational termination (H1g)]. Thus, H1 was partially supported. In addition, perceived argument interdependence was positively and directly associated with integrative tactics, as hypothesized in H2a; no direct relationship with distributive tactics was found. Thus, H2 received partial support. In response to RQ1, perceived argument interdependence had significant indirect effects on both integrative and distributive tactics (see Table 4).

Second, goals and tactics were directly associated, as predicted, in several cases. H3 posited that the positive goals would be associated with integrative tactics positively, whereas the negative goals would be related to these tactics negatively; results offered partial support for these predictions. Mutual understanding (H3b) was associated significantly and positively with integrative tactics. Dominance (H3e) and hurting the other while benefitting the self (H3f) were associated significantly and negatively with integrative tactics. H4 proposed that positive goals would be related to distributive tactics negatively, whereas negative goals would be associated with distributive tactics positively. Positive relational expressiveness (H4a) was associated negatively with distributive tactics. Also, four of the five negative goals were positively associated with distributive tactics: negative expressiveness (H4c), changing the other (H4d), dominance (H4e), and hurting the other while benefitting the self (H4f). Overall, these results offered partial support for H4.

Third, H5 and RQ2a investigated changes in relational satisfaction. As predicted by H5, integrative tactics were positively, significantly, and directly related to, whereas distributive tactics were negatively, significantly, and directly related to changes in relational satisfaction. Furthermore, such changes in satisfaction were also indirectly due to perceived argument interdependence (RQ2a) and to all goals except relational termination (see Table 4).

Discussion

This study investigated the relationships between argument interdependence, goals individuals perceive as important in their serial argument at the time of reporting, their preferred tactics for pursuing these goals, and changes in their satisfaction with the relationship following an episode of their serial argument. The study relied on two theoretical perspectives. We derived propositions about perceived argument interdependence from interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and we anchored the study’s predictions about goals, tactics, and outcomes in the GPA framework (Dillard, 1990, 1997) and previous serial argument process models. Our results suggest that considering perceived argument interdependence in serial arguments may have useful theoretical and practical implications.

First, perceived argument interdependence is distinct from other forms of interdependence, such as general dependence and relational self-construal (see Table 2 correlations). Although general dependence and perceived argument interdependence functioned in similar ways to predict goals and tactics, the two concepts cannot be interchanged. The new concept of perceived argument interdependence offers another approach for investigating interdependence in serial arguments, as a situational feature, triggered by the topic of disagreement.

As an exogenous, situational characteristic, perceived argument interdependence was conceptualized to be the catalyst for arguers’ goals and tactics during a serial argument episode. Results offered partial support, as perceived argument interdependence was associated directly, moderately to strongly (standardized path coefficients from .24 to .52 in magnitude), with four of the seven serial argument goals. Higher perceived argument interdependence predicted higher importance being accorded to the positive goals of positive relational expressiveness and mutual understanding, suggesting that a focus on commonalities, shared approaches, and the need to work together, relates to having positive goals when arguing serially with one’s romantic partner. The influence of argument interdependence on mutual understanding was the most potent, indicating that higher perceived argument interdependence frames the argument as a mutual endeavor, further activating goals that foster this mutuality. Of the covariates, general dependence was related positively to both goals (although the magnitude of the path coefficient suggests a stronger association with positive relational expressiveness than with mutual understanding), whereas relational self-construal was associated positively with positive relational expressiveness only. Perceived argument interdependence and the two covariates accounted for 43% of the variance in positive relational expressiveness and 39% of explained variance in mutual understanding, both substantial values, which means that perceived argument interdependence does have the potential to predict how important these two goals are.

Perceived argument interdependence was also related to two of the negative goals: hurting the other while benefitting the self and relational termination. The higher one’s perceived argument interdependence to one’s romantic partner, the less often the desire to hurt the other while benefitting oneself and the intent to terminate the relationship were reported as important goals of the serial argument episode. These results support the idea that stronger perceptions of argument interdependence decrease the likelihood that destructive impulses and goals are perceived as important. Cultivating such a perception of argument interdependence could function to enhance the framing of a serial argument in positive, mutual terms, and to reduce the framing of such an episode in destructive, self-oriented, negative terms. Notably, more than 50% of the variance in the goal of relational termination can be attributed to perceived argument interdependence, general dependence, and relational self-construal, suggesting perceptions of interdependence (about the topic or relationship with the other person) function as a major consideration for terminating a relationship. Additionally, the higher the perception of argument frequency (i.e., respondents’ perception of whether the serial argument occurred a lot), the more important negative expressiveness, desire to change the other, and dominance were (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Standardized path coefficients from covariates to each endogenous factor.

Endogenous factor (path to)	Covariates (path from)
Endogenous factor (path to)	General dependence	Relational self-construal	Perceived argument frequency
Positive relational expressiveness	.37***	.10*	−.05
Mutual understanding	.16**	.07	.02
Negative expressiveness	−.18**	.07	.28***
Change other	−.10*	−.01	.23***
Dominance	−.31***	.08	.28***
Hurt other	−.37***	.10*	.04
Relational termination	−.63***	.17***	.00
Integrative tactics	.05	.07	.01
Distributive tactics	.05	.05	.00
Change in relational satisfaction	.43***	−.13**	−.22***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Furthermore, perceived argument interdependence was related to the tactics arguers used in a serial argument episode. Perceived argument interdependence was related to integrative tactics directly and indirectly. The direct path from perceived argument interdependence to integrative tactics was significant, although modest in magnitude. However, both the direct effects of argument interdependence on mutual understanding and of mutual understanding on integrative tactics were strong (standardized coefficients of .52 and .49, respectively). The indirect effect of argument interdependence on integrative tactics was moderate (standardized coefficient value of .36). In respect to distributive tactics, perceived argument interdependence effects were only indirect, with a moderate, negative standardized coefficient of −.24. Thus, perceived argument interdependence does affect, as interdependence theory suggests, the behavioral choices arguers make when engaging in another episode of their serial arguments. Our study clarifies that subsequent arguing tactics are rooted directly and/or indirectly in arguers’ perception of their argument interdependence regarding a specific serial argument topic.

Perceived argument interdependence also related, indirectly, to changes in partners’ satisfaction with their relationship. As Table 4 reveals, higher perceived argument interdependence improved perceptions of satisfaction (standardized coefficient value of .12). One possible explanation of this finding is that reformulating issues in cooperative, interdependent terms strengthens partners’ relationship as they work together to overcome an obstacle. For example, it may be tough to agree whether to have children or how to make a long-distance relationship work, but, if partners perceive they are in it together, genuinely trying, satisfaction could increase, even though relational partners argue about these issues.

Table 4.

Standardized indirect effects.

	Integrative tactics	Distributive tactics	Change in relational satisfaction
Perceived argument interdependence	.36***	−.24***	.12***
General dependence	.21***	−.35***	.10***
Relational self-construal	.02	.05	−.01
Perceived argument frequency	−.06	.20***	−.05***
Positive relational expressiveness	—	—	.04**
Mutual understanding	—	—	.08**
Negative expressiveness	—	—	−.02*
Change other	—	—	−.03*
Dominance	—	—	.12***
Hurt other	—	—	−.14***
Relational termination	—	—	.03

Second, associations between serial argument goals and tactics revealed several of the classic patterns found in serial argument research, with some notable absences. Only mutual understanding was significantly and positively associated with integrative tactics, which is different from previous research findings (e.g., Bevan et al., 2008) in which both positive goals were related to integrative tactics. Furthermore, four of the negative goals (negative expressiveness, desire to change other, dominance, and hurting the other while benefitting the self) significantly related to distributive tactics. Relational termination did not have significant associations with distributive tactics. These results are not uncommon; previous research has found several but not all of the negative goals, in any given study, to be associated with distributive tactics. Based on the magnitude of the path coefficients, dominance and hurting the other while benefitting the self were the two strongest predictors of negative, competitive impulses captured by a distributive orientation to the serial argument.

The percentage of explained variance was .67 for integrative tactics and .62 for distributive tactics, both noteworthy values. Notably, none of the direct paths from the three covariates (general dependence, relational self-construal, or perceived argument frequency) to the two tactics were significant. Only general dependence was indirectly related to both tactics, whereas perceived argument frequency had an indirect effect only on distributive tactics. Thus, the tactics that arguers want to use can be explained very well by perceived argument interdependence, arguers’ general dependence, and some serial argument goals.

Finally, tactics related to partners’ perception of how the serial argument episode affected relational satisfaction. Use of integrative tactics predicted satisfaction positively, whereas use of distributive tactics predicted it negatively. The magnitude of the path coefficients (.11 as compared to .23) suggests distributive tactics have a stronger effect on changes in satisfaction than integrative tactics do. This finding relates to Gottman’s (1994) proposal that balance is needed in stable relationships: One negative behavior needs about five positive ones to compensate for it. Because participants were reporting on one episode of a serial argument, our results illustrate that even one occurrence can negatively affected a romantic relationship. In addition, changes in relational satisfaction were related indirectly to perceived argument interdependence and all goals except relational termination (see Table 4). Furthermore, changes in relational satisfaction were associated directly with all three covariates: positively with general dependence and negatively with relational self-construal and perceived argument frequency. The negative coefficient for relational self-construal is interesting, suggesting some aspects of partners’ interdependence could, in fact, damage relational satisfaction.

In summary, this study contributed evidence that a relatively new concept, argument interdependence, is useful in understanding, to varying extents, what might motivate arguers to pursue certain goals over others, to choose integrative versus distributive tactics as means to pursue these goals. A practical implication of this study is that partners in romantic relationships can learn how to have more constructive serial arguments. If they have a more interdependent perception of the serial argument topic, then positive goals are more salient. This focus translates further into more mutually oriented (integrative) strategies adopted during an argumentative episode. Such combinations are likely to yield better outcomes for the couple, such as more satisfaction with their relationship following a serial argument episode.

This study is not without limitations. The majority of our sample consisted of women and identified as White. Also, the vast majority of the romantic relationships reported were heterosexual. Therefore, results should be interpreted in light of these demographics. A second limitation refers to the measurement of the mutual understanding and dominance goals. The reliability of the observed items (Cronbach’s α) was .66 and .68 for these goals. However, given that our analyses focused on latent factors, we also calculated and reported coefficient H, which had acceptable values for these goals (over .70). In addition, these goals have been used repeatedly in previous serial argument studies. A third limitation of our study rests in the operationalization of argument interdependence. We were able to assess only perceived argument interdependence, as reported by only one partner in the romantic relationship, and not the actual degree of argument interdependence partners may have regarding their serial argument topic. The argument interdependence concept we used was also framed as a positive aspect. It is feasible, though, that in some cases, argument interdependence may be evaluated negatively (i.e., partners hate having to depend on the other person to resolve the serial argument). Future studies could examine the valence associated with perceptions of argument interdependence in a particular serial argument. Finally, perceived argument interdependence was conceptualized, based on interdependence theory, as an antecedent, situational condition. It is possible, given the cyclical nature of the serial argument process, that partners’ behaviors at one time can affect perceptions of argument interdependence, which could be examined as an outcome variable, influenced by goals and tactics. Future research could model these possible associations to determine which options capture the role of perceived argument interdependence better.

Additionally, future research can expand the application of argument interdependence to other areas of inquiry within the serial argument process. For instance, argument interdependence might differ based on argument topic; some topics are by their very more susceptible to interdependence (e.g., deciding whether to have children) than others (e.g., one partner’s consistent overspending). Further inquiry could uncover when it would be more beneficial for dyads to cultivate argument interdependence. Second, the application of argument interdependence could be extended to other contexts in which serial arguments also have high stakes, such as families or workplace teams. For example, focusing on argument interdependence in respect to a serial argument may encourage two workplace colleagues to utilize integrative strategies and not endanger their workplace effectiveness and/or personal relationship. Third, future studies could examine the perceived argument interdependence of both romantic partners. Such dyadic examinations would reveal perception discrepancies or overlap in the dyad that may affect partners’ serial argument behaviors. Finally, similar to interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), future studies could delineate how serial arguments vary as a function of situational features that amplify or hinder argument interdependence. For example, Arriaga (2013) described several characteristics of interdependent situations, such as the amount of influence partners have on a situation or the affordances of a situation. It is feasible to infer argument interdependence may vary (and be distinct from other forms of dependence) as a function of such features. A typology of situational features could aid in developing further theoretical propositions about argument interdependence in serial arguments.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the biennial meeting of the International Association for Relationship Research, Toronto, Canada in 2016.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Arriaga

X. B.

(2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39–65). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Attridge

Berscheid

Sprecher

(1998). Dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships: Development and validation of two companion scales. Personal Relationships, 5, 31–58. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00158.x

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bevan

J. L.

(2014). Dyadic perceptions of goals, conflict strategies, and perceived resolvability in serial arguments. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 1–23. doi:10.1177/0265407513504653

Bevan

J. L.

Finan

Kaminsky

(2008). Modeling serial arguments in close relationships: The serial argument process model. Human Communication Research, 34, 600–624. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00334.x

Bevan

J. L.

Hale

J. L.

Williams

S. L.

(2004). Identifying and characterizing goals of dating partners engaging in serial argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 28–40. doi:10.1080/00028533.2004.11821616

Bevan

J. L.

Tidgewell

K. D.

Bardull

K. C.

Cusanelli

Hartsern

Holbeck

Hale

J. L.

(2007). Serial argumentation goals and their relationships with perceived resolvability and choice of conflict tactics. Communication Quarterly, 55, 61–77. doi:10.1080/01463370600998640

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

10.

Cionea

I. A.

Van Gilder

Bruscella

J. S.

(2017). Modeling serial argument goal, tactics, and their effects on arguers’ satisfaction in the case of three ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46, 74–95. doi:10.1080/17475759.2016.1254669

11.

Cross

S. E.

Bacon

P. L.

Morris

M. L.

(2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.791

12.

Dillard

J. P.

(1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In Dillard

J. P.

(Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

13.

Dillard

J. P.

(1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In Greene

J. O.

(Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 47–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

Dillard

J. P.

(2008). Goals-plans-action theory of message production: Making influence messages. In Baxter

L. A.

Braithwaite

D. O.

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 65–76). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

15.

Fink

E. L.

(2009). The FAQs on data transformation. Communication Monographs, 76, 379–397. doi:10.1080/03637750903310352

16.

Gottman

J. M.

(1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

17.

Hample

(2016). A theory of interpersonal goals and situations. Communication Research, 43, 344–371. doi:10.1177/0093650214565899

18.

Hample

Cionea

I. A.

(2012). Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 430–445. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.006

19.

Hample

Krueger

(2011). Serial arguments in classrooms. Communication Studies, 62, 597–617. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.576746

20.

Hample

Richards

A. S.

(2015). Attachment style, serial argument, and taking conflict personally. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4, 63–86. doi:10.1075/jaic.4.1.04ham

21.

Hample

Richards

A. S.

(2012). A test of the conflict linkage model in the context of serial arguments. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 459–479. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.703361

22.

Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In Cudeck

du Toit

Sörbom

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

23.

Holmes

J. G.

(2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1–26. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00001

24.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/107055199095401 18

25.

Johnson

A. J.

Cionea

I. A.

(2015, August). A new measure for argument topic interdependence in serial arguments. Paper presented at the 19th biennial meeting of the NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, Alta, UT.

26.

Johnson

A. J.

Cionea

I. A.

(2016). Serial arguments in interpersonal relationships: Relational dynamics and interdependence. In Samp

J. A.

(Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships (pp. 111–127). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Johnson

A. J.

Cionea

I. A.

Bostwick

(2015, November). Argument interdependence and the value-relevance of the argument topic: Effects on resolvability, satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.

28.

Johnson

K. L.

Roloff

M. E.

(1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–343. doi:10.1177/009365098025003004

29.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

. (2015). LISREL 9.20 [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

30.

Kelley

H. H.

Holmes

J. G.

Kerr

N. L.

Reis

H. T.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lance

P. A.

(2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

32.

Malis

R. S.

Roloff

M. E.

(2006). Features of serial arguing and coping strategies: Links with stress and well-being. In LePoire

B. A.

Dailey

R. M.

(Eds.), Applied interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 39–66). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

33.

Ohbuchi

Tedeschi

J. T.

(1997). Multiple goals and tactical behavior social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1345–1366. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01647.x

34.

Reznik

R. M.

Roloff

M. E.

Miller

C. W.

(2010). Communicating during interpersonal arguing: Implications for stress symptoms. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46, 193–213. doi:10.1080/00028533.2010.11821730

35.

Tjosvold

(1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47, 285–313. doi:10.1111/j.14640597.1998.tb00025.x

36.

Trapp

Hoff

(1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 1–11.

37.

Worley

T. R.

Samp

J. A.

(2016). Serial argument goals and changes in perceived conflict resolution: A dyadic analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 80, 264–281. doi:10.1080/10570314.2016.1143961

38.

Worley

T. R.

Samp

J. A.

(2018). Goal variability and perceived resolvability in serial argumentation. Communication Research, 45, 422–442. doi:10.1177/0093650214565918