Stoicism and Verbal Aggression in Serial Arguments: The Roles of Perceived Power,Perceived Resolvability,and Frequency of Arguments

Abstract

Impelled by a desire to control, suppress, and deny emotional response, stoic individuals may act out their pent-up emotions on relational partners by provoking conflict and/or engaging in partner-directed violent and aggressive behaviors. However, little is known regarding what factors can push stoics over the edge from remaining quiet or avoiding revealing frustrations to initiating aggressive behavior. This relationship between stoicism and aggression is important to consider in serial arguments, where the repetitive nature of a conflict may become increasingly difficult for stoics to manage internally. Here, we examined the influence of stoicism on verbal aggression in serial arguments between romantic partners. We additionally considered the effects of power, perceived resolvability, and argument frequency on the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression. Using a survey design with a sample of 281 individuals involved in a romantic relationship, we observed that stoicism is positively associated with verbal aggression in serial arguments. While perceived power and resolvability did not moderate the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression, argument frequency about a serial argument topic was a significant moderator. The results of this study imply that stoicism plays an important role in explaining aggressive tactics in conflict. A high argument frequency about a conflict topic may lead to a buildup of unexpressed emotions, particularly anger, in stoic individuals, resulting in an explosive release of violence and aggression toward a romantic partner. Unique results on the relationship between stoicism and power and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

stoicism verbal aggression serial arguments power perceived resolvability conflict frequency romantic relationships

It is common knowledge that some people express their ideas and feelings with regularity. Yet others maintain a quiet distance, keeping their thoughts and concerns to themselves. Stoicism is a personality trait that encourages an individual to chronically deny, suppress, and control their emotions (Wagstaff & Rowledge, 1995). While a stoic may be comfortable keeping private, the time spent in silence can eventually reach a breaking point. Indeed, chronic suppression of emotion has been demonstrated to lead to the use of aggressive tactics toward others in interpersonal relationships (Brownhill et al., 2005) and stoic individuals are more likely to use verbal aggression in conflict than nonstoic individuals (Johnson & Samp, 2019). While the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression is clear, stoic individuals are also more likely to use avoidant tactics, such as the silent treatment and stonewalling, in conflict (Johnson & Samp, 2019). Thus, it is likely that stoics demonstrate dynamic changes in conflict strategies, escalating from avoidance to aggression in a “0 to 100” fashion. However, little is known regarding what factors may lead a stoic individual to pursue a more aggressive tactic in conflict with a relational partner.

One theory aimed at explicating the process through which individuals experience and act on aggressive urges is I 3 theory (Finkel, 2007). This theory specifies that three key processes—instigation, impellance, and inhibition—underlie forms of aggressive behavior, such as verbal aggression, in conflict. First, instigation refers to exposure to discrete, situational events that trigger an urge to be aggressive, such as provocation, goal obstruction or opportunities for personal gain. Second, impellance refers to dispositional or situational factors that increase an individual’s tendency to experience strong aggressive urges, such as high dispositional anger or exposure to violence. Third, inhibition refers to dispositional or situational factors that increase an individual’s tendency to overcome aggressive urges, such as self-control and sobriety.

Several instigating and impelling factors may encourage stoic individuals to engage in verbal aggression. We considered stoicism, perceived power, and perceived resolvability as impelling factors and frequency of arguing as an instigating factor. We characterize perceived power and perceived resolvability as impelling factors as they are both are overarching influences within on the perception of and responses to relational conflict (Dunbar, 2004; Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000). Argument frequency, however, is a more discrete event when focused on a particular issue. Given that the aim of this study was to investigate why and when stoic individuals are more encouraged to use aggressive tactics in conflict, we do not directly examine inhibiting factors that may inhibit aggression.

Stoicism and Verbal Aggression

Ancient Greek stoics believed that emotions should be condemned, controlled, and “free of excess,” in order to live a steady and impenetrable virtuous life (Moore et al., 2013). Modern stoicism has remained largely unchanged from its historic roots, being defined here as a trait or disposition that encourages an individual to strictly deny, suppress, and control emotions when provoked in interpersonal interactions and their day-to-day life. Specifically, Wagstaff and Rowledge (1995) described stoic individuals as maintaining three characteristics: lacking emotional involvement, lacking emotional expression, and sustaining emotional control and endurance.

Theoretically, stoicism is considered to cultivate a restricted emotionality in interpersonal communication and relationships. Stoic individuals state that this trait is a tool toward maintaining emotional resilience, but recognize it as a significant barrier to expressing caring feelings in interpersonal relationships (Martin, 2016). This inhibited expression of emotion additionally leads to unintended communication outcomes. While anger is one of the most common emotions stoic individuals attempt to suppress, it is often expressed in extreme forms once it emerges (Davey et al., 2005; Jansz, 2000; Jakupcak et al., 2005). For stoic individuals, this often explosive release of anger has been theorized through Megargee’s (1966) overcontrol model, arguing that stoic individuals resist their angry feelings until they reach their psychological capacity to resist response. When this anger is eventually acted upon, without precautions, it can be impulsive and uncontrolled, resulting in acts of violence (Davey et al., 2005).

In romantic relationships, these effects of stoicism on the expression of anger can lead to quite severe consequences. Stoic individuals are more likely to perpetrate relationship violence, including minor and major instances of verbal and physical violence (Jakupcak, 2003). Additionally, stoicism has been connected to the male perpetration of sexual violence, including sexual harassment and rape (Kimmel, 2005). At the most extreme end of the continuum, research in clinical settings has found stoicism to be a common trait in some of the most severe domestic violence offenses, including murder of a romantic partner (Davey et al., 2005). Therefore, while stoic individuals may be more likely to use verbal aggression, less is known about how other factors existent in the relationship and topic of conflict could impact the use of verbal aggression by stoic individuals.

Stoicism and Serial Arguments

Serial arguments occur when individuals in a relationship engage in more than one conflict about the same topic over an extended period (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Unlike some conflicts that can be addressed and resolved in a single encounter, serial arguments often end without resolution and result in multiple disputes about the same topic. Serial arguments topics often concern smaller mundane issues that are reoccurring in a relationship, rather than larger incompatible goals that drive most single-episode conflicts (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). However, serial arguments can be particularly stressful and emotionally arousing (Miller et al., 2007). While serial arguments do frequently address petty issues within a relationship, the initial confrontation about the issue often does not occur until one or both individuals are very upset (Malis & Roloff, 2006). Beginning from this point of high distress about the issue, serial arguments “heat up” from one argument to the next, and a significant buildup of emotions occurs as the same argument continuously cycles with no conclusion, creating more emotional encounters than single-episode conflicts (Roloff & Reznik, 2008; Trapp & Hoff, 1985). This emotional nature of serial arguments often produces destructive communication patterns that have negative impacts on relational, psychological, and physical well-being (Malis & Roloff, 2006).

Given the emotion-provoking nature of serial arguments, it is likely that these arguments are especially difficult for stoic individuals. Particularly, individuals with low emotional intelligence, like stoics, are likely to have a lower tolerance for disagreement in serial arguments with romantic partners (Carr, 2009). Given this, if stoic individuals cannot properly regulate and express their emotions in serial arguments, there may be unique challenges that are not experienced by the general population. Further, scholars have argued that emotional investment may be positively associated with willingness to continue the serial argument in an attempt to resolve it (Carr et al., 2012). Thus, when stoic individuals are less emotionally involved in the argument and simply want for it to end, it is possible that they may be more inclined to resort to destructive tactics such as verbal aggression to squelch the argument. While positive conflict resolution tactics may also be an option for stoic individuals, they require much more emotional capacity, energy, and time to enact, making them a less likely option for stoics (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006). Given that the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression has yet to be tested in the serial argument context, we propose:

H₁: There will be a positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression in serial arguments.

Role of Perceived Power

Relational power refers to the ability to pursue one’s desires to influence the behavior of another person (Dunbar & Abra, 2010). Relational power dynamics exist irrespective of whether or not they are expressed, and impact key elements of relational conflict such as what conflicts are discussed, how they are discussed, whether we conform to the expectations of partners, and the outcomes of such decisions. With regard to serial arguments, the importance of pursuing some communicative goals may be constrained according to whether there is a power balance or imbalance in a relationship. For example, in relationships where power is imbalanced, goals focused on dominance or control tend to be more important for the person with less power, while relationship protection goals are more important for individuals in balanced power relationships (Bevan, 2010). Additionally, communicative patterns of engagement versus nonengagement during serial arguments are thought to be partially motivated by power differences as well, such that it is more common to see one partner demanding discussion and resolve while the other withdraws from the argument in imbalanced power relationships (Reznik et al., 2015). However, these studies analyzed family relationships as having inherent power differences while assuming romantic relationships to be relatively equal in power. Therefore, little is known about how perceived power differences influence serial arguments in romantic relationships.

One impact of power on conflict involves what strategies an individual will take in an argument with a partner. Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar, 2004) argues that power differences drive the use of dominance strategies in interpersonal conflict. Specifically, DPT contends that individuals with moderate power in a relationship will be the most likely to use more dominant strategies in response to conflict. In line with the chilling effect (Roloff & Cloven, 1990), low-power individuals should be less likely to dominate a conflict out of fear that their control attempt may result in retribution, violence, or dissolution of the relationship. On the other hand, high-power individuals are also unlikely to use dominance strategies as avoiding the conflict can dodge risking their position of power and serve to maintain the status quo (Christensen & Heavey, 1990). Therefore, it is likely that perceived power in the relationship will have a similar effect on serial arguments and will interact with stoicism to produce unique effects in verbal aggression. Accordingly:

H₂: The positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression will be moderated by perceived power, such that stoic individuals with moderate power are most likely to engage in verbal aggression toward their partner.

Role of Perceived Resolvability

While relational power refers to the ability to influence a partner broadly within the relationship, situational power acknowledges how unique factors of an argument may shift the ability to influence or control a partner within the conflict (Overall et al., 2016). As such, we believe that situational power in serial arguments can be uniquely operationalized in this study as perceived resolvability. Specifically, perceived resolvability refers to the belief that an argument is likely to be resolved, regardless of if progress is actually being made toward that goal (Johnson & Roloff, 1998).

Individuals who perceive their serial arguments as less resolvable often experience more intrusiveness, hyperarousal, and a lack of control as a result of the argument (Malis & Roloff, 2006). As such, the hyperarousal and negative feelings about the communicative situation often makes an individual feel underpowered (Bevan et al., 2007; Johnson & Roloff, 2000; Worley & Samp, 2016). Research has found that aggressive behavior is likely to occur when individuals perceive that they have low situational power in the conflict (Overall et al., 2016). As stoic individuals are more likely to be overwhelmed in serial arguments, a perception that the serial argument is unresolvable may be the “tipping point” to drive aggression. Thus, given that low perceived resolvability creates an environment for low situational power to arise in a serial argument, it seems likely that perceived power will moderate the association between stoicism and verbal aggression:

H₃: The positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression will be moderated by perceived resolvability of the serial argument, such that stoic individuals who perceive their arguments to be less resolvable will be even more likely to use verbal aggression.

Role of Argument Frequency

The final factor predicted to influence the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression in serial arguments is argument frequency. While serial arguments can stay in a more abbreviated state of around two to five arguments, they have the potential to extend much further, often causing frustration and annoyance for partners as the problem and the argument never seems to end. In an examination of abbreviated versus extended serial arguments, Bevan et al. (2014) found that individuals managing extended serial arguments ruminate more than those faced with abbreviated serial arguments. Additionally, less frequent arguments were the most likely to involve avoidance strategies, demonstrating that more frequent extended serial arguments provide ground for more direct strategies, such as verbal aggression. This assumption corresponds with research demonstrating positive relationships between the frequency of arguments had about a topic and the use of hostility (Reznik & Roloff, 2011).

For stoic individuals, suppressing emotions and their expression is likely easier to accomplish in isolated conflict episodes as stoics have weaker reactions to emotional occurrences that are only experienced once (Wagstaff & Rowledge, 1995). However, in a serial argument, conflict occurs in a cyclic fashion and emotions from one experience can flood over into the next (Roloff & Reznik, 2008). In this setting, stoic individuals will likely experience more difficulties in continuing to control their emotions, with stoics reporting that their “bottling up” of emotions from repeated relational issues often results in unrestrained expressions of emotion (Martin, 2016). Likewise, as serial arguments become more frequent and expand from an abbreviated to an extended state, stoic individuals may not be able to control their emotional expression any longer, thus resulting in a release of anger in a pressure cooker-like state. Therefore, an interaction between stoicism and argument frequency is proposed:

H₄: The positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression will be moderated by argument frequency about the serial topic, such that stoic individuals engaging in more arguments will be even more likely to use verbal aggression.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 322) were recruited from communication courses at a large Southeastern university as part of a larger data collection. Respondents were required to be 18 years of age or older and currently involved in a romantic relationship. Prior to analysis, cases were eliminated if a participant noted that they had not experienced a serial argument with their partner. This reduced sample (N = 281) was utilized for preliminary and substantial analyses.

Participants were primarily female (75.4%) and had an average age of 19.8 ( = 1.98, range = [18, 35]). Participants self-identified as White (76.2%), Asian (10.3%), multiracial (5.7%), Black (4.6%) and Hispanic (3.2%). When presented with defined, mutually exclusive categories about the current state of their relationship, the majority of participants reported seriously dating their romantic partner (68.3%), while the remaining participants reported “talking to” their partner (13.5%), casually dating (16.7%), being engaged to marry (1.1%), and being married (0.4%). Most participants were exclusively dating their partner (89.7%). The average length of romantic relationships was 15.8 months (SD = 14.8, range = [1, 96]).

Procedure

Data was collected using a Qualtrics online survey, restricted to research pool participants. After providing informed consent, participants reported demographics on themselves, their partner, and their relationship. Participants additionally completed measures relevant to their own degree of stoicism and their perceptions of their own power in the relationship as compared to their partner. To gather reports on a specific serial argument, participants were presented with Johnson and Roloff’s (1998, p. 333) definition of 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.” The decision to include this definition was made based on the assumption that the average layperson would not immediately recognize the meaning of a serial argument (Johnson et al., 2011; Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000; Worley & Samp, 2016, 2018a, 2018b).

Participants were then asked to briefly describe a serial argument that had occurred between them and their relational partner. Respondents reported approximately how many arguments they had about this topic, if the serial argument was currently ongoing, and how resolvable they perceived the problem to be. After this, participants were asked to reflect on the most recent argument they had with their partner about this topic. With this most recent argument in mind, participants responded to measures gauging their use of verbal aggression in the argument. Other questions were asked for a project not related to this study. After completion of all measures, participants were debriefed and redirected to an external screen to receive course credit for their participation.

Measures

Stoicism. The Liverpool Stoicism Scale (Wagstaff & Rowledge, 1995) was used to assess individual levels of stoicism. This measure contains 20 items, administered on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include: “I tend not to express my emotions” and “I rely heavily on my friends for emotional support” (reverse coded). Higher average scores indicated a higher individual degree of stoicism (M = 3.26, SD = 0.82, range = [1.45, 5.7], α = .86).

Perceived power. Relative levels of power were reported using a four-item measure from Dunbar and Abra (2010). Using a 7-point scale (1 = definitely my partner, 4 = we are equal, 7 = definitely me), participants responded to the following items: (a) In general, who has more power in your relationship?; (b) Who makes most of the decisions in your relationship?; (c) Who influences the decisions of the other person more?; and (d) Who could more easily persuade the other to change their mind? Responses were averaged, with higher scores representing higher perceived power for the participant (M = 4.27, SD = 1.04, range = [1, 7], α = .79).

Perceived resolvability. A four-item measure adapted from Johnson and Roloff (1998) was used to measure perceived resolvability. Using a 7-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), participants responded to the following items: (a) I believe that this argument will never be resolved (reverse coded); (b) I believe that this argument will be resolved in the future; (c) I do not think my partner will ever agree on this issue (reverse coded); and (d) I anticipate that this issue will always be a problem (reverse coded). Responses were averaged, with higher scores indicating higher perceptions of resolvability (M = 4.80, SD = 1.58, range = [1, 7], α = .89).

Verbal aggressiveness. Verbal aggressiveness was measured using an adapted version of Infante and Wigley’s (1986) scale. This measure contains 20 items and is administered on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items included: “If my partner really deserves it, I attack their character” and “I am extremely careful to avoid attacking my partner’s intelligence when I attack their ideas” (reverse coded). Responses were averaged, with higher scores indicating use of more verbally aggressiveness acts in conflict (M = 3.10, SD = 0.80, range = [1.3, 5.55], α = .85).

Results

Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine any relationships between the study variables and demographics. First, independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine any differences between men and women. No gender differences existed within any study variables beyond stoicism. Specifically, men were significantly more likely than women to be stoic (t(278) = 8.72, p < .001). Age was not significantly correlated with any study variables, while relationship length was only associated with argument frequency (r = .20, p < .01).

Post hoc power analysis was undertaken using the G * Power 3.1 statistical program (Faul et al., 2009). Using estimates based on multiple linear regression, assuming a criterion of α = .05 and the sample size of 281 participants, statistical power was .48 to detect a small effect and .99 to detect a moderate effect. Therefore, power for these analyses are sufficient for capturing all but the smallest of effects.

Hypothesis 1

Bivariate correlations among all variables are reported in Table 1. Stoicism was positively associated with verbal aggression (r = .12, p < .05)—thus confirming Hypothesis 1, that the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression exists in serial arguments.

Table 1.
Bivariate Correlations Between Study Variables.

Stoicism Perceived Power Perceived Resolvability Number of Arguments

Perceived Power .032

Perceived Resolvability –.057 –.044

Number of arguments –.080 –.083 –.236**

Verbal Aggressiveness .124* .156 –.259 .174**

Note. *p < .05.

**p < .01.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 proposed that perceived power would moderate the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression in serial arguments, such that stoic individuals with moderate power would be the most likely to use verbal aggression. Moderated regression analysis results in SPSS indicated that while stoicism and power were independently significant predictors of verbal aggression, the interaction term was not significant (B = –.16, p = .62, 95% CI = [–.12, .07]). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

To further investigate Hypothesis 2, a one-way ANOVA compared individuals’ stoicism and verbal aggression based on perceived power level. We separated participants into three distinct groups based on their reported level of personal perceived power: low power (1.00 to 3.00 on power scale), moderate power (3.01 to 4.99 on power scale), and high power (5.00 to 7.00 on power scale). There was no overlap between membership in any of the groups. While there were no significant differences in verbal aggression based on perceived power group, results indicated significant group differences in stoicism (F(2, 279) = 4.68, p < .01). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that high power individuals (M = 3.45, SD = .98) were more likely than moderate power individuals (M = 3.15, SD = .72) to be stoic (p < .05). No statistical difference was found between low power individuals (M = 3.49, SD = .91) and the moderate and high power groups.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 anticipated that perceived resolvability would moderate the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression, such that as serial arguments are perceived as less resolvable, the positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression will increase. Based on a moderated regression, Hypothesis 3 was not supported (B = –.02, p = .94, 95% CI = [–.07, .06]).

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 predicted that when serial arguments about a topic are more frequent, stoic individuals will be even more likely to use verbal aggression. A moderated regression analysis revealed that argument frequency significantly moderated the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression (B = .56, Δ = .02, ΔF(1, 264) = 4.70, p < .05). To further probe these results, PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2013) was used to visualize the interaction between stoicism and argument frequency. This plot (Figure 1) indicated that as participants reported more arguments, stoicism had an increasing impact on verbal aggression. Specifically, when individuals experienced a more abbreviated serial argument (less than five arguments), the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression was nonsignificant. However, when the serial argument became more extended, a significant positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression emerged. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed.
Figure 1.
Moderating role of number of arguments on the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression.

Discussion

Given their dispositional reluctance to experience or express emotion, stoic individuals face unique challenges in relational conflict and confront these barriers in different ways than the general population. Research has connected stoic individuals to frequent use of both avoidant and aggressive strategies in conflict (Johnson & Samp, 2019). Still, little is known regarding when, how, and why stoics select one strategy over the other. This study investigated the association between stoicism and verbal aggression in serial arguments, particularly analyzing perceived power, perceived resolvability, and argument frequency as factors that may push a stoic individual “over the edge” to use aggression rather than avoidance. While the moderating roles of perceived power and perceived resolvability did not significantly moderate the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression, argument frequency successfully moderated this relationship in the expected direction. The implications of these results for theory and future research, as well as limitations of this study are discussed further.

Moderating Impact of Argument Frequency

The relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression was successfully moderated by the frequency of arguments had about the topic. Specifically, the impact of stoicism on verbal aggression increased when more arguments about the serial argument topic were reported. This finding is in line with previous research contending that when more arguments are had about a topic, individuals are more likely to use direct approaches to resolution (Bevan et al., 2014). For most, these more direct approaches to conflict may be constructive. However, this result highlights that the shift from avoidant to direct conflict strategies may not always be a healthy change. Although speculative, for stoic individuals, a higher argument frequency may result in an immediate shift from avoidant tactics, such as the silent treatment and stonewalling, to violent and destructive tactics, such as verbal aggression. Given their chronic inhibition of emotion, stoic individuals may lack the necessary tools to appropriately process and respond to emotional conversations. Thus, stoic individuals may be limited in their ability to adopt more constructive direct tactics when the frequency of arguments about a topic increases.

Interestingly, when the serial argument was more abbreviated (less than five arguments about the topic), the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression was slightly positive, but not significant. However, when the serial arguments grew more extended, the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression was positive and significant. This implies that, in serial arguments, more arguments are necessary for stoic individuals to resort to verbal aggression.

One possible reason for this finding is that serial arguments often pertain to very petty, albeit annoying, disputes between partners, such as a partner not cleaning the dishes or failing to return a phone call promptly. Therefore, it is possible that the nonserious nature of these arguments does not have a strong impact on aggressive tendencies when they are limited in frequency. However, as an argument occurs again and again with no resolution, the issue between romantic partners may seem more severe or even begin to characterize the relationship in a negative light. Stoic individuals, who already struggle with the emotional toll of being involved in conflict, face a heightened load when placed in an extended serial argument, leading to a greater incentive to use verbal aggression.

Stoic and nonstoic individuals are not always distinct in their use of verbal aggression. Our results indicate that when the argument frequency is low, stoic individuals are no more likely to use verbal aggression than nonstoic individuals. The addition of increased argument frequency alone is enough to notably separate stoic from nonstoic individuals in terms of aggressive actions. Thus, for stoic individuals, the frequency of arguments had about a serial argument topic represents a clear escalation point compelling them to use aggression in conflict with their partner. In this sense, for stoic individuals who are using avoidant strategies to resist their emotions in argument, it may only be a matter of time before their conflict behavior turns for the worst.

However, given these results in the serial argument context, it is important to note that stoic individuals were more likely to use verbal aggression in a previous study looking at one-episode conflicts (Johnson & Samp, 2019) and stoic individuals have been found to be more verbally aggressive in general (Brownhill et al., 2005). This implies that argument frequency cannot be the only instigating factor for stoic individuals. It is possible that one-episode conflicts may be perceived as more severe, emotionally intense or damaging to the relationship in nature, thus resulting in the use of aggression. Therefore, it is important to consider these additional factors in future research and further tease out how the use of aggression by stoic individuals may differ in serial argument and single-episode conflict contexts.

Ultimately, these findings contribute significantly to the current theorizing and understanding of stoicism and verbal aggression. First, they suggest that there is in fact a tipping point for stoic individuals, which encourages the use of aggression in conflict. This warrants a need for future longitudinal research at multiple timepoints to understand if this escalation to aggression is gradual or sudden. Additional research is also needed to determine what other factors result in this escalation, particularly outside of the serial argument context, and if there are other predictive signs of future aggression by stoic individuals. Second, these results demonstrate that stoic and nonstoic individuals are not distinct at all times in their use of verbal aggression in serial arguments. A difference only arises when more arguments occur about the topic. Finally, in combination with the previous results cited above regarding stoicism in one-episode conflicts, these results imply that stoic individuals may respond differently to repetitive conflicts versus conflicts that are one and done. However, given that serial arguments are often surrounding quite petty concerns, future research is needed to determine if severity of the conflict can impact the stoic’s experience.

Unique Role of Power for Stoic Individuals in Serial Arguments

Directly contradicting DPT (Dunbar, 2004), stoic individuals with moderate power were not the most likely to use aggression in response to a serial argument, and perceived power was not a significant moderator of the positive relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression. Post hoc ANOVA tests investigating this finding interestingly found that stoic individuals were more likely to have high perceived power in their romantic relationships than moderate power.

These findings make two primary suggestions that could explain why Hypothesis 2 was not supported. First, these findings imply that stoic individuals respond to emotions and emotionally provoking interactions in ways that are significantly different than the general population. Even though stoic individuals were more likely to have high power, they were the most likely to engage in verbal aggression. Based on DPT, this is the opposite relationship that would be expected in the general population. Therefore, it is possible that the impact of stoicism could supersede and go beyond power in explaining aggressive behavior in the stoic population. Second, this finding suggests that power may play a different role in serial arguments due to their repetitive nature. DPT argues that high power individuals are less likely to use aggression in order to protect their position of power and the status quo of the relationship. However, when a serial argument is present, the status quo of the relationship could become constant arguing and complaining. Thus, it is possible that, in context of serial arguments, high power individuals let go of their protection of the status quo in order to attempt to bring the argument to a final end. Conversely, individuals with low power, whom DPT would argue would avoid using aggression out of fear of retaliation, may not be as adverse to using aggression when a repetitive serial argument seems unending. To this end, further research is needed to compare the use of power and aggression in one-episode conflicts versus serial arguments.

Stoicism and Perceived Resolvability

The results of this study suggest regardless of how resolvable the serial argument is perceived to be, the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression remains nearly the same. This is surprising, given that perceived resolvability has been traditionally identified as the most robust predictor of outcomes in serial arguments (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). A possible explanation for this finding is that perceived resolvability does not do much to affect the emotional buildup that leads to verbal aggression in stoic individuals. For example, no matter how resolvable an argument is, it still involves engaging in an argument with your partner to resolve. Even arguments perceived as resolvable can be perceived as likely to last for an extended period of time. The mere act of being involved in a conflict may be the primary factor that provokes emotional buildup and later extreme release in stoic individuals, leading perceived resolvability to not have a significant interaction with stoicism toward verbal aggression. Therefore, regardless of if a stoic individual believes a conflict is resolvable, as long as they see the argument as being long lasting, they are likely to engage in verbal aggression.

Study Limitations

Several elements of this study may have limited the results of this project and should be considered in future research. For one, participants were allowed to report on either an ongoing or resolved serial argument. Specifically, 48.8% of participants reported on an ongoing serial argument, while 51.2% of participants reported on resolved serial arguments. While this does provide a near perfect divide for future analyses comparing resolved versus ongoing serial arguments, it opens up the door for potential bias in self-reports, given that resolved arguments are possibly seen in a more positive light retrospectively in comparison to ongoing conflicts. Additionally, while participants were prompted to report on the most recent serial argument about their selected topic, they were not asked to report how long ago that argument took place. Thus, it is possible that these arguments could have occurred as lately as the previous day or as far out as a year ago. The length of time between the argument and reporting could be an additional area of bias in this study, such as difficulties in remembering exactly how you felt or what you did at the time of the argument.

Also, a convenience sample of college students was utilized for this study. Approximately three-fourths of the sample were female, and the majority of participants were 18–19 years old and White. However, stoicism is known to primarily affect men and older populations (Murray et al., 2008). Additionally, stoicism and aggression are two characteristics thought to define contemporary masculinity (Jansz, 2000; Leone & Parrott, 2018; Martin, 2016). Therefore, a primarily young and feminine sample is not ideal to investigate the relationship between stoicism and aggression. Had an older, male sample been used, it is possible that more robust results would have emerged. As such, these results are not generalizable to society as a whole, but are useful in addressing the dating relationships they were intended to capture. In the future, research on this topic should explicitly recruit men (perhaps adopting a male-only sample) and should take efforts to include a variety of ages and races in the sample.

It is also important to recognize that the results of this study may not generalize to the unique experiences of diverse cultures. Stoicism is known to be embraced and expected more stringently in some cultures over others (Monroe & Robinson, 2008). Some examples of cultures that have displayed extraordinary normative behavior regarding stoicism in research include Asians (Hobara, 2005), African Americans (Laurie & Neimeyer, 2008), residents of rural communities (Beard et al., 2009), and military service members (Monroe & Robinson, 2008). Additionally, previous cross-cultural studies have found differences in how stoicism is interpreted in other cultures, posing the question of if stoicism may be communicated differently or have different outcomes based on culture (Gaitniece-Putane, 2005). Thus, future research is needed to address and investigate stoicism in conflict for a range of diverse communities not captured in this study.

While this study does provide some evidence that there are distinct factors that can lead a stoic individual to shift from avoidant to aggressive strategies, this project did not measure the use of avoidance directly. This decision was made in order to prevent fatiguing participants with a longer survey, but it does make it more difficult to definitively prove that, for example, stoic individuals will use aggression in more extended serial arguments and avoidance when the serial argument is more abbreviated. However, the results of this study do provide the first step in recognizing the “breaking point” of stoic individuals, and the next step should be to investigate both avoidance and aggression simultaneously.

Finally, while this study provides evidence that stoic individuals may respond to serial arguments in a pressure cooker-like state with a buildup of emotions leading to lashing out via aggressive tactics, this study was cross-sectional. Therefore, it remains unknown how stoic individuals will respond to serial arguments over multiple points in time. Future longitudinal research is needed to investigate how serial arguments change for stoic individuals over time, how emotions may linger, buildup, or change from argument to argument, and how conflict tactics may transform to aggression across multiple argument interactions.

Conclusion

This study shows that the impacts of stoicism in conflict successfully expand to the serial argument context, with some unique features. Specifically, stoicism has a significant impact on the use of verbal aggression in serial arguments, such that stoic individuals are more likely to use aggressive tactics. Additionally, this positive relationship is only present when a higher frequency of arguments has been had about the topic. For stoic individuals in a repetitive serial argument, it is may be truly only a matter of time before their conflict tactics turn violent. While stoic individuals are experts at controlling, denying, and suppressing their emotions, this habit often leaves inevitable emotions unprocessed. When emotions go unprocessed, despite all efforts to suppress, they fester internally, continuously building up and creating pressure. In the context of serial arguments, emotions from one argument are likely to transfer over to the next, resulting in an escalation in emotions experienced. This study provides evidence that the impact of stoicism plays a significant role on verbal aggression as serial arguments shift from abbreviated to extended states.

While perceived power and resolvability did not necessarily moderate the relationship between stoicism and verbal aggression in the predicted pattern, the results of this study certainly suggest that power may affect stoic individuals and their relationships differently than the general population, and that stoic individuals may interpret the meaning of resolvability differently that nonstoic individuals. In conclusion, this study ultimately represents a new step forward in the understanding the critical role of stoicism toward violence and aggression, and provides insight to new research directions for stoic individuals and their relationships. It is our hope that this study encourages thought on the role of stoicism in conflict and what can be done to help stoic individuals cool and keep their pressure down.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Elle P. Johnson

Author Biographies

Elle P. Johnson, MA, is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on how individuals manage emotional expression, or the lack thereof, in difficult conversations, and the use of avoidance and aggression in interpersonal and health communication contexts.

Jennifer A. Samp, PhD, is professor of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia (UGA), fellow of the University of Georgia’s Owens Institute for Behavioral Research, and an Affiliate of Emory University’s Center for Injury Control, and University of Georgia’s Center for Health and Risk Communication. She has 20+ years of experience in research and teaching on human interaction, goal-based performance, power, violence, and conflict management.

References

1.
Beard J. R. Tomaska N. Earnest A. Summerhayes R. Morgan G. (2009). Influence of socioeconomic and cultural factors on rural health. Australian Journal of Rural Health , 17(1), 10–15.

2.
Bevan J. L. (2010). Serial argument goals and conflict strategies: A comparison between romantic partners and family members. Communication Reports , 23(1), 52–64.

3.
Bevan J. L. Hefner V. Love A. (2014). An exploration of topics, conflict styles, and rumination in romantic nonserial and serial arguments. Southern Communication Journal , 79(4), 347–360.

4.
Bevan J. L. Tidgewell K. D. Bagley K. C. Cusanelli L. Hartstern M. Holbeck D. Hale J. L. (2007). Serial argumentation goals and their relationships to perceived resolvability and choice of conflict tactics. Communication Quarterly , 55(1), 61–77.

5.
Brownhill S. Wilhelm K. Barclay L. Schmied V. (2005). “Big build”: Hidden depression in men. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 39(10), 921–931.

6.
Carr K. Schrodt P. Ledbetter A. M. (2012). Rumination, conflict intensity, and perceived resolvability as predictors of motivation and likelihood of continuing serial arguments. Western Journal of Communication , 76(5), 480–502.

7.
Carr K. R. (2009). Emotional intelligence, tolerance for disagreement, and the motivation to sustain serial arguments: Implications for relational satisfaction and closeness [Unpublished dissertation]. Texas Christian University.

8.
Caughlin J. P. Vangelisti A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. In Oetzel J. G. Ting-Tooney S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication (pp. 129–157). SAGE Publications.

9.
Christensen A. Heavey C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59(1), 73–81.

10.
Davey L. Day A. Howells K. (2005). Anger, over-control and serious violent offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 10(5), 624–635.

11.
Dunbar N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication , 4(3), 235–248.

12.
Dunbar N. E. Abra G. (2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs , 77(4), 657–684.

13.
Faul F. Erdfelder E. Buchner A. Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power and analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41(4), 1149–1160.

14.
Finkel E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology , 11, 193-207.

15.
Gaitniece-Putane A. (2005). Liverpool stoicism scale adaptation. Baltic Journal of Psychology , 6(1), 57–64.

16.
Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach .Guilford Press.

17.
Hobara M. (2005). Beliefs about appropriate pain behavior: Cross-cultural and sex differences between Japanese and Euro-Americans. European Journal of Pain , 9(4), 389–393.

18.
Infante D. A. Wigley C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs , 53(1), 61–69.

19.
Jakupcak M. (2003). Masculine gender role stress and men’s fear of emotions as predictors of self-reported aggression and violence. Violence and Victims , 18(5), 533–541.

20.
Jakupcak M. Tull M. T. Roemer L. (2005). Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as predictors of men’s expressions of anger and hostility. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 6(4), 275–284.

21.
Jansz J. (2000). Masculine identity and restrictive emotionality. In Fischer A. H. (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 166–186). Cambridge University Press.

22.
Johnson A. J. Averbeck J. M. Kelley K. M. Liu S. (2011). When serial arguments predict harm: Examining the influences of argument function, topic of the argument, perceived resolvability, and argumentativeness. Argumentation and Advocacy , 47(4), 214–227.

23.
Johnson E. P. Samp J. A. (2019). Avoiding conflict and confrontation: Relational factors contributing to the use of the silent treatment, stonewalling, and hostile rumination in stoic individuals [Unpublished manuscript].

24.
Johnson K. L. Roloff M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research , 25, 327–344.

25.
Johnson K. L. Roloff M. E. (2000). Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship , 17(4–5), 676–686.

26.
Kimmel M. (2005). Men, masculinity, and the rape culture. In Buchwald E. Fletcher P. R. Roth M. (Eds.), Transforming a rape culture (pp. 139–157). Milkweed Editions.

27.
Laurie A. Neimeyer R. A. (2008). African Americans in bereavement: Grief as a function of ethnicity. OMEGA , 57(2), 173–193.

28.
Leone R. M. Parrott D. J. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity and aggression. In Ireland J. L. Birch P. Ireland C. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of human aggression: Current issues and perspectives (pp. 31–42). Routledge.

29.
Malis R. S. Roloff M. E. (2006). Demand/withdraw patterns in serial arguments: Implications for well-being. Human Communication Research , 32(2), 198–206.

30.
Martin S. (2016). “How can you be strong all the time?” Discourses of stoicism in the first counselling session of young male clients. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research , 16(2), 100–108.

31.
Megargee E. (1966). Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme anti-social aggression. Psychological Monographs , 80(3), 1–29.

32.
Miller C. W. Roloff M. E. Malis R. S. (2007). Understanding interpersonal conflicts that are difficult to resolve: A review of literature and presentation of an integrated model. In Beck C. S. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 31 (pp. 118–171). Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.
Monroe E. C. Robinson A. M. (2008). Cultural stoicism and its impact on organizational agility: A proposition for military healthcare organizations. Military Medicine , 173(12), 8–11.

34.
Moore A. Grime J. Campbell P. Richardson J. (2013). Troubling stoicism: Sociocultural influences and applications to health and illness behaviour. Health , 17(2), 159–173.

35.
Murray G. Judd F. Jackson H. Fraser C. Komiti A. Pattison P. Wearing A. Robins G. (2008). Big boys don’t cry: An investigation of stoicism and its mental health outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences , 44(6), 1369–1381.

36.
Overall N. C. Hammond M. D. McNulty J. K Finkel E. J. (2016). When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 111, 195-217.

37.
Reznik R. M. Miller C. W. Roloff M. E. Gaze C. M. (2015). The impact of demand/withdraw patterns on health in emerging adults’ serial arguments with parents. Communication Research Reports , 32, 35–44.

38.
Reznik R. M. Roloff M. E. (2011). Getting off to a bad start: The relationship between communication during an initial episode of serial argument and argument frequency, Communication Studies , 62(3), 291–306.

39.
Roloff M. E. Cloven D. H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to speak one’s mind. In Cahn D. D. (Ed.), Intimates in conflict: A communication perspective (pp. 49–76). Erlbaum.

40.
Roloff M. E. Reznik R. M. (2008). Communication during serial arguments: Connections with individuals’ mental and physical well-being. In Motley M. T. (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 97–120). SAGE Publications.

41.
Trapp R. Hoff N. (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 22(1), 1–11.

42.
Wagstaff G. F. Rowledge A. M. (1995). Stoicism: Its relation to gender, attitudes toward poverty, and reactions to emotive material. The Journal of Social Psychology , 135(2), 181–184.

43.
Worley T. R. Samp J. A. (2016). Serial argument goals and changes in perceived conflict resolution: A dyadic analysis. Western Journal of Communication , 80(3), 264–281.

44.
Worley T. R. Samp J. A. (2018a). Goal variability and perceived resolvability in serial argumentation. Communication Research , 45(3), 422–442.

45.
Worley T. R. Samp J. A. (2018b). Initial goals, goal trajectories, and serial argument resolvability: A growth curve analysis. Personal Relationships , 25(2), 249–267.

	Stoicism	Perceived Power	Perceived Resolvability	Number of Arguments
Perceived Power	.032
Perceived Resolvability	–.057	–.044
Number of arguments	–.080	–.083	–.236**
Verbal Aggressiveness	.124*	.156**	–.259**	.174**