Characteristics and Determinants of Serial Arguments
Characteristics of Serial Arguments
Serial arguments by nature extend over time. Johnson and Roloff (2000a) explain that “the nature of serial arguing inherently implies that individuals have not been able to bring their opinions, values, and behaviors into alignment after a single confrontation” (p.
677). In other words, serial arguments consist of linked argumentative episodes (Roloff & Johnson, 2002) that often occur through cycles wherein they flare-up and then return to a latent state (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). Argumentative episodes frequently begin when one partner provokes the other (Vuchinich, 1987). In addition, these episodes are typically short; however they may extend into lengthy disputes (with an average of about five turns).Second, the crux of serial arguments concerns how they focus on a single issue. Johnson and Roloff (1998) found three common issues offocus in serial arguments. These include expectancy violations, different relational perspectives, or different value/beliefsystems. Thirty-three percent ofJohnson and Roloffs (1998) participants described violated expectations that detailed relational transgressions, such as lying or failure to follow through on a promise or commitment. Next, 63% of respondents reported differences in perspectives on relationships; these differences focused on issues of relationship exclusivity and the future of the relationship. Finally, 33% detailed conflicting values or beliefs on topics such as religion, politics, social issues, and personal tastes. Although serial arguments focus on the same issue, conflict episodes can vary greatly in content (Roloff & Johnson, 2002). Accordingly, one issue remains at the heart of the matter for every recurring episode, although the content of what people say changes across episodes.
Finally, people who engage in serial arguments have several goals they desire to achieve.
Bevan, Hale, and Williams (2004) found four major goals and several minor concerns for serial arguments. The most common goal was reaching mutual understanding and resolving the conflict. The second goal was that individuals engage in serial argumentation to fight; that is, they desire to argue and rouse the partner. To increase relational progression or ensure the continuation of the relationship was the third major goal. The fourth goal revolved around demonstrating dominance and control. Minor goals included expressing positivity, expressing negative emotions, winning at all costs, achieving personal benefits, derogating the partner, and changing the partner. As is evident from this research, most of these goals are destructive, indicating that individuals involved in serial arguing more often than not hold self-centered or negative objectives.Understanding the characteristics of serial arguing can help individuals reduce frequency of episodes and potentially resolve the conflict entirely. In addition, the prevalence of negative goals indicates that destructive communication strategies will most likely be utilized. This has serious implications for both individuals and relationships. Thus, people should understand the determinants of serial argumentation.
Determinants of Serial Arguments
Serial arguing often involves a cascade effect of determinants, where one episode or communicative element influences the next episode and communicative element and so forth. Johnson and Roloff (1998) conducted research to understand this cascade further. These researchers found that antecedent conditions, or when individuals focus on the nature of the issue, begins the ongoing conflict. Next, considering the issue leads to primary processes; this refers to the decision to confront the other person and to the act of arguing. The option to confront the other may occur immediately following the initial disagreeable behavior or time may be taken in order to prepare.
Once the confrontation begins, arguing often ensues. This two-step process is followed by the secondary processes, which occur during dormant periods of the serial argument. Johnson and Roloff present three secondary processes: (1) predictability of conditions; (2) the extent to which individuals dwell on what was said during each episode; and (3) the number of arguments. In other words, when individuals do not confront the partner they begin to believe they can predict what will happen, they mull over what has been said, and they believe the number of arguments about this topic will continue. Such rumination leads to the final step of consequence conditions. Consequence conditions involve coping strategies individuals use to maintain their relationships. Two choices emerge as the most dominant: avoidance and disengaging behavior.As this cascade effect demonstrates, resolution does not occur in any of these steps (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). When partners experience this cascade process, they reduce their ability to resolve the conflict (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). Moreover, Trapp and Hoff (1985) held that such a cascade model applies to all interpersonal relationships. That is, personal relationships are not exempt from enduring serial arguments. In addition, this cascade can cause individuals to fall into destructive patterns of communication that can adversely affect the relationship. Thus, the next section explores these patterns of communication.