Destructive Patterns of Communication in Serial Arguing

Individuals who engage in serial arguing often fall into destructive patterns of communication. Johnson and Roloff (2000b) found that it is common for the same person to initiate the argument, whereas the partner consistently resists.

This confrontation typically begins through the use of direct fighting tac­tics arising from feelings of anger (Malis & Roloff, 2006a). This specific sort of anger arises because people tend to wait to confront their partners until the problem reaches a level they can no longer deal with (Newell & Stutman, 1991) or when multiple provocations occur (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wortman, 1990). Because the initiator chooses when to engage the partner, this person can have the opportunity to plan the time, the place, and how to begin the argu­ment. Thus, initiators can prepare their arguments (Stutman & Newell, 1990). The individual who is unaware that the conversation partner has a plan, or does not realize the extent to which the behavior distresses the initiator, occupies the role of resistor.

Prior to the initial confrontation, the “resistor” finds him or herself in an uncontrollable situation as she or he cannot gauge the initiator’s anger (Bau- meister et al., 1990). Due to an inability to gauge the other person’s anger, the resistor often does not see a need to change and may withdraw from the situ­ation when the initiator demands (presuming time is needed to think about a response).

Demand—withdraw patterns can lead to counter-complaint patterns whereby the resistor tires of the initiator’s demands and begins to shift the roles by coun­tering with a grievance of his or her own. Johnson and Roloff (2000a) found that this pattern involves couples engaging in mutual hostility. Hostile behaviors occur when both partners threaten, hurl insults, blame, or criticize. Similar to demand—withdraw patterns, the resolvability of the serial argument once counter­complaining begins decreases and relational harm increases (Johnson & Roloff, 1998; Johnson & Roloff, 2000a). Thus, neither pattern of demand—withdraw or counter-complaining is an effective approach to serial arguing.

Consider again Couple 26’s encounter, where (as noted in Chapter 2) the demand—withdraw roles switch and lead to rather negative, sarcastic tactics on both partners’ parts. Following the wife’s demand that he cook, the husband switches from his withdraw role to a demand role uses a hostile imperative that the wife should shop for more food, which the wife rejects and states that a lot of food is not eaten. Then the husband increases his antagonism by using sarcasm (turn 14), hostile questioning and disgust (turn 16), and then hostile interruption (turn 18). In the next few turns, the wife clarifies what the refrigerator holds and concludes that “no one is starving here.” In this manner, a second segment of demand—withdraw occurs:

F9.1 Why do you say that kids to feed thing?

9.2 We have one kid;

9.3 he’s a grown-up.

9.4 He can cook for himself.

M10.1 Heissixteen.

10.2: He’s cooking for himself act all the time.

F11.1: He doesn’t all the time.

11.2 Anyway, I mean, we are supposed to discuss our problem so I...

As the reader can imagine, this conflict continues.

M12: [interrupting wife at turn 11.2] At least you could, um, go grocery shopping.

F13: I buy lots of ready to eat things...

M14: yeah [sarcastically]

F15: that people don’t eat.

M16.1: Like WHAT? [loudly]

16.2 Like, like corn in a baaaag (in disgust).

F17.1: That’s not true!

17.2 There is T.V. dinners in there.

17.3 There’s pot pies.

17.4 There’s...

M18: [interrupting] Burritos.

F19.1: Burritos.

19.2 There’s plenty of sandwich meat and, and stuff.

19.3 There’s lot of things if people would take 10 minutes they can make their own meal.

19.4 Nobody is starving here.

As indicated in Chapter 2, the wife resumes the demand role, entering it with presumptive remark in 19.5 about the husband’s motive (Table 2.3), to which he replies defensively, citing how he was raised, to which she responds with sarcasm and put-downs (Table 2.3) about the husband’s girth:

F19.5 I think you just need to see me cook for some reason.

M20: I just, it’s just that I grew up eating nice, full, healthy, well-balanced meals.

F21: You don’t need full meals anymore, Bob—you need little bitty meals.

M22: Don’t say my name. This is going to be broadcast on the internet.

F23.1: (laughing) You don’t need big meals—you need little meals.

F23.2: You need to have salads for dinner.

F23.3: That’s it. I’ll make a salad.

Johnson and Roloff (2000a) explicate one other communication pattern that arises during serial arguing. More often than not the issue of a serial argument remains the same, but the content changes; however, couples may fall into a pattern where the content of an episode recurs. Repetition of content does not affect perceived resolvability or relational harm, but individuals should recognize them, particularly repeated content couples with a demand—withdraw or counter­complaining pattern.

Conclusion 13.1: The cascade process of serial arguments reduces the possibility of resolution and increases the use of destructive patterns of conflict such as demand— withdraw and counter-complaining.

Suggestion 13.1: In serial arguments, avoid engaging in indirect fighting and direct fighting tactics of demand—withdraw and counter-complaining patterns.