Effects on Individuals and Relationships

Serial arguing can cost all parties involved in the conflict, as separate entities and as a whole. In comparison to arguments resolved in a single episode, greater poten­tial exists for damage due to the cyclical nature of serial arguing (Bevan et al., 2004).

Individual Well-Being

Conflicts that extend beyond a single argument episode have adverse effects on a person’s mood state (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989). Specifically, serial arguing leads individuals to higher stress levels, intrusive thoughts, hypera­rousal, avoidance, and a decrease in daily activities due to emotional problems (Malis, 2006). More importantly, individuals who mull over the conflict after each episode are more likely to experience health problems, anxiety, stress, intru­sion, hyperarousal, avoidance, pain, depression, and less desire to engage in daily activities. These health and mental well-being issues will likely increase if a reso­lution is not met (Malis, 2006).

Characteristics of serial arguing, such as frequency of argumentative epi­sodes and perceived resolvability, have been studied to understand their impact on individuals’ well-being. Perceived resolvability refers to whether one believes that the conflict can be readily resolved to both partners’ satisfaction. Although the number of arguments does not correlate to personal well-being (Johnson & Roloff, 1998; Malis & Roloff, 2006a), perceived resolvability significantly and inversely correlates with well-being. This means that the more an individual per­ceives the conflict to be resolvable, the less stress, thought avoidance, intrusive­ness, and hyperarousal that person experiences (Malis & Roloff, 2006a).

Couples who engage in the demand—withdraw pattern experience ill effects on their minds and bodies as well. According to Malis (2006), initiators of serial argu­ing more likely ruminate over the conflict than do resistors. Rumination then can lead to greater experiences of health problems, stress, pain, and intrusive thoughts and feelings regarding the conflict episode. Moreover, Malis and Roloff (2006a) found that initiators experience negative post-confrontational outcomes includ­ing attempts to avoid thoughts and feelings regarding the conflict and disruption of everyday activities due to declines in physical health. In other words, initiators are more likely than resistors to experience greater negative psychological and physical problems. Resistors, on the other hand, experience fewer physical and mental health problems (Malis, 2006). Interestingly, those who withdraw when confronted attempt to control their own well-being and are successful, while simultaneously their withdrawal behavior contributes to their partners’ (the initia­tors’) stress (Malis & Roloff, 2006a). Thus, it appears to be more beneficial to be the person withdrawing in the argument as opposed to the initiator.

Roloff and Reznik (2008) examined individual well-being when partners engage in counter-complaining or mutual hostility. They found that hostility was linked to eight physical and mental well-being indicators. Direct fighting tactics, shows hostility in particular, are negatively connected to stress, hyper-arousal, high anxiety, avoidance when thinking about conflict, sleeping problems, physical pain, engaging in fewer daily activities due to emotional problems, and engag­ing in fewer daily activities due to physical health problems. Furthermore, Malis (2006) observed that mutual hostility led to bad moods and intrusive thoughts. Unfortunately, use of hostile counter-complaining cannot easily be overcome by the presence of constructive communication habits, thereby making counter­complaining a very hurtful pattern of behavior that leads to mental and physical troubles (Roloff & Reznik, 2008).

Conclusion 13.2: In serial arguments, demand-withdraw and shows hostility tactics can readily escalate into more intense reciprocation and complementary direct fighting.

Suggestion 13.2: To prevent hostility in serial arguments, avoid a negative resumption of serial arguments; instead rely on negotiation disclosure tactics (Table 2.1).