Relational Well-Being
The recurring nature of serial arguing harms relationships. Serial arguments also affect relational quality. More specifically, serial argument connects negatively with each partner’s perception that the conflict issue can be resolved (Johnson & Roloff, 1998).
In other words, if an individual perceives the conflict as not being resolvable, the greater the relational harm as witnessed by decreases in relational satisfaction, commitment, and overall relational quality.Johnson and Roloff (1998) also observed serial arguing regarding violated expectations (e.g., a person should not betray or lie to a friend), and such expectations can lead to a decrease in relational quality. Furthermore, the more individuals do not think the issue is resolvable, the more they believe they can predict details of the serial argument, including: what would be said, the amount of time mulling, and the number of additional arguments (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000a). Recalling the cascade effect of serial arguing, predictability, which is a primary process, can lead to rumination, which is a secondary process. This effect continues into negative patterns of communication.
Individuals involved in serial arguing frequently engage in prolonged thought regarding the conflict, which indicate negative outcomes for the relationship. According to Cloven and Roloff (1991), individuals who ruminate about the dispute and do not engage the partner in communication focus more on their own perspective, enhance problem severity, and hold their partners responsible for the conflict. Accordingly, individuals grow to believe that they hold the correct position and see the problem as worse than it actually is. Moreover, individuals rutted in serial arguments tend to shift blame, accept minimal responsibility for the problem, and hold their partner accountable for the conflict.
Thus, minor disputes can grow into larger issues if mulling persists and, if severe enough, this secondary process can lead to consequential outcomes, which include destructive patterns of thinking and communication.Both demand-withdraw and hostile counter-complaining represent dysfunctional patterns of communication that yield nothing productive for either side. Both patterns negatively correlate with perceived resolvability and positively correlate with relational harm (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). That is, both destructive patterns lead individuals to believe the issue cannot be resolved, which (in turn) leads to resentment and relational demise. Partners involved in these patterns experience decreases in relational satisfaction, quality, and commitment (Johnson & Roloff, 1998).
Research has supported three common communication patterns couples engage in when dealing with serial arguing. The first pattern involves repeating the complaint, which leads to a complaint-response pattern. The second pattern concerns mutual hostility. Typically, both partners begin assertively and then shift to more hostile behaviors when their assertive attempts fail. The third pattern occurs when individuals offer assurances, such as expressing commitment and affection. The use of social support is a prominent maintenance behavior (Chapter 3). Johnson and Roloffs (2000a) research shows how these patterns influenced relational quality and perceived resolvability of the conflict.
Johnson and Roloff (2000a) sought to understand how individuals then respond to the above patterns and how coping strategies relate to resolvability and relational quality. The first strategy involves making optimistic comparisons, where partners evaluate the current relationship relative to its past or other relationships. The second strategy involves selective ignoring, where partners attend to positive elements of the relationship and ignore the bad parts. The third strategy involves taking a resigned impotent stance, such that any personal responsibility for dealing with the problem is denied.
They found that patterns of confirming behavior associate with perceived resolvability and lower relational harm.
Also, the more couples engage in mutual hostility the more damage occurs to their relationship. Mutual hostility, however, was unrelated to perceived resolvability. Use of repetitious content negatively associate with perceived resolvability, but (in this sample) was not correlated with relational harm.Frequent negotiation (Table 2.1) can attenuate the negative effects of rumination (Cloven & Roloff, 1991). Frequent negotiation tactics, such as problemsolving, mitigate problem severity and blaming the other person. Using relationally enhancing behaviors as well, which include statements of commitment, intimacy, and closeness, negatively correlates with content repetition and hostility (Johnson & Roloff, 2000a). Relationally confirming behavior, while engaging in the conflict episode and making optimistic comparisons between conflict episodes, positively associates with perceived resolvability (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000a). Also, Negotiating tactics are inversely related to relational harm (Johnson & Roloff, 2000b).
Conclusion 13.3: Negotiation conflict tactics combined with relational enhancing messages positively associate with perceived resolvability and relational quality.
Suggestion 13.3: Be mindful that, except in cases of intractable conflict, serial arguments can eventually be resolved; avoid rumination.
Suggestion 13.4: Use negotiation conflict tactics in conjunction with messages positively associate with perceived resolvability and relational quality.
Using constructive communication has implications for individual and relational well-being as well. Individuals who cope with the conflict episode by maintaining optimism experience decreases in the following: physical health problem, worrying, stress, intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal, decline in daily activities, and a bad mood (Malis, 2006). Additionally, individuals using constructive communication habits including expressing feelings and offering solutions experience less hyperarousal and avoidance (Roloff & Reznik, 2008).
Finally, individuals who focus on the positive aspects of their relationships and use the positive behaviors mentioned are more likely to reduce post-episodic stress including intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal, sleeping problems, anxiety, and eating problems (Malis & Roloff, 2006b). Clearly, remaining positive and constructive during conflict has benefits for individual mental and physical health.One final way to diminish the negative effects of serial arguing on the individual and relationship is to make the topic taboo (Roloff & Ifert, 1998). By doing this, one or both partners recognize that future conflict regarding this topic is harmful. As Roloff and Ifert (1998) found, making a serial argument a taboo topic should be done silently and indirectly, particularly when the issue can harm the relationship. If the topic, however, is of less importance both partners will be more likely to engage in a discussion on making the topic taboo.
Suggestion 13.5: If one topic overly dominates your discussions over time, declare the topic taboo.
This chapter explored serial arguing within personal relationships. At some point, however, it might be wise to leave the scene. As Roloff (2009) said, “Accept that which you cannot change, and if you cannot accept disagreement, consider terminating the relationship” (p. 342). Thus, the final principle is offered as a general rule of thumb when engaging in conflict, particularly serial arguing.
Suggestion 13.6: Choose your battles wisely.