Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies

Kristen Linnea Johnson, Michael Elwood Roloff*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

41 Scopus citations

Abstract

Sometimes partners do not resolve an argument in a single episode and engage each other in serial arguing as they repeatedly confront one another over the problem. This study concerns how features of argumentative episodes and coping strategies enacted between episodes are related to perceived resolvability and relational quality. A survey of undergraduates in dating relationships indicated that engaging in relationally confirming behavior during argumentative episodes and making optimistic relational comparisons between episodes were positively related to perceived resolvability and negatively related to relational harm arising from arguing. Although other argumentative features and coping strategies were sometimes related to resolvability and relational harm, relational confirmation and optimistic comparisons were more strongly associated with both.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)676-686
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Social and Personal Relationships
Volume17
Issue number4-5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Keywords

  • Coping strategies
  • Dating
  • Interpersonal conflict
  • Serial arguing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this