Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability

Kristen Linnea Johnson*, Michael E. Roloff

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

107 Scopus citations

Abstract

Most research has employed methods that treat interpersonal arguments as though they occur in a single episode or that ignore their episodic nature. However, limited research suggests that a relational argument may be repeated and can be viewed as serial. The authors'perspective assumes that the perceived resolvability of a serial argument is a better predictor of relational quality than is the frequency with which the argument; the results of a survey of individuals involved in a dating relationship support this assumption. Perceived resolvability is negatively related to (a) arguments arising from violated expectations, (b) counter-complaining and partner-initiated demandwithdrawal cycles, (c) predictability of argumentative episodes, (d) mulling, (e) overall amount of discord in the relationship, and (f) withdrawal from the partner after an episode. The extent of constructive communication that occurred during the initial confrontation is positively related to perceived resolvability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)327-343
Number of pages17
JournalCommunication Research
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1998

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Communication
  • Linguistics and Language

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this