Arguing

Conceptualization and Measurement

Arguing is a form of interaction as well as a form of conflict and can be distinguished from other forms. Relative to nonargumentative interactions, people report that arguments are more likely to involve disagreement, criticism, sarcasm, and [Page 106]insults that are loudly expressed. Not surprisingly, individuals frequently use negative metaphors (e.g., being in a war) to describe their arguments. Conflict is the existence of incompatible activity, and expressed disagreement falls under that rubric. Although arguing is a form of conflict, not all conflicts become arguments. Some incompatible activity is not discussed, and there is no argument. In such cases, there can be mutual awareness of conflict in the absence of arguing (e.g., discussing the conflict topic is declared taboo), and conflict may be manifested in different forms than arguing (e.g., the silent treatment, denial of support).

Arguments are episodic (i.e., composed of a connected set of events). They are initiated when a person perceives a provoking action and challenges the provocateur who responds by resisting. Arguments are typically focused on a given issue (e.g., money), but they can expand to include others (e.g., “You are a spendthrift”) and may include a hidden agenda (e.g., “You don't respect me because you never ask my opinion”). During an argument, individuals can pressure the other person to change, disclose feelings, generate solutions, repair the relationship, minimize the disagreement, and withdraw from the interaction. Some behaviors occur in sequences, such as demand and withdraw (i.e., one partner demands and the other withdraws), escalating reciprocity of negative affect and mutual complaining. Because arguments frequently end with no resolution, episodes may be repeated and become serial arguments. Between episodes, individuals often mull about what was said and what they will say in the next one. Over time, serial arguments can become scripted in that each partner plays a given role (e.g., initiator or target); partners can predict when an episode will occur and anticipate what each will say.

Researchers study both the general characteristics of arguing and the features of specific argumentative episodes; the measures vary with the focus of the research. When examining the general characteristics of arguing, respondents are typically asked to self-report (either on questionnaires or in diaries) the degree to which their everyday arguments can be characterized as frequent, stable, intense, predictable, constructive or destructive, emotional, or resolved. Such measures provide a summary of what individuals perceive that most of their arguments are like, but these measures may not provide a fine-tuned assessment of the behaviors that are perceived to be enacted within an argumentative episode. To gain insight into episodic behaviors, researchers rely upon self-reports about what occurred in a specific encounter (e.g., one that occurred on a given day or that occurred most recently). Respondents report the degree to which their argument focused on particular issues, how long the episode lasted, how long ago the episode occurred, the conditions that prompted the argument, who initiated the argument, the behaviors or behavioral sequences that their partners enacted, and the outcome of the episode.

...