Serial argumentation goals and their relationships to perceived resolvability and choice of conflict tactics

Communication Quarterly

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 61-77

  Bevan, Jennifer L ^a   Tidgewell, Karin D ^b   Bagley, Karissa C ^c   Cusanelli, Lauren ^c   Hartstern, Meredith ^c   Holbeck, Domina ^c   Hale, Jerold L ^c  

^a CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict Tactics; Goals; Interpersonal Conflict; Serial Arguing

Indexed keywords

EID: 54049122739     PISSN: 01463373     EISSN: 17464102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01463370600998640     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Berger, C. R., (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bevan, J. L., Hale, J. L., & Williams, S. L., (2004). Identifying and characterizing goals of dating partners engaged in serial argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 28–40.
3. Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J., (1988). Goal types, gender, and locus of control in managing interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 15, 426–446.
4. Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M., (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–38.
5. El-Sheikh, M., Buckhalt, J. A., & Reiter, S. L., (2000). Gender-related effects in emotional responding to resolved and unresolved interpersonal conflict. Sex Roles, 43, 719–734.
6. Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E., (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–343.
7. Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E., (2000a). Correlates of the perceived resolvability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 676–686.
8. Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E., (2000b). The influence of argumentative role (initiator vs. resistor) on perceptions of serial argument resolvability and relational harm. Argumentation, 14, 1–15.
9. Lakey, S. G., & Canary, D. J., (2001, July). The role of interpersonal goals in conflict tactic choice. Paper presented at the annual joint meeting of the International Network of Personal Relationships/International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, Prescott, Ariz.
10. Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E., (2006). Features of serial arguing and coping strategies: Links with stress and well-being. In B. A., Le Poire & R. M., Dailey (Eds.), Applied interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 39–66). New York: Peter Lang.
11. Ohbuchi, K., & Tedeschi, J. T., (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 2177–2200.
12. Rusbult, C. E., (1993). Understanding responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In S., Worchel & J. A., Simpson (Eds.), Conflict between people and groups: Causes, processes, and resolutions (pp. 30–59). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
13. Sillars, A. L., (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication Monographs, 47, 180–200.
14. Trapp, R., & Hoff, N., (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 1–11.
15. Vuchinich, S., (1987). Starting and stopping spontaneous family conflicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 591–601.