Argument interdependence: Connections to serial argument goals and tactics in romantic relationships

Abstract

This study examined the predictive utility of a new construct—argument interdependence—on serial argument goals (positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to change the other person, negative expressiveness, dominance, desire to hurt the other while benefitting the self, and relational termination), tactics arguers report using to accomplish their goals (integrative and distributive), and arguers’ change in relational satisfaction following an episode of their serial argument. Participants (N = 675) provided cross-sectional data via an online questionnaire. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to examine the study’s predictions. Argument interdependence was associated with four of the seven goals examined: positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to hurt other, and relational termination. It was also associated with integrative tactics both directly and indirectly, and distributive tactics indirectly. Mutual understanding was positively associated, whereas dominance and hurting the other while benefiting the self were negatively associated, with integrative tactics. Relational expressiveness was negatively associated, whereas negative expressiveness, changing the other, dominance, and hurting the other while benefiting the self were positively associated, with distributive tactics. Both tactics were related to changes in relational satisfaction, as were indirect effects from argument interdependence and goals. We discuss these results by focusing on the contributions argument interdependence makes to serial argument literature.