Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 63–86

Attachment style, serial argument, and taking conflict personally

| University of Maryland
| Texas Christian University

Serial argument theory explains recurring conflict within personal relationships. The theory specifies that an arguer’s goals influence his/her tactics, leading to argument outcomes which include effects on the relationship. We extend this model in two ways. First we suggest that attachment styles predict serial argument goals. Second, we hypothesize that taking conflict personally (TCP) is an outcome of such arguments. University students (N = 682) completed a cross-sectional survey about their attachment styles and felt personalization regarding a serial argument they experienced. A structural equation model tested relationships between attachment styles, goals, tactics, outcomes, and TCP. Results indicated that attachment styles predict goals of serial arguing and serial argument outcomes predict TCP. The study shows that attachment styles have modest but statistically significant effects on goals of serial arguing in close relationships and that the tactics used in serial arguing predict the degree to which people take recurring conflict personally.

Keywords: attachment style, personal relationshio, serial argument
Published online: 8 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.04ham
References
Bartholomew, Kim
(1990) “Avoidance of Intimacy: An Attachment Perspective.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 71: 147–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, Kim, and Leonard M. Horowitz
1991 “Attachment Styles among Adults: A Test of a Four-category Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 611: 226–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Jennifer L
2010 “Serial Argument Goals and Conflict Strategies: A Comparison between Romantic Partners and Family Members.” Communication Reports 21: 52–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Jennifer L., Andrea Finan, and Allison Kaminsky
2008 “Modeling Serial Arguments in Close Relationships: The Serial Argument Process Model.” Human Communication Research 341: 600–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Jennifer L., Jerold L. Hale, and Sandra L. Williams
2004 “Identifying and Characterizing Goals of Dating Partners Engaging in Serial Argumentation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 411: 28–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Jennifer L., Karin D. Tidgewell, Karrissa C. Bagley, Lauren Cusanell, Meredith Hartstern, Domina Holbeck, and Jerold L. Hale
2007 “Serial Argumentation Goals and their Relationships to Perceived Resolvability and Choice of Conflict Tactics.” Communication Quarterly 551: 61–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bippus, Amy M., and Emma Rollin
2003 “Attachment Style Difference in Relational Maintenance and Conflict Behaviors: Friends’ Perceptions.” Communication Reports 161: 113–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, John
1980 Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss, Sadness, and Depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Canary, Daniel J
2003 “Managing Interpersonal Conflict: A Model of Events related to Strategic Choices.” In Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, ed. by John O. Greene and Brant R. Burleson, 515–550. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carr, Kristin, Paul Schrodt, and Andrew M. Ledbetter
2012 “Rumination, Conflict Intensity, and Perceived Resolvability as Predictors of Motivation and Likelihood of Continuing Serial Arguments.” Western Journal of Communication 761: 480–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cionea, Ioana
2011 “Serial Arguments: An Exploratory Investigation in Romania.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association , New Orleans, LA, November 2011.
Corcoran, Kathleen O‘Conell, and Brent Mallinckrodt
2000 “Adult Attachment, Self-efficacy, Perspective Taking, and Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Counseling & Development 781: 473–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creasey, Gary
2002 “Associations between Working Models of Attachment and Conflict Management Behavior in Romantic Couples.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 491: 365–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dillard, James Price
1990 “The Nature and Substance of Goals in Tactical Communication.” In The Psychology of Tactical Communication, ed. by Michael J. Cody and Margaret J. McLaughlin, 70–91. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2004 “The Goals-plans-action Model of Interpersonal Influence.” In Perspective on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining, ed. by John S. Seiter and Robert H. Gass, 185–206. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Dillard, James Price, Chris Segrin, and Janie M. Harden
1989 “Primary and Secondary Goals in the Production of Interpersonal Influence Messages.” Communication Monographs 561: 19–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domingue, Rachel, and Debra Mollen
2009 “Attachment and Conflict Communication in Adult Romantic Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 261: 678–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Stanley O., Jr., Harry T. Reis, Shandra Summers, Caryl E. Rusbult, Chante L. Cox, Michael O. Wexler, et al.
1997 “Impact of Attachment Style on Reactions to Accommodative Dilemmas in Close Relationships.” Personal Relationships 41: 93–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibb, Jack R
1961 “Defensive Communication.” Journal of Communication 111: 141–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale
1999 “The Life Space of Personalized Conflicts.” Communication Yearbook 221: 171–208.Google Scholar
2003 “Arguing Skill.” In Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills, ed. by John O Greene and Brant R. Burleson, 439–478. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Susan Allen
2012 “Serial Arguments in Organizations.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 11: 312–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Ioana Cionea
2012 “Serial Arguments in Inter-ethnic Relationships.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 361: 430–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Ioana A. Cionea
2010 “Taking Conflict Personally and its Connections with Aggressiveness.” In Arguments, Aggression, and Conflict: New Directions in Theory and Research, ed. by Theodore A. Avtgis and Andrew S. Rancer, 372–387. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis.Google Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Judith M. Dallinger
1995 “A Lewinian Perspective on Taking Conflict Personally: Revision, Refinement, and Validation of the Instrument.” Communication Quarterly 431: 297–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale, and Benjamin Krueger
2011 “Serial Arguments in Classrooms.” Communication Studies 621: 597–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale, Adam S. Richards, and Ling Na
2012 “A Test of the Conflict Linkage Model in the Context of Serial Arguments.” Western Journal of Communicatio 761: 459–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kristen Linnea, and Michael E. Roloff
1998 “Serial Arguing and Relational Quality: Determinants and Consequences of Perceived Resolvability.” Communication Research 251: 327–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Correlates of the Perceived Resolvability and Relational Consequences of Serial Arguing in Dating Relationships: Argumentative Features and the Use of Coping Strategies.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships171: 676–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kobak, R. Rogers, Holland E. Cole, Rayanne Ferenz-Gilles, William S. Fleming, and Wnedy Gamble
1993 “Attachment and Emotional Regulation during Mother-teen Problem Solving: A Control Theory Analysis.” Child Development 641: 231–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kobak, R. Rogers, and Sandra Duemmler
1994 “Attachment and Conversation: Toward a Discourse Analysis of Adolescent and Adult Security.” In Attachment Processes in Adulthood, ed. by Kim Bartholomew and Daniel Perlman, 121–149. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Kobak, R. Rogers, and Cindy Hazan
1991 “Attachment in Marriage: Effects of Security and Accuracy of Working Models.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 601: 861–869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
La Valley, Angela G., and Laura K. Guerrero
2012 “Perceptions of Conflict Behavior and Relational Satisfaction in Adult Parent-child Relationships: A Dyadic Analysis from an Attachment Perspective.” Communication Research 391: 48–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malis, Rachel S., and Michael E. Roloff
2006a “Demand/withdraw Patterns in Serial Arguments: Implications for Well-being.” Human Communication Research 321: 198–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b “Features of Serial Arguing and Coping Strategies: Links with Stress and Well-being.” In Applied Interpersonal Communication Matters: Family, Health, and Community Relations, ed. by Beth A. LePoire and Rene M. Dailey, 39–66. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pietromonaco, Paula R., Dara Greenwood, and Lisa Feldman Barrett
2004 “Conflict in Adult Close Relationships: An Attachment Perspective.” In Adult Attachment: New Directions and Emerging Issues, ed. by W. Stephen Rholes and Jeffry A. Simpson, 267–299. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Pistole, M. Carole, and Frank Arrical
2003 “Understanding Attachment: Beliefs about Conflict.” Journal of Counseling & Development 811: 318–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radanielina, Hita, and Marie Louise
2009 “A Cross-cultural Approach to Serial Arguing in Dating Relationships: The Case of Malagasy Romantic Partners.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association , Chicago, IL, May 2009.
Roloff, Michael E., and Rachel M. Reznik
2008 “Communication during Serial Arguments: Connections with Individuals’ Mental and Physical Well-being.” In Studies in Applied Interpersonal Communication, ed. by Michael T. Motley, 97–120. Los Angeles CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Shaver, Phillip R., Nancy Collins, and Catherine L. Clark
1996 “Attachment Styles and Internal Working Models of Self and Relationship Partners.” In Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Analysis, ed. by Garth J.O. Fletcher and Julie Fitness, 25–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sillars, Alan L
1980 “Attributions and Communication in Roommate Conflicts.” Communication Monographs 471: 180–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Eric P., and Leslie A. Baxter
1993 “Attachment-style Differences in Relationship Maintenance Strategies.” Western Journal of Communication 571: 416–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Jeffry A., W. Stephen Rholes, and Dede Phillip
1996 “Conflict in Close Relationships: An Attachment Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 711: 899–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steuber, Keli Ryan
2006 “The Effect of Adult Attachment and Relational Conflict Style on Relationship Satisfaction.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association Conference , San Antonio, TX, November 2006.
Trapp, Robert
1990 “Arguments in Interpersonal Relationships.” In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. by R. Trapp and J. Schuetz, 43–54. Prospect Heights IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Trapp, Robert, and Nancy Hoff
1985 “A Model of Serial Argument in Interpersonal Relationships.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 221: 1–11.Google Scholar
Vuchinich, Samuel
1990 “The Sequential Organization of Closing in Verbal Family Conflict.” In Conflict Talk, ed. by A.D. Grimshaw, 118–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weger, Harry, Jr
2006 “Associations among Romantic Attachment, Argumentativeness, and Verbal Aggressiveness in Romantic Relationships.” Argumentation and Advocacy 431: 29–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weger, Harry, Jr., and Leah E. Polcar
2002 “Attachment Style and Person Centered Comforting.” Western Journal of Communication 661: 84–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Cionea, Ioana A. & Dale Hample
2015. Serial Argument Topics. Argumentation and Advocacy 52:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Cionea, Ioana A., Amy Janan Johnson & Eryn N. Bostwick
2019. Argument interdependence: Connections to serial argument goals and tactics in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36:7 ► pp. 1975 ff. DOI logo
Cionea, Ioana A., Amy Janan Johnson, Jacqueline S. Bruscella & Bobbi Van Gilder
2015. Taking Conflict Personally and the Use of the Demand/Withdraw Pattern in Intraethnic Serial Arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy 52:1 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Hample, Dale, Yiwen Dai & Mengqi Zhan
2016. Argument Stakes: Preliminary Conceptualizations and Empirical Descriptions. Argumentation and Advocacy 52:3 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Hample, Dale & Amanda L. Irions
2015. Arguing to Display Identity. Argumentation 29:4 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo
Hample, Dale & Adam S. Richards
2019. Personalizing Conflict in Different Interpersonal Relationship Types. Western Journal of Communication 83:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Hoogenboom, Lilian M., Maria T.M. Dijkstra & Bianca Beersma
2024. Conflict personalization: a systematic literature review and the development of an integrative definition. International Journal of Conflict Management 35:2 ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Li, Yuwei & Timothy Worley
2023. A review and integration of research on serial arguments. Annals of the International Communication Association 47:3 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Morrison, Shaye & Paul Schrodt
2017. The Perceived Threat and Resolvability of Serial Arguments as Correlates of Relational Uncertainty in Romantic Relationships. Communication Studies 68:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Worley, Timothy, Esther Liu & Rachel Vanderbilt
2021. Initial goals, goal trajectories, and changes in perceived resolvability during serial arguments. Personal Relationships 28:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Worley, Timothy & Jennifer Samp
2018. Initial goals, goal trajectories, and serial argument resolvability: A growth curve analysis. Personal Relationships 25:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Young, Stacy L., Kayla Fiori & Valerie C. Ortega
2023. Personalizers’ Responses to Hurt: Do Intensity and Intentionality Mediate Relational Distancing?. Southern Communication Journal 88:2 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.