Stress in Serial Arguments: Implications of Seeking Mutual Resolution, Listening, and Hostility

STRESS IN SERIAL ARGUMENTS: IMPLICATIONS OF SEEKING MUTUAL RESOLUTION, LISTENING, AND HOSTILITY Conflicts that are difficult to resolve in one encounter can become a serial argument. When such arguing becomes scripted and involves distributive actions or maladaptive sequences such as demand/withdraw, counter-complaining, and mutual hostility (e.g., Johnson & Roloff, 1998; Reznik & Roloff, 2011), pessimism about conflict resolution can arise, which relates to lower relational quality (Johnson & Roloff, 2000a). Individuals can avoid these problems by seeking mutual agreement in serial arguments (Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008). This serial argument goal stimulates behaviors that achieve high joint benefits and mutually satisfying outcomes (e.g., Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). However, individuals report that enacting integrative behaviors is stressful (Reznik, Roloff, & Miller, 2010), as it involves cognitively effortful performance of multiple tasks (e.g., conversational management, problem analysis, and emotional control). Continued use of integrative behaviors in recurring arguments may be particularly distressing, similar to the impaired well-being of individuals who are highly committed to goals in conditions that do not facilitate goal attainment (Brunstein, 1993). Reznik, Roloff, and Miller (2012) found a negative relationship between listening and post-episodic hyperarousal, implying that listening may not involve a tradeoff between the abilities to resolve conflict and manage stress. However, considerable debate exists over the effectiveness of active listening in solving chronic relational problems (Hafen & Crane, 2003). Indeed, some argue that active listening makes a partner angrier (Gottman, 2011). Thus, regulating one's emotional reactions to a partner's hostile attack could make listening very stressful (Broadwell & Light, 2005). Although listening can be a functional response to conflict, researchers have not yet examined how a partner's negative behaviors might influence listening-related stress. This study explores how mutual resolution goal importance, listening, and post-episodic hyperarousal relate to a partner's enactment of hostile behavior. Based on prior research, we explore two models treating partner hostility as a mediator and as a moderator. MUTUAL RESOLUTION GOAL IMPORTANCE AND INTEGRATIVE COMMUNICATION Serial arguments are goal-directed processes that can focus on the individual, task, or relationship (Bevan, Hale, & Williams, 2004). Mutual resolution is a common serial argument goal that seeks a fulfilling outcome for both partners (Bevan et al., 2008). Integrative communication is a form of cooperative behavior aimed at reaching an agreement that meets both partners' needs. Pursuing cooperative goals is positively related to enacting integrative conflict behaviors (Hample & Allen, 2012). Moreover, consideration of a partner's needs is positively related to listening during conflict episodes (Klein & Lamm, 1996). Reznik et al. (2012) found that engaging in listening during an episode of serial arguing is negatively related to post-episodic hyperarousal, which constitutes emotional, cognitive, and physical manifestations arising from excessive vigilance and an exaggerated startle response. Unfortunately, their research did not provide insights into the cause of this relationship. The present study tests whether stress associated with listening could be positively related to a partner's hostile behaviors such as blaming language and criticism. A serial argument can result from an individual becoming angry and losing control (Johnson & Roloff, 2000b). Some individuals report that they can predict the occurrence of an episode of serial arguing based on their partner's negative mood (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). If so, a partner may engage in hostile behavior, which could influence how listening relates to stress in two different ways. …