Serial Arguments in Classrooms (Hample & Krueger, 2011)

Serial Arguments in ClassroomsDale Hample & Benjamin Krueger

Serial arguing has mainly been studied in the context of close relationships. This study

generalizes those theories and findings to the context of classrooms. Respondents

(N¼ 348) reported on serial arguments they had experienced either in college or in high

school classes. High school serial arguments were more brutish than those in college.

Resolvability was positively associated with classroom climate and arguers’ civility.

Approach and avoidance motives predicted the degree to which a range of arguers’ goals

come into play, and the goals predicted the tactics in use. The tactics, in turn, predicted

the resolvability, climate, and civility of the serial arguments.

Keywords: Classroom; Climate; Goals; Serial Argument; Tactics

A serial argument is one that recurs because it is not settled in a single episode and at

least one participant still wants to raise the issue. As teachers, many of us have seen

such arguments develop in our classes. Sometimes we actually design a course around

an argument intended to continue for a whole semester: For instance, ‘‘Should cul-

tures be identified as nations or described by means of scores on instruments like

individualism=collectivism?’’ These sorts of controversies are not the focus here

because they are probably not identified as arguments by students, who typically

understand ‘‘argument’’ to refer to nasty irrational exchanges (e.g., Hample & Benoit,

1999; Martin & Scheerhorn, 1985). Instead, what we have in mind are continuing

complaints about grading or reading loads, personal disagreements between students,

accusations against teachers or group members, or arguments from civic life

that bleed into class. These have the potential to improve or damage the learning

environment.

Dale Hample is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland,

College Park, MD. Benjamin Krueger is an Instructor in the Department of Communication Studies at Winona

State University, Winona, MN. An earlier version of this article was presented to the annual meeting of the

National Communication Association, November 2009, Chicago, IL. Correspondence to: Dale Hample, Depart-

ment of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Studies

Vol. 62, No. 5, November–December 2011, pp. 581–601

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2011 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2011.576746

Our search for research immediately relevant to the issue of serial arguments in

classrooms proved frustrating because this does not seem to be an explicit research

topic. We did, however, find some results that are suggestive. A review of 83 studies con-

cerned with first-year teachers’ main problems showed classroom discipline to be by far

the most frequently mentioned difficulty (Veenman, 1984). Although Veenman noted

that ‘‘classroom discipline’’ is an amorphous label, he did take note that it is critical

to the question of whether the teacher stays in the profession. Tulley and Chiu’s

(1995) study of student teachers gives some explanatory detail. In their report, disrup-

tion was the most common label given to classroom problems (63%), but defiance was

second most frequent (20%). Defiance involves student-teacher conflict and requires at

least a primitive argument and perhaps a developed one. It might be recurring.

How do teachers deal with discipline problems? An analysis of student views of

teacher actions in the face of student misbehavior in Australia, China, and Israel

explored this question (Lewis, Romi, Qui, & Katz, 2005). Teacher aggression (e.g.,

‘‘Yells angrily at students who misbehave’’) was the second least common strategy

(out of six) but was positively associated with the amount of misbehavior perceived

by the students. Discussion (e.g., ‘‘Lets students talk about their side of things so that

it can be clearly understood’’) was the most common teacher tactic in China, second

most common in Israel, and third in Australia. These data (especially those bearing

on ‘‘discussion’’) imply common reason exchanges between teacher and student, and

we presume that on occasion the episodes will sometimes be repeated. Teacher

aggression is likely to worsen the situation, but discussion might well improve it

(Rancer & Avtgis, 2006).

Some classroom conflicts involve students and teachers, but others are wholly con-

tained within the student body. Osler’s (2000) study of British elementary and middle

school students from economically disadvantaged areas showed that the children

rated student-teacher relationships as good or excellent 89% of the time. Students

were more concerned about fighting, bullying, harassment, and racial epithets among

themselves, with some of these being noted by as many as 80% of students. Here, too,

we believe that primitive arguments are likely and extended serial exchanges possible.

Trapp and Hoff (1985; Trapp, 1990) drew our attention to the phenomenon of

serial arguments. Their initial sample included arguments between dating partners,

friends, spouses, siblings, and a mother and child. The original conceptualization

made it clear that serial arguments are expectable features of any sort of ongoing

relationship between two people. Nonetheless, researchers’ attention turned almost

exclusively to serial arguments within dating and close friendship relationships. Thus,

the literature review will summarize what has been found about serial arguments in

those circumstances and then will try to generalize these results to the classroom

environment.

Serial Arguments in Close Relationships and Classrooms

For this project we must extrapolate the previous findings about close and romantic

relationships into the domain of classrooms. This requires two steps (Lave & March,

582 D. Hample & B. Krueger

1993). The first is generalization: identifying limiting concepts (e.g., relational satis-

faction) and extending their descriptive domain (e.g., from close relationships to

classrooms). The second step is respecification to transport the theorizing and mea-

surements to another specific domain (classrooms). Our discussion will treat these

two processes together.

Empirical literature on serial arguments in close relationships has yielded three

classes of findings that are most relevant to our own hypothesizing. These are the

extent to which serial arguments affect relational satisfaction, participants’ goals

for serial arguments, and the tactics by which the arguments are enacted. In studying

romantic and other close relationships, a natural outcome measure is relational

satisfaction, and this was studied early in the scholarly community’s research project.

The key feature of serial arguments appears to be whether the participants believe the

argument is resolvable. Kazoleas (1995) reported a significant relationship (R¼ .65)

between relational satisfaction and issue closure, controlling for argumentativeness

and verbal aggressiveness. He operationalized issue closure as the effort to resolve

a conflict on the first try, which one supposes would be closely connected to the per-

ception that the serial argument was resolvable. Tighe, Hale, and Ficara (1995) found

that serial argument frequency was not significantly related to relational satisfaction,

but that perceived progress in resolution was positively associated with relational

satisfaction. Again, we suppose a close connection between perceived progress and

perceived resolvability. Better known than those two unpublished papers is Johnson

and Roloff’s (1998) study of 79 dating relationships (the same data collection is also

the basis of Johnson and Roloff [2000a, 2000b]). They used relational quality indices

as dependent measures and found that they were nicely predicted by whether the

participants perceived the serial argument to be resolvable (rs all exceeded .40) but

not by the frequency with which the arguments reoccurred (rs were nonsignificant).

Cramer (2002), whose data set did not focus on particular serial arguments, also

reported no significant association between relational satisfaction and conflict

frequency. In addition, that study showed a strong negative correlation between

relational satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the conflict’s outcome.

These findings are collectively consistent. The only contradictory evidence we have

found is Lloyd (1987), who reported that premarital partners’ frequency of conflict

(plausibly but not necessarily serial argument) was negatively associated with several

measures of relational quality. We have reasonable confidence in offering these two

conclusions: Relational satisfaction is positively associated with the perceived resolv-

ability of serial arguments; and relational satisfaction is not significantly associated

with the frequency with which serial arguments recur. These are the bases for our first

two hypotheses about classroom settings.

Before offering those hypotheses, however, we must specify the relational satisfac-

tion measure. Conceptually, this variable generally amounts to ‘‘satisfaction with the

defining feature of the relationship between the arguers.’’ When the defining feature

is intimacy, romantic satisfaction is the appropriate measure. When the defining fea-

ture is financial profit, financial satisfaction would be appropriate. So the parallel

measure we need here is classroom satisfaction.

Serial Arguments in Classrooms 583

We decided to implement classroom satisfaction in two ways. First, we developed

a measure of classroom climate. Ingersoll (1996) observed that school conflicts—how

they are handled, who has authority, how much escalation there is—affect school

climate and therefore school performance. We took climate to be a subjective

experience and asked our respondents to rate their general satisfaction, their assess-

ment of student-teacher relationships, their reaction to the instructor, and so forth.

This provided us with a measure analogous to relational satisfaction. Our other mea-

sure is called civility and is taken from Hample’s (2005) argument frames research.

This scale asks respondents to say whether an argument was conducted with mutual

respect, whether it risked violence, and whether it contained irrational expression, for

instance. This serves as a description of the maturity with which people argued. It is a

measure of satisfaction with argument tactics in general.

Given these respecifications of the outcome measures used in close relationships

research, we offer these two hypotheses:

H1: Civility and classroom climate are positively associated with the perceivedresolvability of serial arguments.

H2: Civility and classroom climate are not significantly associated with the fre-quency with which serial arguments recur.

Recent research on serial arguments—still centered on dating couples—has turned

to issues of goals and tactics. Since tactics are theorized to emerge from goals (Berger,

1997), we first consider goals.

A research program at the University of Georgia has produced a useful summary

of the goals that may be in play during serial arguments. Bevan, Hale, and

Williams (2004) began this project by collecting open-ended descriptions of

undergraduates’ reports of goals in serial arguments in romantic relationships

and found 10 clusters of goals. These were used as the basis for principal compo-

nents analysis by Bevan et al. (2007), resulting in a more concise list of seven goals:

expressiveness negative, mutual understanding=resolution, dominance=control,relational progression=continuation, change target, expressiveness positive, and

hurt partner=benefit self. This list was the basis for Bevan, Finan, and Kaminsky’s

(2008) effort to generate a general model of serial arguing. While at least one other

typology is in use (Keck & Samp [2007] use instrumental, relational, self-identity,

and other-identity), the Bevan list seems most clearly reflective of serial arguing in

romantic relationships.

This goal set (from Bevan et al., 2007) is, for the most part, rather general. Six of

the seven goals do not require modification: expressing oneself positively or nega-

tively, seeking mutual consensus, asserting dominance, changing the other person

in some respect, or winning at the expense of the other person. The obvious excep-

tion is deciding whether or not one wishes to remain in the relationship. Here, an

appropriate respecification is the goal of deciding whether to remain in class or

not. Analogous to breaking up with a relational partner, a student could drop a class,

could transfer to another section, or simply could quit attending.


The tactics by which serial arguments are enacted has been a continuing research

issue, and only recently have those tactics been connected to arguers’ goals. Tactics

are intermediary between goals and outcomes. An early research issue was whether

demand=withdraw sequences were important to serial arguing, and later work exam-

ined the more general division of tactics into integrative, distributive, and avoidant

categories. Johnson and Roloff (1998) reported that the use of demand=withdrawpatterns was negatively associated with perceived resolvability, and Johnson and

Roloff (2000b) clarified that initiators of serial arguments are more likely to demand

and targets are more likely to withdraw. Malis and Roloff (2006) found a negative

association between resolvability and the demand=withdraw pattern, but only when

the other person was demanding.

Demanding is a forceful argumentative tactic, and here we may link to the other

work that makes use of the distinction between distributive and integrative tactics that

originated with Sillars (1980; also see Canary, 2003). Bevan et al. (2007) discovered a

series of relationships between distributive, integrative, and avoidant tactics and the

list of argument goals (e.g., expressiveness negative) mentioned above. For the most

part, the positively toned goals predicted integrative tactics positively and distributive

tactics negatively. The negatively oriented goals had the opposite pattern of correla-

tions with the two tactic types. Avoidance tactics had the weakest connections to

the goals. The results for distributive and integrative tactics were generally replicated

in Bevan, Finan, and Kaminsky (2008). This last study also showed integrative tactics

to be positively associated with resolvability. Keck and Samp’s (2007) observational

study of romantic or close-friend partners found a number of connections between

a different set of self-reported goals (instrumental, relational, and identity) and the

use of distributive or integrative tactics during actual conversation.

These tactics need not be respecified in order to apply them to classroom serial

arguments. Thus we hypothesize:

H3: Perceived resolvability is positively associated with integrative tactics butnegatively correlated with forceful tactics, such as demand=withdraw ordistributive efforts.

H4: Tactics used to carry out serial arguments are associated with the arguers’goals, such that positively oriented goals are associated with integrative tacticsand negatively oriented goals are associated with distributive tactics.

Besides these applications and respecifications, we have added two other variables:

approach and avoidance intentions. These have hovered in the background of the

main research lines we have reviewed. Trapp (1990; Trapp & Hoff, 1985) began

the serial argument model at the point of ‘‘decision to confront,’’ which should be

the result of approach and avoidance impulses. Kazoleas (1995) found that argumen-

tativeness (which is calculated by subtracting argument-avoidance impulses from

argument-approach tendencies) had a negative association with issue closure (which

is conceptually related to argument resolvability). Johnson and Roloff (1998) treated

avoidance as a consequence of serial arguing. They found that one’s own wish to


avoid recurrence of the argument was unrelated to perceived resolvability, but that

partner’s avoidance was negatively associated with perceived resolvability. Finally,

the research on demand=withdraw tactics is interpretable as approach=avoid tactics.

Approach and avoidance are general ideas in motivation research and seem appropri-

ate in a study of classroom arguing. By adding intention measures of approach and

avoidance, we hope to clarify the effects of these motivations. Since there is limited

prior research connecting these motivations to our serial argument variables, we pose

a research question:

RQ1: Will approach and avoidance motivations predict goals, tactics, perceivedresolvability, civility, and classroom climate?

Our final research question posits a causal model. Although we have good support

for it in some respects, our retrospective design might confuse or even reverse some

of the causalities, and so we pose this as a research question. Our theorizing is as

follows. The first step in serial arguing is the decision to engage (Dillard, 2004; Trapp,

1990; Trapp & Hoff, 1985), and this is represented in our data set by the approach

and avoidance motivations. Once a person is involved in the serial argument, the

approach and avoidance balance should affect which goals become operative, and

the goals in turn will dictate the selection of tactics for interaction (Dillard, 1990a,

1990b, 2004). Implementation of the tactics actually produces one’s actions in the

serial argument. Civility is our most descriptive measure of the nature of those

actions, but we conceptualize civility, climate, and perceived resolvability as global

judgments of the whole process of serial argumentation, and so we expect them to

be last causally, more or less as reflections on a completed experience. In Bevan

et al. (2008), perceived resolvability appeared in the final causal model as an outcome

of tactics, which were outcomes of the goals. This reasoning is essentially the

goals-plan-action model of message production (Dillard, 1990a, 1990b, 2004), which

has been shown to apply nicely to a considerable amount of empirical research on

argumentation generally (Hample, 2005, 2007). Thus, we ask:

RQ2: Will approach and avoidance lead to goals; goals lead to tactics; tactics leadto perceived resolvability, civility, and classroom climate?

Method

Procedures and Respondents

Data were collected online. Respondents at the authors’ institution (a large public

university in the eastern United States) participated in order to fulfill class require-

ments or to earn minor extra credit for undergraduate communication courses. A

total of 348 respondents provided data. Of these, 28% were male and 72% were

women. Most were sophomores (39%) or juniors (28%); although freshmen

(12%) and seniors (21%) also provided data. Various racial identities=ethnicities


were reported: 56% self-identified as Euro American, 10% as Asian American, 11% as

African American, 5% as Hispanic American, and the remainder were scattered

among various national origins, combinations of the main categories or preferred

not to answer. The sample’s average age was 19.8 years. The study was approved

by our Institutional Review Board.

The online survey began with demographics, and then proceeded to solicit open-

and closed-ended descriptions of a serial argument. Here is the main prompt: ‘‘Please

recall a serial argument that you have participated in or personally observed in a

classroom. This might have been in college or high school. A serial argument exists

when individuals argue or engage in conflict about the same topic over time, during

which they participate in several (at least two) arguments about the topic. Please con-

sider that all the questions about serial arguing in this survey apply to that experi-

ence.’’ Respondents were then asked to explain the argument’s topic, what

happened the first time the argument occurred, to specify their role in the argument

(observer¼ 63%, initiator¼ 16%, target¼ 21%), whether the argument took place in

high school (53%) or college (47%), their role in the classroom (99.7% indicated

‘‘student’’), how long ago the argument took place (M¼ 2.1 years, SD¼ 2.05),

whether the argument was over (yes¼ 81%, no¼ 19%), how it ended (doesn’t apply

[20%], mutually resolved [12%], a solution was forced by one party [18%], initiator

quit bringing it up [13%], or the argument ended when the class did but without

agreement [37%]), how long the argument lasted (M¼ 0.60 years, SD¼ 1.42), and

how often it occurred (M¼ 6.3 times, SD¼ 11.73).

These questions were followed by the scales detailed below. Respondents were asked

to respond from the viewpoint of the argument’s initiator, regardless of their actual

role in the argument. The scales measured resolvability, avoidance impulses, approach

impulses, demand=withdraw tactics, distributive tactics, integrative tactics, the civility

of the argument, and its effects on the classroom climate. Following these items,

respondents indicated the importance of the seven goals for the serial argument.

Measures

Resolvability

This was measured with six items (in a 5-point Likert format, as were the other vari-

ables). The items were: ‘‘I didn’t think the arguers would ever agree on the issue,’’ ‘‘I

didn’t see much chance that it would be resolved,’’ ‘‘I thought it would go on for-

ever,’’ ‘‘I thought that a productive solution could occur,’’ ‘‘I thought that it was just

going to get worse and worse and never get better,’’ and ‘‘I believed that the argument

would be resolved in the future.’’ The scale was scored so that high values indicate the

respondent thought the argument was resolvable. Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

Approach and avoidance

These variables were measured with two items each. For avoidance, the items were: ‘‘I

tried to avoid situations or circumstances that would provoke another episode of the


serial argument,’’ and ‘‘I tried to keep quiet about the topic when I might have

spoken up.’’ Cronbach’s alpha was .67. For approach impulses the items were: ‘‘I

was eager to initiate another round of discussion on this topic,’’ and ‘‘I welcomed

the chance to discuss the topic again.’’ Cronbach’s alpha was .86. These two measures

correlated at r¼�.55 (p< .001). Combining the four items (with one scale reverse

coded) produced an alpha of .80, but they were kept distinct for some analyses on

grounds of face validity.

Conflict tactics

Four items each collected self-reports of demand=withdraw tactics. These were based

on the three-item scales in Johnson and Roloff (1998) and Malis and Roloff (2006).

For ‘‘I demand, s=he withdraws’’ the items were: ‘‘I tried to discuss the problem while

the other person tried to avoid it,’’ ‘‘I nagged, demanded or blamed while the other

person withdrew, became silent or refused to discuss the matter further,’’ ‘‘I criticized

the other person, while he or she tried to ignore me,’’ and ‘‘I kept pressing the issue,

and the other person kept trying to dodge it.’’ Cronbach’s alpha was .83. The ‘‘other

demands, I withdraw’’ items were parallel with obvious changes in agent reference and

generated an alpha of .87. Distributive tactics were assessed with six items: ‘‘I tried to

get my way, regardless of how it affected the other person,’’ ‘‘I argued to win,’’ ‘‘I tried

to come out ahead of the other person,’’ ‘‘I argued to defeat the other person,’’ ‘‘I felt

that whatever I might gain would have to come at the expense of the other person,’’

and ‘‘I argued in order to dominate how things would work out.’’ These yielded an

alpha of .90. Integrative tactics were measured by means of five items: ‘‘I aimed at a

mutually beneficial solution,’’ ‘‘I acknowledged and respected the other person’s needs

and goals,’’ ‘‘my arguments aimed at a cooperative outcome,’’ ‘‘I would not have

accepted a solution that I thought the other person really didn’t support,’’ and ‘‘only

genuine and mutual agreement would have been satisfactory to me.’’ Alpha was .83.

Civility and climate

The 10-item civility subscale from the argument frames instrument of Hample,

Warner, and Young (2009) was adapted to refer to serial arguments. Its alpha was

.74. Climate in the classroom was assessed by means of 12 items, all beginning with

‘‘As a result of the serial argument:’’ ‘‘The classroom climate became more positive,’’

‘‘the classroom climate became less welcoming,’’ ‘‘it was harder to learn in

class,’’ ‘‘most of the students and teacher came together,’’ ‘‘I gained respect for the

teacher,’’ ‘‘the course became better,’’ ‘‘the class was ruined,’’ ‘‘student-teacher rela-

tionships improved,’’ and ‘‘student-teacher relationships were damaged.’’ The scale

was scored so that high values reflect a positive climate, and the alpha was .80.

Goals

The instrument in Bevan et al. (2007) was used to assess serial argument goals. Here,

the Likert responses ran from ‘‘not at all important’’ to ‘‘extremely important.’’ One


Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

n Mean SD

Resolvability 348 2.74 0.82

Avoidance Impulse 348 2.87 0.96

Approach Impulse 348 3.08 1.05

I Demand 348 2.62 0.88

Other Demands 348 2.34 0.86

Distributive Tactics 348 3.04 0.92

Integrative Tactics 348 2.98 0.76

Civility 348 2.96 0.58

Climate 348 2.94 0.58

Expressiveness Negative 346 3.25 1.04

Mutual Understanding 346 3.21 1.12

Dominance=Control 346 3.40 0.98

Class Progression 346 2.51 1.03

Change Target 346 2.99 1.07

Expressiveness Positive 346 2.31 1.14

Hurt Partner=Benefit Self 346 2.19 1.11

Note. Means are in reference to a 5-point scale.

Table 2 Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Resolvable

2. Avoidance 03

3. Approach �06 �55

4. I Demand �07 �09 34

5. Other Demand �07 33 �10 33

6. Distributive �12 �31 46 48 19

7. Integrative 16 34 �09 02 12 �18

8. Civility 45 �01 04 �19 �20 �27 30

9. Climate 24 �04 14 �12 �09 �15 24 57

10. Express Negative 02 �03 03 15 05 22 �04 �23 �26

11. Mutuality 23 26 �12 �08 �05 �19 48 31 12 03

12. Dominance �13 �11 17 18 03 44 �19 �29 �21 43 �09

13. Class Progress �01 16 02 24 18 13 11 �25 �16 26 21 29

14. Change Target 05 04 08 18 09 11 12 �15 �09 27 13 26 44

15. Express Positive 13 22 �03 13 19 �10 32 14 21 02 42 �06 35 33

16. Hurt Partner �16 04 07 24 30 26 �16 �41 �21 26 �24 36 36 16 15

Note. The n is 348 or 346 for all correlations. Decimals are omitted. An r of j.10j or greater is significant atp< .05.


subscale, relational progress=continuation, was reworded to refer to classroom rela-

tionships rather than romantic ones. Expressiveness negative, comprised of three

items, gave an alpha of .86. Mutual understanding=resolution also had three items,

and alpha was .89. The three-item dominance=control goal yielded an alpha¼ .81.

Class progression=continuation was measured with three items, and produced an

alpha of .85. The three-item change target goal had an alpha¼ .84. Expressiveness

positive had two items and an alpha of .93. The six-item hurt-partner=benefit-self-

goal scale produced an alpha¼ .95.

Descriptive statistics are in Tables 1 and 2 contains the correlations among the

variables.

Results

Preliminary Results

Respondents provided nearly equal numbers of reports about serial arguments in

high school and college. We compared the two sites on the variables listed in

Tables 1 and 2. Of the 17 t tests, six were statistically significant. High school sites

had more occurrences of the serial arguments (means were 8.61 vs. 3.69), t(345)¼3.99, p< .001, r2¼ .04, less use of integrative tactics (2.89 vs. 3.09), t(346)¼�2.53,

p< 05, r2¼ .02, more use of the goal to hurt the other person (2.32 vs. 2.03),

t(344)¼ 2.48, p< .05 r2¼ .02, less civility (2.84 vs. 3.10), t(346)¼�4.25, p< .001,

r2¼ .05, and worse climate (2.87 vs. 3.02), t(346)¼�2.49, p< .05, r2¼ .02. On the

whole, serial arguments from high school were recalled as being nastier than those

in college. The difference in frequency of occurrence may simply be due to high

school courses often lasting a full school year whereas college courses rarely do,

and to the greater chance of continuing interaction with the high school arguers after

the class is over (several of the high school arguments were reported as lasting several

years, but this was never true of the college reports).

A parallel set of tests contrasting men and women gave only two significant differ-

ences. Men recalled a more positive climate (means were 3.04 vs. 2.90), t(346)¼ 2.23,

p< .05, r2¼ .01, and less use of the expressiveness negative goal (3.07 vs. 3.34),

t(344)¼�2.00, p< .05, r2¼ .01. Readers should recall that these differences refer

to the sex of the person remembering the serial argument and have little to do with

the sex of the people participating in it. We attach little importance to these results.

We also did a 2� 2 analysis comparing sex of respondent to initiator=target role andobtained a nonsignificant result, v2 (1)¼ .29. This nonsignificant result also appeared

in Johnson and Roloff (2000b).

Finally we analyzed whether the respondent’s role (observer, initiator, or target)

made a difference, using Duncan post hoc tests for significant outcomes. Of the 17

tests, only four were significant. Role distinguished respondents in regard to avoid-

ance motivation, F(2, 345)¼ 9.21, p< .001, r2¼ .05, such that observers reported

the highest initiator avoidance (means were 3.04 vs. 2.54 [target] and 2.66

[initiator]). Reverse results appeared for approach, F(2, 345)¼ 6.85, p< .001,

r2¼ .04, where observers recalled the least approach impulse on the part of the


initiator (means were 2.93 vs. 3.33 [initiator] and 3.37 [observer]). Reports that the

initiator demanded and the other person withdrew differed by role, F(2, 345)¼4.15, p< .01, r2¼ .03, but the follow-up test shows that this is entirely due to the

observer’s impressions (2.50 vs. 2.77 [target] and 2.88 [initiator]). The nonsignificant

differences between initiators and targets on this and the other demand=withdraw

measure are somewhat inconsistent with those reported in Johnson and Roloff

(2000b) and may possibly be due to our instruction to assume the role of initiator.

Finally, role distinguished use of integrative tactics, F(2, 345)¼ 3.57, p< .05, r2¼ .02,

such that observers thought there was less of this (M¼ 2.95) and targets recalled

more (3.27), with neither differing significantly from initiators (3.13).

Although our sample size permits detection of differences among our sample when

divided by argument site, respondent sex, and respondent role, the effects are rela-

tively rare and their sizes modest. For the most part, therefore, we will combine

the subsamples for our main statistical analyses.

Hypotheses

The first two hypotheses predicted that civility and classroom climate will be posi-

tively correlated with perceived resolvability but nonsignificantly related to frequency

of occurrence. As Table 2 indicates, the first hypothesis is supported: For civility and

resolvability, r¼ .45, p< .001; for classroom climate and resolvability, r¼ .24,

p< .001. Argument frequency was significantly associated with the other three vari-

ables: for civility, r¼�.17, p< .001; for climate, r¼�.16, p< .01; and for perceived

resolvability, r¼�.17, p< .01. These latter results are consistent with those of Lloyd

(1987) but not with those in Johnson and Roloff (1998). However, Table 3 makes

clear that the significant frequency correlations were unique to the high school sam-

ple. For the college subsample, Hypothesis 2 is supported, replicating Johnson and

Roloff. For the high school serial arguments, the second hypothesis must be rejected.

The other two hypotheses concerned arguing tactics. Hypothesis 3 predicted that

perceived resolvability will be positively associated with integrative tactics, but

Table 3 Correlations among Resolvability, Argument Frequency,

Civility, and Climate for High School and College Sites

Frequency Resolvability

High School

Civility �.20�� .45��

Climate �.17� .28��

College

Civility .00 .45��

Climate �.06 .17�

Note. The n for the high school subsample is 185 and for the college sample is 163.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ��p< .001.


negatively with distributive and demand=withdraw tactics. Again the results are in

Table 2. Perceived resolvability was not significantly associated with either sort of

demand=withdraw pattern: for initiator demands, r¼�.07, ns; for target demands,

r¼�.07, ns. These two results are a partial failure to replicate Johnson and Roloff‘s

(1998) study of close relationships. Resolvability did, however, relate to integrative

and distribute tactics in the manner hypothesized: For integrative tactics, r¼ .16,

p< .01; for distributive tactics, r¼�.12, p< .05. So Hypothesis 3 is supported in

regard to distributive and integrative tactics, but not for demand=withdraw patterns.

Hypothesis 4 related the goals to the tactics, such that the positive goals (as speci-

fied by Bevan et al., 2008) will be directly associated with integrative tactics, and the

negative goals with distributive tactics. Simple correlations are in Table 2, but the

more appropriate analysis is a canonical correlation between the goals and the tactics.

Results for the canonical analysis are in Table 4. The analysis was successful, gen-

erating substantial squared correlations between latent roots that accounted for large

amounts of the variance in the contributing variables. Two significant roots

appeared. Root 1 shows that the distributive tactics were positively associated with

expressiveness negative, dominance, and hurt other=benefit self, all antisocial goals.Integrative tactics were positively associated with mutual understanding=resolution

and expressiveness positive, both prosocial goals. The two goals of assessing whether

one wishes to progress in the same classroom and change target goal did not figure in

the canonical correlation. In Bevan et al. (2008), the goal of determining whether to

remain in the relationship fell out of their final analysis as well, but the change target

goal was associated with distributive tactics.

The second root needs to be interpreted with caution because so much variance

has been extracted by the first root (Stevens, 2002). Here, however, the interpretation

Table 4 Canonical Analysis Relating Tactics to Goals

Root 1 Root 2 R2 from other set

Distributive .75 .66 .25��

Integrative �.74 .67 .24��

% Variance 55% 44%

Express Negative .33 .71 .13��

Mutuality �.70 .61 .21��

Dominance .68 .60 .20��

Class Progress �.04 .45 .04�

Change Target �.09 .54 .06��

Express Positive �.43 .45 .09��

Hurt Other=Benefit Self .38 .39 .07��

% Variance 20% 30%

R2C .29�� .19��

Note. Pillais’ F(14, 308)¼ 6.95, p< .001. The final column reports results of multiple

regressions in which each variable is predicted by all those in the other group.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ��p< .001.


seems simple. Higher scores on distributive and integrative tactics, indicating higher

levels of engagement of either sort, were associated with more goal activation. This is

generally—very generally—consistent with the idea that the tactics are related to the

presence of the goals.

On the whole, the hypothesis is supported and is generally consistent with the

results Bevan et al. (2008) reported for serial arguments in close relationships.

Research Questions

The first research question inquired about the roles of approach and avoidance

motivations: Are they connected to goals, tactics, and outcome measures? Simple

correlations are in Table 2, but again a canonical correlation is in order. Those results

are in Table 5.

The canonical analysis produced two significant roots having substantial squared

canonical correlations. This analysis was not quite as successful as the one in Table 4

because not all of the measures in the bottom set were significantly predicted by

approach and avoidance in multiple regressions. (Each multiple regression involves

Table 5 Canonical Analysis Relating Approach and Avoidance to

Goals, Tactics, and Outcome Measures

Root 1 Root 2 R2 from other set

Avoidance .94 .35 .43��

Approach �.85 .53 .40��

% Variance 80% 20%

Express Negative �.10 .13 .01

Mutuality .33 .43 .10��

Dominance �.31 .19 .05�

Class Progress �.09 .57 .10��

Change Target �.16 .40 .06�

Express Positive .12 .42 .06��

Hurt Other=Benefit Self �.10 .42 .05�

I Demand �.35 .49 .12��

Other Demands .60 .35 .20��

Distributive �.56 .43 .19��

Integrative .40 .51 .15��

Resolvability .08 .25 .02

Civility .04 .14 .01

Climate .03 .26 .02

% Variance 9% 15%

R2C .45�� .28��

Note. Pillais’ F(28, 294)¼ 6.06, p< .001. The final column reports results of multiple

regressions in which each variable is predicted by all those in the other group.�p< .05. ��p< .01. ��p< .001.


taking the row variable and regressing all the variables in the opposite set on it. The

multiple regressions supplement the loadings to help indicate which variables are par-

ticipating in the canonical relationships.) Most obviously, approach and avoidance

impulses had no immediate relationships to the outcome measures (resolvability,

civility, and climate). This was also largely true when the correlations in Table 2 are

examined. Therefore we reran the canonical analysis with these three outcome vari-

ables omitted. However, this made little substantive difference, with no loading being

more than .03 different from those in Table 5, and the percentages of variance for the

bottom set of measures rising only to 11% and 19%. So, we will proceed with Table 5.

The first research question also inquired about the relationships between approach

and avoidance on one hand, and the goals and tactics on the other. Table 5’s first root

shows that approach and avoidance impulses were associated with serial argument

goals in a systematic way. Approach motivation led to more aggressive goals, parti-

cularly dominance. Weaker relationships appeared with change target, hurt other=

benefit self, and deciding whether to progress in the classroom relationship. Avoid-

ance motivation was directly associated with the more prosocial goals, mainly mutual

resolution. A weaker relationship appeared for expressiveness positive. The only goal

that was statistically irrelevant to the two motivations is expressiveness negative. So

approach and avoidance are associated with the goals.

Tactics were also systematically related to the two general motivations. Approach

connected directly with initiator demand=other withdraws and with distributive

tactics. Avoidance was positively associated with other demands=initiator withdrawsand with integrative tactics. These results are consistent, both within themselves and

with the goals results. Approach motivations are aggressive and avoidance impulses

lead to prosocial goals and tactics.

The second root seems to be capturing the idea of high levels of motivation,

regardless of its direction. The greater the motivation, the more activation we see

for goals and tactics. So the answer to the first research question is that general

approach and avoidance motivations are associated with goals and tactics, but their

reach does not extend to the three outcome measures.

The second research question inquired whether the causal system we would expect

in an experiment with systematic temporal control would appear. We developed a

structural equation model to test the possibilities that motivation would predict each

of the goals, that each of the goals would predict each of the tactics, and that each of

the tactics would predict each of the outcome measures. Our research question does

not imply any paths that skip levels—for example, from motivation to outcome. The

research question also does not specify a number of relationships that account for

observed variance, such as interrelationships among the goals. Our maximum likeli-

hood analysis of the covariance matrix proceeded in the following way.

First, the latent variables for approach and avoidance correlated at r¼�.94, so we

combined the four indicator variables into a single latent variable scored so that high

values indicate an approach motivation. Second, we examined modification indices

for evidence that indicator variables’ error terms covaried within their common scale.

Based on these findings, we permitted indicator error covariance for approach (one


of six possible covariations was allowed), initiator demands (2=6), integrative tactics

(2=10), distributive tactics (3=10), climate (26=55), civility (9=45), and resolvability

(3=15). No error covariances needed to be freed in the other latent variables. Third,

to account for additional variance, we used modification indices to specify paths

within the goal set, within the tactic set, and within the outcome set. Goals covaried

in Bevan et al. (2008). The tactic set has conceptual relations: The demand=withdrawpatterns are probably negatively associated, as are integrative and distributive tactics.

The outcome measures are all conceptualized as global impressions of the entire

process. Fourth, we eliminated nonsignificant paths from those expected (e.g., motiv-

ation to each goal). Fifth, modification indices suggested several additional paths:

from approach motivation to three of the tactics, from the negative expression goal

to climate, and from approach to climate.

The resulting system is displayed in Figure 1. As a whole the model fit the data

reasonably well: v2=df¼ 1.896, RMSEA¼ .051 (90% CI is .049–.053), PRATIO¼.940, CFI¼ .850. Table 6 shows the degree to which each of the endogenous variables

was predicted by the other variables in the system, given the system’s structure. This

indicates that the model was successful in predicting most of the variables,

particularly including the three outcome variables.

Given the number of variables involved, in Figure 1 we have represented the inter-

connections among goals, among tactics, and among outcome measures with simple

Figure 1 Final structural equation model. Note. App¼ approach;=NE¼negative expression goal;=CO¼change other goal;=DM¼ dominance goal;=PG¼ progress in class goal;=MT¼mutuality goal;=PE¼ positive

expression goal;=HO¼ hurt other goal;=ODem¼ other demands and I withdraw;=IDem¼ I demand and other

withdraws;=Dist¼ distributive tactics;=Int¼ integrative tactics;=Cli¼ climate;=Civ¼ civility;=Res¼ resolvability.


straight lines and have omitted the path coefficients from the figure as well. All of the

goals were involved with one another, all the tactics with one another, and all the out-

come measures with one another. Table 7 reports all the statistically significant

gamma and beta coefficients.

Table 6 Squared Multiple Correlations for Endogenous Variables

R2

Civility .32

Resolvability .30

Climate .30

Integrative Tactics .34

Distributive Tactics .55

I Demand, Other Withdraws .25

Other Demands, I Withdraw .33

Express Negative Goal .00

Progression in Class Goal .09

Domination Goal .33

Mutuality Goal .09

Express Positive Goal .33

Change Other Goal .27

Hurt Other Goal .38

Table 7 Statistically Significant Paths (Standardized)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

2

3 .21 .42

4 .17 .43 .23 �.21

5 .30

6 �.19 .23

7 .18 .31 .34

8 .26 .31 �.41 .25

9 �.32 .19 .49

10 .25 .33 �.26 .17

11 .35 .36 .36

12 �.23 .50 .14

13 .24 �.19 .19 .18 .37

14 �.34 �.16 �.22 .25

15 .21 .55

Note. ‘‘Causing’’ variables are on the horizontal axis and ‘‘effects’’ variables on the vertical. Variables are

1¼ approach, 2¼ negative expression, 3¼ change other, 4¼ dominance, 5¼ progress in class, 6¼mutuality,

7¼ positive expression, 8¼ hurt other, 9¼ other demands, 10¼ initiator demands, 11¼ distributive tactics,

12¼ integrative tactics, 13¼ climate, 14¼ civility, and 15¼ resolvability. All but seven of the coefficients are

significant at p< .001; the others are significant at p< .01 or p< .05.


Figure 1 (combined with Table 7) shows that motivation had only a modest effect

on goal formation. The approach=avoid measure was noticeably connected to only

two of the goals, being directly related to dominance and negatively to mutuality.

Approach was substantially related to use of distributive tactics and both demand=withdraw tactics in these arguments, and paths from motive to tactic were not

anticipated in our research question. The positive path from approach to the climate

outcome measure was also unanticipated.

The goals showed some substantial relationships among themselves, as reported in

Table 7, and for the most part these connections are intuitively satisfying. The posi-

tive path from positive expression to the goal of hurting the other was unexpected.

Otherwise, the antisocial goals tended to have positive relationships among them-

selves, as did the most obviously prosocial goals, mutuality and positive expression.

In several cases (mutuality to hurting the other, and mutuality to dominance), Table 7

shows expectable negative paths. Table 7 also reports interesting relationships among

the tactics. Initiator demands had a positive path to other demands, indicating that

these two tactics are not alternatives. Instead, we seem to be seeing a cycle of one

arguer demanding, and then the other arguer doing so. Distributive tactics were also

predicted by initiator demand behaviors. Integrative tactics followed from the

appearance of other demanding.

The tactics were quite satisfactorily predicted here, as the results in Table 6 make

clear. Use of integrative tactics was positively predicted by the mutuality goal and

negatively by the dominance impulse. Distributive tactics followed from dominance

urges as well as approach motivations. The demand=withdraw patterns were

predicted differently than one another. Initiator demandingness followed from

approach motivation, the goal of trying to decide about progressing in the class,

and the positive expression goal and was negatively influenced by the mutuality goal.

Other demandingness, however, was a direct consequence of the goal of wanting to

hurt the other arguer and of an avoidance impulse.

The outcome measures had some connection among themselves, as we might have

expected from Table 2. All were substantially predicted by the model as a whole (see

Table 6). Good climate led to high civility, which in turn strongly generated the sense

that the argument is resolvable. Several tactics had causal influence on these outcome

measures. Distributive tactics had a negative influence on civility, whereas integrative

tactics led to good climate. Other demanding patterns led to a positive climate but

reduced the sense of civility; these two results seem inconsistent.

The overall idea underlying the research question is roughly represented in the

results, with motivation leading to goals, goals causing tactics, and tactics dictating

the outcomes. Some of the expectable paths did not emerge from the statistical analy-

sis, but the presence of a very substantial number of indirect paths mitigates this con-

cern. Several paths represent ‘‘skipped’’ conceptual phases: Approach motivation

directly influenced several tactics and outcome measures, and several of the goals

had connections with outcome measures that were not mediated by tactics. With

some small ambivalence, we suggest that the research question has been productively

answered in the affirmative.


Discussion

The two impulses that led to this investigation were to generalize serial argument

research to a setting other than close relationships and to describe the serial arguing

process in the independently important site of classroom instruction. In both

respects, we believe we have been successful.

Generalizing Beyond Close Relationships

We have found outcome measures that generalize the theoretical system beyond inti-

mate and friendship relationships. Where prior work tends to use relational satisfac-

tion as a key dependent variable, our use of classroom climate and civility occupies

the same theoretical space. Climate is perhaps the more direct analogue to relational

satisfaction, and for the most part it was predicted in the same way as relational sat-

isfaction. Civility is a measure that might have been used to describe intimate serial

arguments. It reflects the degree to which the argument was conducted in a pro-

ductive, appropriate way. Along with resolvability, a variable that needed no trans-

formation to fit the classroom environment, we have a theoretically useful set of

outcome measures. These should in turn generalize to some other sorts of contexts,

such as organizations (Hample & Allen, 2010).

The goals developed by researchers at the University of Georgia also proved to

be applicable to the classroom. One of them needed substantial revision: Instead of

asking about whether participants had the goal of deciding whether to stay in the

close relationship, we asked whether they were considering whether to remain in

the classroom. The other goals were straightforwardly relevant.

Serial Arguments in Classrooms

As in prior work, this set of goals did a reasonable job of predicting argument tactics.

Both our canonical analysis (Table 4) and our structural equation modeling (Table 7

and Figure 1) show strong connections between the goal set and the tactic set. The

tactics in turn predicted the outcome measures, as Figure 1 and Tables 6 and 7 indi-

cate. Considering the outcome measures to be general indications of the type of

action taken in serial arguing, our results add additional support to the goals-plans-

actions model proposed by Dillard (1990a, 1990b, 2004).

We added approach and avoidance measures to the models used by researchers

concerned with close relationships. We found that approach and avoidance were use-

ful in predicting the levels of all of the goals (Table 4). In the causal model, the only

significant paths were to the dominance and mutuality goals, but these two were

powerful in causing tactic selection and were connected to other goals as well. Our

use of approach and avoidance motivations as general precursors to the more specific

goals suggests a connection to two common approach=avoidance variables—

argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006)—and this

might well be a productive line to take in future work. In short, prior work on goals

and tactics in romantic relationships generalized to the classroom setting.


The phase-skipping direct relationships in our final model are interesting. Motiv-

ation appeared to have effects on more than goal formation. The direct effects of

approach motivation on tactics and outcomes can be explained in two different ways.

One possibility is that we do not have full rosters of either goals or tactics, leaving

some truly indirect motivational influence to be expressed directly in our data set.

This reasoning would also account for the handful of direct relationships between

goals and outcomes, relationships that skip the tactic phase of serial argument pro-

duction. The other main possibility is that our retrospective cross-sectional design

encourages these variables to bleed into one another, so that respondents uncon-

sciously adjust the variables to one another in ways that would not occur if the strict

goals-plans-actions model were in complete temporal control of the data. This will all

be difficult to clarify, since fuller sets of goals and tactics will need to be combined

with designs that carefully control the time ordering of the processes.

Our causal model is certainly not a match to the ones reported by Bevan et al.

(2008), but that was expected. We have some different variables here and omitted

some of theirs, such as rumination. Most problematically for a close comparison,

however, they reported two separate models, one for the prosocial goals and another

for the aggressive ones. Nonetheless some similarity in results is observable. In both

studies, mutuality was directly associated with the integrative tactics but not the dis-

tributive ones. Distributive tactics were clearly predicted by the dominance goal in

our study but nonsignificantly in theirs. We did not find distributive tactics to be

caused by the change target and hurt partner goals, as they did. They found negative

expressiveness to be nonsignificantly related to distributive tactics, and we replicated

that result. We find some encouraging similarity in the two projects’ results, but not

nearly a close enough match to count this study as a successful replication. We attri-

bute the differences to the contrast between our use of a classroom domain and their

focus on close relationships.

Prospects

Future work on classroom serial arguments should consider the viewpoint of

teachers. It would also be informative to separate student-to-student arguments from

student-teacher ones. The constructive results of the present study justify the sub-

stantial effort involved in gathering enough teacher data to sustain advanced multi-

variate procedures. Given the noticeable difference in argument frequency in college

and high school, and the more brutish character of the high school episodes, it might

be valuable to conduct separate studies on college, high school, middle school, and

elementary school settings.

Serial argument research, it appears, can move beyond its present focus on inti-

mate relationships. The first investigation (Trapp & Hoff, 1985) was not restricted

in this way, but nearly all the later studies have been. Serial arguments are likely in

any sort of continuing relationship—in the classroom, at work, even at a neighbor-

hood bus stop. Very possibly, serial arguments will perform different functions in

different settings. But the general similarity of our results to those gathered in the


domain of dating relationships encourages us in the belief that the research com-

munity will be able to generate a general model of the process and outcomes of serial

arguing.

References

Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bevan, J. L., Finan, A., & Kaminsky, A. (2008). Modeling serial arguments in close relationships:

The serial argument process model. Human Communication Research, 34, 600–624. doi:

10.1111=j.1468-2958.2008.00334.x.Bevan, J. L., Hale, J. L., & Williams, S. L. (2004). Identifying and characterizing goals of dating part-

ners engaging in serial argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 28–40. Retrieved

from http://www.americanforensics.org/AA/aa_info.html

Bevan, J. L., Tidgewell, K. D., Bagley, K. C., Cusanelli, L., Hartstern, M., Holbeck, D., & Hale,

J. L. (2007). Serial argumentation goals and their relationships to perceived resolvability

and choice of conflict tactics. Communication Quarterly, 55, 61–77. doi: 10.1080=01463370600998640.

Canary, D. J. (2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to strategic

choices. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social

interaction skills (pp. 515–550). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cramer, D. (2002). Linking conflict management behaviours and relational satisfaction: The inter-

vening role of conflict outcome satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,

425–432. doi: 10.1177=0265407502193007.Dillard, J. P. (1990a). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking

compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Scottsdale, AZ:

Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Dillard, J. P. (1990b). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody

& M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70–91). Philadel-

phia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H.

Gass (Eds.), Perspective on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206).

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hample, D. (2007). Arguments. In D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. L. Monahan (Eds.), Social cognition

(pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hample, D., & Allen, S. (2010, November). Serial arguments in organizations. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Francisco.

Hample, D., & Benoit, P. J. (1999). Must arguments be explicit and violent: A study of naive social

actors’ understandings. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard

(Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the

Study of Argumentation (pp. 306–310). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: SICSAT.

Hample, D., Warner, B., & Young, D. (2009). Framing and editing interpersonal arguments.

Argumentation, 23, 21–37. doi: 10.1007=s10503-008-9107-xIngersoll, R. M. (1996). Teachers’ decision-making power and school conflict. Sociology of

Education, 69, 159–176. doi: 10.2307=2112804.Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). Serial arguing and relational quality: Determinants and

consequences of perceived resolvability. Communication Research, 25, 327–343. doi: 10.1177=009365098025003004


Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2000a). 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 Relationships, 17, 676–686. doi: 10.1177=0265407500174011

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.

doi: 10.1023=A:1007837310258Kazoleas, D. C. (1995, November). Living with argumentatives: The impact of argumentativeness on

issue closure and serial arguments. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Speech

Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals and message production as revealed

in a sequential analysis of conflict interactions. Human Communication Research, 33, 27–47.

doi: 10.1111=j.1468-2958.2007.00287.xLave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1993). An introduction to models in the social sciences. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America. (Original work published 1975)

Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, Y. J. (2005). Teachers’ classroom discipline and student

misbehavior in Australia, China and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 729–741.

doi:10.1016=j.tate.2005.05.008Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential perceptions in males and

females. Family Relations, 36, 290–294. doi: 10.2307=583542Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006). Demand=withdraw patterns in serial arguments: Implications

for well-being. Human Communication Research, 32, 198–216. doi: 10.1111=j.1468-2958.2006.00009.x

Martin, R. W., & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1985). What are conversational arguments? Toward a natural

language user’s perspective. In J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars & G. B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and

social practice (pp. 705–722). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Osler, A. (2000). Children’s rights, responsibilities and understandings of school discipline.

Research Papers in Education, 15, 49–67. doi: 10.1080=026715200362943Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Sillars, A. L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication

Monographs, 47, 180–200. doi: 10.1080=03637758009376031Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tighe, M. R., Hale, J. L., & Ficara, L. (1995, November). Accounts and attributions of serial

arguments in personal relationships. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Speech

Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

Trapp, R. (1990). Arguments in interpersonal relationships. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.),

Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 43–54). Prospect

Heights, IL: Waveland.

Trapp, R., & Hoff, N. (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of

the American Forensic Association, 22, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.americanforensics.

org/AA/aa_info.html

Tulley, M., & Chiu, L. H. (1995). Student teachers and classroom discipline. Journal of Educational

Research, 88, 164–171. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1995.9941295

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54,

143–178. doi: 10.3102=00346543054002143


Serial Arguments in Classrooms (Hample & Krueger, 2011)

Documents

Transcript of Serial Arguments in Classrooms (Hample & Krueger, 2011)