Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships (Hample & Cionea, 2012)

Author's personal copy

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 430– 445

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships

Dale Hample !, Ioana A. CioneaDepartment of Communication at the University of Maryland, 2103 Skinner Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 April 2011Received in revised form 28 October 2011Accepted 12 December 2011

Keywords:FaceFemininityInterpersonal argumentMasculinitySelf-construalPower distanceSerial argument

a b s t r a c t

Serial arguments have been studied primarily in the context of romantic relationships, with-out any differentiation of partners’ ethnic background. In this paper we advance knowledgeabout serial arguments by testing a structural equation model of serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships (N = 598). We also analyze the effects cultural factors have on serialarguments through a second structural equation model in which self-construals, powerdistance, face concerns, and masculinity and femininity are exogenous variables, followedby goals, tactics, and outcomes as endogenous variables. Both models fit the data well andwe discuss the patterns our data revealed about serial arguments.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Arguments occur frequently in people’s relationships. Individuals argue to express their opinions, to establish theiridentity, and to resolve their disagreements, and some of these arguments extend over time. Trapp and Hoff (1985) introducedthe term serial arguments to refer to such recurrent argumentative episodes in a relationship. An increasing body of literaturehas investigated the effects of serial arguments in romantic, friendship, and several other types of relationships (Bevan, 2010;Bevan, Hale, & Williams, 2004; Bevan et al., 2007; Bevan, Finan, & Kaminsky, 2008; Hample & Krueger, 2011; Johnson & Roloff,1998, 2000a, 2000b; Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b; Radanielina Hita, 2009). The most common topics scholars have analyzedare the dynamic structure of serial argument processes and the relationship between perceived resolvability of an issue andpartners’ satisfaction with their relationship. Recent research includes analyzing the goals and tactics employed by partnersin serial arguments (e.g., Bevan et al., 2004, 2007), extending serial arguments research across cultures (Radanielina Hita,2009) and exploring contexts other than close relationships (Hample & Allen, 2010; Hample & Krueger, 2011).

In today’s multicultural society inter-ethnic relationships are more frequent than ever, and this increases the possibil-ity that serial arguments occur within such relationships. The negotiation of disagreement in such relationships may benuanced by the cultural particularities that partners from different backgrounds bring to the table. Several lines of researchin argumentation across cultures give us reasons to believe this would be the case. For example, authors have argued that cul-ture delineates the meaning and appropriate behaviors associated with arguing (e.g., Katriel, 1986) or that language affectsnot only the structure of an argument but also the way in which it is presented, relying on different politeness strategies(e.g., Young, 1982). Studies have also noted differences between East Asian cultures and U.S. American culture in respectto argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (e.g., Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1990; Prunty, Klopf, & Ishii, 1991), preferredreasoning patterns (e.g., Hazen & Inoue, 1991; Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, & Nisbett, 2002; Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Warnick &Manusov, 2000), and responses to criticism (e.g., Bresnahan, Shearman, Lee, Ohashi, & Mosher, 2002) and have attributedthese differences to the cultural orientations of participants. Other studies have noted cultural differences in the evaluationof arguments and preferred argumentation styles (e.g., Grindsted, 1991; Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007; Yu & Wen, 2004). In

! Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 1414.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Hample).

0147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.006


D. Hample, I.A. Cionea / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 430– 445 431

addition to the argumentation literature, studies have reported differences in preferred styles of conflict among members ofdifferent cultures (e.g., Cai & Fink, 2002; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Tinsley, 1998). These resultsgive us sufficient evidence to expect that culture is relevant to the study of serial arguments. Cultural patterns (reflected inour case by ethnicity) add a layer of complexity to the interaction process of a serial argument because they may manifestthemselves in participants’ goals, their preferred strategies for pursuing the goals, and also in the perceived effects serialarguments have on participants’ relationship. So an extension of serial arguments research to include cultural considerationsis worthwhile and can enhance our understanding of disagreement and its effects in inter-ethnic relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to advance knowledge about serial arguments in several ways. First, we focus on inter-ethnicrelations and we propose a causal model to explain the relationships between arguers’ goals, tactics, and outcome variables(i.e., civility, perceived resolvability, and relational satisfaction). Our goal here is to contribute to the interpersonal literatureby extending the serial argument model to another context, that of inter-ethnic relationships, in order to assess whetherthe base processes can be generalized across different types of relationships. Second, we extend the developing empiricalmodel of serial arguments by including cultural variables that summarize our expectation that culture affects the way peoplebehave in serial arguments. If our theory is correct, the model proposed should work in inter-ethnic relationships as well.Our goal here is to contribute to the intercultural literature by highlighting the specific ways in which culture’s influencemanifests itself in inter-ethnic relationships. The following sections offer a brief review of the serial arguments literature,discuss the relevance and effects of culture for inter-ethnic relationships, and present the hypotheses of our study. We thendiscuss the method for our study, the results, and finally we present a discussion of our findings.

1. Serial arguments

Research on serial arguments has developed after Trapp and Hoff’s (1985) first study, which analyzed dating partners,family members, and friends. Further research focused first on romantic serial arguments (e.g., Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000a,2000b; Kazoleas, 1995; Malis & Roloff, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). In studying close relationships, researchers were immediatelyinterested in the effects serial arguments have on partners’ satisfaction with the relationship. A key correlate of relationalsatisfaction was the perceived resolvability of a serial argument, which is the belief of argumentation partners that theissue at hand was resolvable. The effects of serial arguments were less negative when partners believed they were makingprogress toward resolution (Johnson & Roloff, 1998). This positive relationship between perceived resolvability of a serialargument and relational satisfaction has been confirmed repeatedly in serial arguments research, although it is not entirelyclear what the precise causal relationship between these variables might be.

Hample’s (2005) research on argument frames suggested another outcome measure of interest for serial arguments:the civility with which an argument is conducted. Civility encapsulates the actual exchange between partners and assesseswhether the argument involved mutual respect, irrational expressions, and violence. Hample and Krueger (2011) haveargued that this measure can reflect partners’ satisfaction with the argumentation tactics employed.

Substantial development of a theory of serial argument goals has occurred recently. Bevan et al. (2004) proposed sevengoals, derived empirically. Hurting one’s partner and benefiting the self involves seeking to hurt the other person by makinghim or her mad, jealous or insecure so that the arguer feels better or gets revenge. Dominance or control expresses the desireof one partner to gain authority over the other partner or the issue discussed. Negative expressiveness gives voice to a person’snegative feelings such as frustration and exasperation. Positive expressiveness represents a person’s impulse to express posi-tive feelings and sentiments about the other person. Change target is the goal of altering the other person’s behavior. Mutualunderstanding/resolution aims at understanding the other person’s position and reaching a mutually acceptable outcomefor the argument. Finally, relational progression/continuation involves gathering information that allows a partner to decidewhether to continue the relationship or not. Positive expressiveness and mutual understanding goals are considered positivegoals whereas hurting one’s partner, dominance, changing the other, and negative expressiveness are negative (Bevan et al.,2004). Relational progression, the authors explained, could be either positive or negative, depending on whether a persondecided to continue the relationship or not. This set of goals is emerging as the standard battery in serial argument research(Bevan, 2010; Bevan et al., 2004, 2007, 2008; Hample & Allen, 2010; Hample & Krueger, 2011).

The general conclusion of this line of research is that goals are important for serial arguments because they affect thetactics arguers employ during an argument. Earlier work on serial argument tactics analyzed the demand/withdraw pattern.Johnson and Roloff (1998) found that this tactic was negatively associated with the perceived resolvability of an argument, aresult supported in part by Malis and Roloff (2006a), who reported a negative association if the other person was demanding.Further work reported that initiators of serial arguments were more likely to demand whereas targets were more likely towithdraw (Johnson & Roloff, 2000b).

Bevan et al. (2007) studied tactics (integrative, distributive, and avoidant) used in single-episode conflicts in the context ofserial arguments. Integrative tactics reflect a person’s concern for both individuals involved in a conflict and finding solutionsthat benefit both parties. Distributive tactics reflect a high level of concern for one’s own interests at the expense of the otherperson involved in the conflict (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). The tactics a person relies on during anargument can affect the perception the other person has about the outcome of the argument. The use of distributive tactics,for example, makes the argument seem irresolvable (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). In general, integrative tactics are employed whenpositive goals are pursued whereas distributive tactics are employed when negative goals are pursued (Lakey & Canary,2001).


432 D. Hample, I.A. Cionea / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 430– 445

Bevan et al. (2007) found an association between the type of goals an argumentation partner has and the tactics theperson employs. Positive expressiveness and mutual understanding/resolution goals were positively related to integrativetactics and negatively related to distributive tactics. Dominance or control goals, changing one’s target and hurting one’spartner and benefiting the self goals were positively related to distributive tactics and negatively related to integrativetactics. So, positive goals are associated with integrative tactics and negative goals and associated with distributive tactics.Hample and Krueger (2011) confirmed these basic findings, as did Hample and Allen (2010). Avoidance tactics had weakor null relationships with goal and outcome variables in Bevan et al., and are therefore omitted from the present study.Instead, avoidance is represented by the demand/withdraw tactical patterns. A demand/withdraw pattern is one in whichone partner criticizes the other or is somehow aggressive about the controversial matter being discussed, and the otherperson is avoidant (withdraws, leaves, changes the topic, and so forth).

We will hypothesize and conduct a structural equation model of serial arguing. Only a few previous studies are availablefor comparison. Bevan et al. (2008) advanced a model that connected goals and perceived resolvability (as an exogenousvariable, later reconceptualized to be endogenous) with tactics as first-rank endogenous variables, with ruminative thoughtsabout a serial argument (second-rank endogenous variable), and with one’s motivation to achieve goals in a serial argument(third-rank endogenous variable). Both the model for positive goals and the model for negative goals fit the data well.

Hample and Krueger (2011) proposed a model based on Dillard’s (1990a, 1990b, 2004) goal-plan-action model. Goals werethe exogenous variables, along with one’s motivation to engage or avoid an argument. Argumentation tactics were the first-rank endogenous variables and civility, perceived resolvability, and relational satisfaction were second-rank endogenousvariables. The authors reported the model fit was acceptable. Hample and Allen (2010) tested a similar model in organizationsand also reported an acceptable fit.

Adding or deleting variables from a modeled structure can alter even relationships that are common between studies,and each of these investigations had differences of that sort. However, some common patterns are beginning to emerge:positive goals lead to integrative tactics, negative goals to distributive ones, and integrative tactics cause outcomes to bemore positive than distributive tactics do.

The present study proposes a similar SEM model and tests it in inter-ethnic relationships. Our first analytical step is toestablish the internal dynamics of the serial argument processes, temporarily omitting cultural considerations. For this initialanalysis, the seven argumentation goals discussed above constitute the exogenous variables and they are allowed to co-vary.Tactics are the first-rank endogenous variables, whereas civility, perceived resolvability, and relational satisfaction are thesecond-rank endogenous variables. Given previous findings, we expected the model to fit the data well. More specifically,we predict that

H1. In a structural equation model, serial argument goals predict tactics (H1a), and tactics predict civility, resolvability,and relational satisfaction (H1b).

More particularly, we expect that positive goals will have positive paths to integrative tactics; that negative goals willbe positively associated with distributive tactics; that integrative tactics will positively influence the outcome measures;and that high use of distributive tactics will depress favorable argument outcomes. We are not yet entirely confident of theempirical record regarding the demand/withdraw patterns, so we offer no specifics on those points.

2. Culture considerations and their effects on serial arguments

Culture is a learned pattern of behaviors, shared by members of a group and transmitted socially (Aberle, Cohen, Davis,Levy, & Sutton, 1950; Kluckhohn & Kelly, 1945). Culture is an abstraction of a group’s behavioral patterns (Kluckhohn, 1957)and should not necessarily be equated with nationality because multiple cultures can exist within the national boundariesof a country (Aberle et al., 1950).

Different ethnicities, even within one geographic or political unit, can exhibit cultural differences due to different sharedpatterns of behaviors. According to Nagel (1994) ethnicity is constructed based on culture, language, religion, ancestry, andregionality. Ethnicity characterizes a group of people, and hence refers to affiliation to that particular group (Betancourt &López, 1993). The term culture has been used interchangeably with the term ethnicity by scholars (Betancourt & López, 1993)and this is due in part to the fact that ethnicity can be conceptualized as the culture of a particular group within a society(Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994). Ethnicity captures variations between groups with distinct cultural heritage and patternsof behaviors. Ethnicity is multi-faceted, and so we have chosen a set of culturally relevant measures to assess its possiblerelevance to serial arguing. These measures are oriented to the individual experience of ethnicity and culture because wetheorize that a person’s individual registration of ethnicity will be what affects his or her cognitions and behavior in themoment.

There is only one study on cultural variables and serial arguments to our knowledge. Radanielina Hita (2009) studiedthe effect of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism on serial argument behaviors among Malagasy romanticpartners. She found that horizontal collectivism correlated positively with mutual understanding, that horizontal individu-alism increased the likelihood that partners would favor dialogue, and that vertical individualism increased the likelihoodthat partners would focus on meeting their own needs. In the absence of any other literature specific to the conjunction ofculture and serial arguing, we turn to research on intercultural and cross-cultural conflict and negotiation to gain a better



understanding of likely relationships among self-reported cultural measures, goals, tactics, and outcomes. Our selection ofcultural variables is described below.

2.1. Self-construals

Our selection of cultural variables relied on identifying concepts that bridge the interpersonal and intercultural literaturesin ways relevant to our study. In the intercultural literature we identified self-construals as prominent and widely usedconcepts. Cionea and Patel (2008) conducted an analysis of articles published in major intercultural and cross-culturaljournals between 2004 and 2008 and reported that individualism and collectivism (and their individual-level counterparts,the independent and interdependent self-construals) were the most widely used variables in intercultural and cross-culturalresearch. Despite controversy surrounding the concepts (see, for example, Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier’s (2002)meta-analysis of individualism and collectivism and the Levine et al. (2003) analysis of the self-construal scales’ validity), self-construals are influential for the study of cultural psychology phenomena, as noted in a review of the concepts conducted byCross, Hardin, and Gercek-Swing (2001). Moreover, these latter authors noted that self-construals have been found to shapeinterpersonal behavior, from the goals pursued when interacting with others to the behaviors enacted in close relationships.Therefore, self-construals provide us with a reference point for making predictions regarding serial argument behaviors andallow us to situate our study in the context of research detailing the effects of self-construals in interpersonal interaction.

Self-construals are individual-level concepts that assess the relationship between self and others (Markus & Kitayama,1991). The independent self-construal views the self as central, separate from others, with an emphasis on one’s own feelings,thoughts, uniqueness, and expression. The interdependent self-construal views the self in relation to others, highlightingthe social context, and with an emphasis on one’s role within a group, relationships with others, and fitting in or belongingto a group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The two constructs cross, yielding four types of possible people: bi-cultural (highon both independence and interdependence), interdependent, independent, and marginal (low on both independence andinterdependence; Singelis, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).

Self-construals have been used previously to analyze differences between ethnic groups in relation to, for example,anxiety (Okazaki, 1997), distress (Christopher & Skillman, 2009), coping with interpersonal stressors (Lam & Zane, 2004),and classroom preferences (Kobayashi, 2005). Studies analyzing self-construals and serial arguments do not exist to ourknowledge. We rely on research on individualism and collectivism (which are culture-level measures roughly correspondingto the individual-level self-construals) to develop some connections between self-construals and argumentation goals. Thisline of research has treated East Asian countries as collectivistic and the United States as individualistic and has analyzeddifferences between members of these cultures in respect to conflict styles. Findings suggest that Chinese and Taiwanese aremore avoiding and more obliging than Americans and Japanese are (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) and that Taiwanese are moreavoiding, compromising, obliging, and integrating than Americans (Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991). Triandis, Bontempo,Villareal, Asai, and Lucca (1988) reported that Japanese were more likely to prioritize the needs of the group over their ownneeds. Finally, in a study on conflict among ethnic groups in the United States, Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung (2001)found, among other results, that bi-cultural, independent, and interdependent individuals rely more on the integrating andcompromising styles than marginal individuals do, and that bi-cultural individuals use the dominating style more so thaninterdependent and marginal individuals do.

These results suggest that there is a definite connection between self-construals and the ways in which people of differentcultures handle confrontations. If we extend these results to our study, we may reasonably expect that individuals high onthe interdependent self-construal will prefer goals that are oriented toward the two partners or the relationship (i.e., thepositive goals of mutual understanding and positive expressiveness) whereas individuals high on the independent self-construal may prefer negative goals (which center on the self). So we expect that self-construals will exert an influence onthe types of goals one has when engaging in a serial argument. Assuming that H1 is supported, this reasoning further impliesthat self-construals will continue to exert influence on tactics and outcomes via the goals.

2.2. Power distance

According to Dillard, Solomon, and Samp (1996), dominance is one of the fundamental phenomena in interpersonalrelationships and issues of power are likely to be frequent in interpersonal conflict. The need to balance power is relevantfor the study of serial arguments because arguments create an asymmetric distribution of power from moment to moment.As Hutchby (1996) noted, power asymmetry in a relationship derives from the conversation itself. The repeated occurrenceof a serial argument is, in itself, an expression of power in the relationship. Initiators of such episodes claim power as theycontrol the re-occurrence of the argument; they decide whether to bring it up or not. Furthermore, power is directly relatedto the behaviors people enact in close relationships. For example, Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) found that relational partnerswho perceived they had more power in the relationship behaved in a more dominant manner while in a discussion withtheir partner. Power is then likely to influence the goals and strategies people use in a serial argument, and reactions topower differences should be exhibited in people’s orientation to the argument.

When analyzing power across relationships and ethnicities, variations in the extent to which people tolerate differencesin interpersonal influence are relevant, and these variations are adequately captured by the concept of power distance.Power distance refers to the acceptable interpersonal influence in the relationships between a superior and a subordinate



(Hofstede, 2001). It captures the extent to which members of a culture feel comfortable with unequal distributions ofpower. People in low power distance cultures believe they are relatively equal and do not emphasize status differences.People in high power distance cultures accept that power is not distributed evenly and they emphasize status differencesbetween members of the culture (Hofstede, 2001). Although power distance was initially designed to measure differencesbetween superiors and subordinates, the concept can be applied to serial arguments due to the power dynamics that suchsituations create. As mentioned above, the distribution of power is not equal among the two partners involved in a serialargument, so power distance can capture the extent to which partners feel comfortable with the momentary asymmetricpower distribution. Those low in power distance may strive to regain power in serial arguments as they believe both partnersshould be equal whereas those high in power distance may be comfortable with the relative advantage that initiators havein serial arguments.

There are very few studies on the relationship between power distance and conflict styles. Smith, Dugan, Peterson, andLeung (1998) analyzed the effects of power distance on handling disagreement in 23 countries. They found that in highpower distance countries disagreement was frequent and managers relied on procedures and formal rules to resolve it. Inlow power distance countries managers relied on subordinates and co-workers to handle disagreements and, in individualistcountries, on their own experience. These results suggest that when handling disagreement people high in power distancerely on different strategies than people low in power distance. By extension then we can inquire whether power distancewill lead individuals from different ethnic backgrounds to rely on different tactics in serial arguments, which are a form ofdisagreement.

Power distance has been linked to other cultural variables such as individualism and collectivism and self-construals,face concerns, and conflict styles (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai, 2000; Savage, 2007; Ting-Toomey &Oetzel, 2001). We can reasonably expect that it may influence goals in argumentative episodes. In particular, we expectthat high power distance orientations will be associated with negative goals because people high in power distance want tomaintain the unequal distribution of power, or at least are comfortable with it.

2.3. Face concerns

Issues of face are essential in interactions (Goffman, 1967). The presentation of the self to others is essentially a perfor-mance, an exercise in face and facework (Goffman, 1959). Goffman (1959) defined face as the image one seeks to displaywhen interacting with others and facework as the actions one takes to ensure one’s activities are consistent with one’s face(Goffman, 1967). He also explained that each individual and subculture has its own repertoire of practices for saving face(Goffman, 1967). According to Cupach and Metts (1994), face and facework are especially important in the study of closerelationships because they influence the maintenance and potential erosion of such relationships. Face is tied to one’s inter-personal competence and identity. When face is threatened or lost, interactions become disruptive; repeated face loss leadsto enmity and distress (Cupach & Metts, 1994). Face concerns, then, are important when studying a relational interactionsuch as a serial argument because these repeated events constitute a face threat. They resurface old issues and thereforerequire constant facework, especially on behalf of those at the receiving end of a serial argument. We expect face orienta-tions to function as exogenous variables, influencing the goals people have in serial arguments. We also expect that faceconcerns will differ across individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, given the results of previous research about how faceand facework across cultures are enacted in intercultural and cross-cultural settings (see, for example, Ting-Toomey, 1988,1994, 1999, 2004, 2005).

Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed that face is negative or positive. Positive face represents an individual’s concern forapproval of his or her attributes and actions from significant others. Negative face reflects an individual’s concern for his orher autonomy (Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998). Self-face is the concern for one’s own image whereas other-face is theconcern for another person’s image (Ting-Toomey, 2005). These possibilities yield four combinations: self positive face, selfnegative face, other positive face, and other negative face. People naturally differ in the priorities they place on these fourmatters, and ethnic/cultural background may influence those valuings.

Face concerns, goals, and tactics have been linked in previous studies with cultural variables such asindividualism–collectivism, power distance, and self-construals. Oetzel, Myers, Meares, and Lara (2003) found that self-faceconcern was associated positively with dominating conflict styles whereas other-face concern was associated positivelywith integrating, obliging, and compromising conflict styles. Other scholars (Chen, 2002; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) alsofound that other-face concern was associated positively with integrating facework strategies and conflict styles. Researchon individualism–collectivism and face (Cai & Fink, 2002; Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994) found that U.S. Americans are moreconcerned with self-face and use more dominating/competing conflict styles whereas Taiwanese and Chinese are moreconcerned with other-face and use more avoiding and obliging styles.

In light of these findings, it is reasonable to believe that individuals concerned with their own image are likely to rely ondominating goals and strategies such as changing the target and demanding from their partner. If the self-concern regardsone’s positive image, then people are likely to seek goals that diminish the face threatening potential arguments have. On theother hand, concern for one’s autonomy should influence people to report goals that favor such expressions. Dominance andcontrol give a person authority and power in a relationship. Expressing frustration or benefiting one’s self are also forms ofprotecting autonomy. Those who are concerned with achieving these goals should report concerns about their negative face.Finally, concerns for the other person’s face, whether positive or negative, should motivate people to establish goals that



take the other person into account, such as mutual understanding. Thus, face concerns can function as causal antecedentsof serial argument goals. We expect that high orientation to own face will lead to preference for negative goals, and thatconcern for other’s face will lead to adoption of positive goals.

2.4. Masculinity–femininity

The final dimension taken into account in our study is masculine and feminine orientation. We relied on Bem’s (1974)Sex Role Inventory rather than Hofstede’s (2001) masculinity–femininity. The concepts are similar; both investigate genderroles. We preferred the former over the latter instrument due to its reliability. Bem’s Sex Role Inventory has frequentlybeen used in interpersonal research and has been a reliable scale. Hofstede’s instrument for masculinity–femininity haspsychometric problems (Blodgett, Bakir, & Rose, 2008; Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001).

Masculinity is a forceful, aggressive self-image. Femininity is nurturing and cooperative. As with self-construals, these twomeasures cross, yielding four types of people. Those who are high on both masculinity and femininity are called androgynous,and are able to be either masculine or feminine as the situation requires. Undifferentiated people are those who have lowscores on both masculinity and femininity, and for these people gender identity is not especially important. The last twogroups are masculines and feminines; these people have relatively unambiguous and consistent gender identities. We expectthat masculinity will be associated with negative goals, since these are more aggressive and combative. Femininity, on theother hand, should have positive paths to the positive goals.

2.5. Cultural considerations

Our most general expectation is that our subjective measures of culture-relevant variables will affect serial arguing byaffecting their causal starting points, the goals to which people orient in recurring arguments. Thus, we propose

H2. In a structural equation model, culture-relevant variables will affect serial argument goals (H2a), the goals will affectthe tactics (H2b), and the tactics will affect the outcomes (H2c).

Obviously, H2b and H2c do not add much conceptually to H1, but it is possible that including the culture-relevant variableswill alter the relationships within the serial argument system.

H2 mainly specifies that the culture-relevant variables will affect the goals. In fact, we have somewhat more specificexpectations, as we have already mentioned. We expect that the positive goals (mutual understanding and positive expres-siveness) will have positive paths from interdependent self-construals, orientation to other’s face, and femininity. We expectthat the negative goals (hurt other/benefit self, negative expressiveness, dominance, and change other) will be positivelyrelated to high levels of the independent self-construal, orientation to own face, and masculinity.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants in the study were 598 undergraduate students at a large South-Atlantic university. Their age ranged from 18to 37 years (M = 19.94, SD = 1.78). Two hundred and six participants were male and 391 were female. There were a total of 351friendship relationships and 247 romantic relationships. The ethnic distribution of participants was as follows: 314 Euro-Americans, 69 Asian-Americans, 52 African-Americans, 31 Hispanic-Americans, 12 Europeans, 28 Asians, seven Africans, andfive South-Central Americans. Thirty participants self-identified as a combination of the ethnicities listed above, whereas 36self-identified as “other.” Fourteen participants preferred not to answer the question about their ethnicity.

3.2. Procedures

Participants self-selected from undergraduate communication courses. They completed an online questionnaire andreceived extra credit for their participation. The study’s prerequisite condition was for participants to have participatedin a serial argument with a person of a different ethnic or racial background and with whom the respondent had a closerelationship. The study’s description explained what a serial argument was. When completing the questionnaire, participantsfirst gave their consent electronically. Then, participants described their serial arguments, answered items measuring thevariables of interest for the study, and provided demographic information about themselves and their argument partners.Participants read a debriefing statement once finished answering questions. The research was approved by the University’sInstitutional Review Board.

3.3. Instruments

All items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Reliabilities were calculated using the first principal com-ponent, which of course explained the most variance in each scale (Hampson, Goldberg, & John, 1987; Serlin & Kaiser,1976).



Table 1Values taken by k and ! for the transformation equation Y* = (Y + k)(!) .

Variable Value of k Value of !

Hurt01 "1 0.5Hurt02 "1 0.5Hurt03 "1 0.5Hurt04 "1 0.5Hurt05 "1 0.5Hurt06 "1 0.5NegExp01 0 2NegExp02 0 2NegExp03 0 1.5PosExp01 10 2PosExp02 10 2Mutual01 0 2Mutual02 0 2Mutual03 0 2Progress02 0 0.5Distrib01 0 0.5Distrib04 0 0.5Distrib05 0 0.5Integr01 0 2Integr02 0 2Integr03 0 2Integr04 0 2Integr05 0 2Civil04 0 0.5Civil09 0 2Civil10 0 4Resolv01 0 1.5Resolv04 0 0.5Resolv06 0 0.5RelSat09 0 2RelSat10 0 2

3.3.1. Distributional analysisDescriptive statistics and residual plots analyses revealed several of the indicator variables were severely skewed (e.g.,

skewness = 1.048, standard error = .098), either positively or negatively. Skewness informs the researcher how data aredistributed. Most statistical procedures assume the data are symmetrically distributed and so skeweness can affect theresults of statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, factor analysis, structural equations modeling).

Following Fink’s (2009) suggested formula for a single-bend family of transformations, the equation used to transform thedata was: Y* = (Y + k)(!). Table 1 provides a detailed description of the value of k and ! for each transformation for indicatorsin our models.

3.3.2. GoalsA total of 23 items generated by previous research (Bevan et al., 2007) were employed. The scales measured seven types

of goals. The first goal, to hurt one’s partner and benefit the self, was measured with six items. The subscale’s reliability was.96. The second goal, to dominate or control one’s partner, was measured with three items. Reliability was .80. The third setof goals, negative expressiveness, was measured with three items as well. The subscale’s reliability was .88. The fourth typeof goals, positive expressiveness, was measured with two items. The subscale was reliable, .91. The fifth set of goals, changingthe target, was measured with three items. The subscale’s reliability was .87. The sixth set of goals, mutual understanding,was also measured with three items. Reliability was .87. Finally, relational progression was assessed with three items. Thereliability of the subscale was .86.

3.3.3. TacticsBevan et al.’s (2007) six item-scale was employed to measure participants’ use of distributive tactics. Reliability was

.87. Participants’ use of integrative strategies was measured with five items from Bevan et al. (2007) as well. The scale wasreliable, .81. Both demand/withdraw tactics were measured using four items, mostly derived from Johnson and Roloff (1998)and Malis and Roloff (2006b). The reliability for the I demanded/partner withdrew scale was .84 whereas the reliability forthe partner demanded/I withdrew scale was .87.

3.3.4. Outcome measuresPerceived resolvability of the serial argument was measured with six items adapted from previous research (Johnson &

Roloff, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). Reliability was .84. Relational satisfaction was measured with eight items derived from previous



Table 2R2 for endogenous latent variables, and intercorrelations within panels of latent variables.

R2 Resolvability Civility

Resolvability .22Civility .20 .46Rel satisfaction .64 .34 .70

R2 Distributive Integrative I demand

Distributive .49Integrative .61 ".32I demand .23 .19 ".19Other demand .11 .08 ".07 .10

Hurt Mutual NegExp PosExp Progress Change

Mutual ".23NegExp .13 .20PosExp ".24 .74 .29Progress .33 .11 .25 .50Change .17 .10 .46 .40 .25Dominance .32 ".12 .24 ".15 .20 .26

research (Johnson & Roloff, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). The scale was reliable, .91. Finally, civility was assessed with ten items fromHample, Warner, and Young (2009). The scale’s reliability was .76.

We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for the serial argument variables as a group. We retained the threeindicators which explained the most variance for all scales except positive expressiveness for which we retained bothindicators. The model fit the data well, "2 (688, 598) = 1485.13 (p < .001), with "2/df = 2.2, RMSEA = .045 (CI = .042–.048),CFI = .97, and SRMR = .053. As with all other structural equation analyses reported here, we employed maximum likelihoodestimation within LISREL 8.80.

3.3.5. Culture variablesIndependence and interdependence were measured with the Singelis (1994) scale which contains 24 items. The reliability

of the independence scale was .81 and the reliability of the interdependence scale was .82. Power distance was measuredwith the individual-level scale developed by Yoo, Donthu, and Tomasz (2001). The scale has five items and its reliability was.88. Face concerns were measured with items adapted from Cai and Wilson (2000). Self positive face had a reliability of .89,self negative face had a reliability of .81, other positive face had a reliability of .79, and other negative face had a reliability of.80. Finally, masculinity and femininity were measured with 20 items each (Bem, 1974). Reliability was .92 for masculinityand .90 for femininity.

The confirmatory factor analysis for the cultural variables was also conducted with the three indicators that explained themost variance in each latent variable. The model fit was good, "2 (288, 598) = 570.73 (p < .001), with "2/df = 2.0, RMSEA = .041(CI = .036–.046), CFI = .98, and SRMR = .045.

4. Results

Our first objective was to model the serial argument process (H1). This is preliminary to exploring the effects of theculture-level variables, but is also a useful analysis in its own right, because it will promote comparability with the results ofearlier structural equation models of serial arguing. We hypothesized that serial argument goals would influence the tactics(H1a) and that tactics would predict the outcomes (H1b). The exogenous goal variables were allowed to covary, but we didnot permit the tactics or the outcomes to covary. Modification indices suggested paths from civility to resolvability and fromcivility to relational satisfaction, and since these paths were in line with prior work, we included them.

Our model fit the data well. Permitting all the hypothesized paths, we obtained "2 (677, 598) = 1592 (p < .001), with"2/df = 2.4. Other fit statistics were good: RMSEA = .048 (CI = .045–.051), CFI = .96, and SRMR = .066. So, overall H1 receivedsupport: goals predicted tactics, and tactics predicted outcome variables. The endogenous latent variables were tolerablywell predicted for the most part (Table 2), although several produced R2 estimates between .11 and .23. Relational satisfactionwas particularly well predicted (R2 = .64). Table 2 also reports intercorrelations among the panels of latent variables.

The structural model itself is displayed in Fig. 1, which for clarity only displays the statistically significant paths. We reportstandardized gamma and beta coefficients; unstandardized results are available from the authors. Correlations among theexogenous variables are in Table 2.

Of the goals, only mutual understanding did not have direct paths to any of the tactics (nor did it have any significantindirect effects on the outcome measures; see Table 3). Thus, H1a received partial but substantial support. All the tacticshave significant paths coming into them, and significant paths from them to the outcomes. So H1b was supported.

Let us examine the details. The only positive goal having significant effects was positive expressiveness. It was negativelyassociated with the use of distributive tactics or taking the demanding position, but positively predicted the use of integrative



Resolvbty

Civility

RelSat

Distribtv

I Demand

O Demand

Integratv

Mutualty

Progress

NegExp

PosExp

Dominant

Change O

Hurt O

.46

.81

-.13.16

.16

.21

.10

-.22

.27

-.22.20

.17

.20

1.23

-.70

-.64

.36

.38.27

.37-.17

Fig. 1. Standardized coefficients, serial argument variables.

tactics. These results only partly support our expectations about positive goals and their relationship to tactics, because wedid not find parallel results for mutual understanding. Distributive tactics were positively associated with the goals ofchanging the other person and asserting dominance, both negative. In respect to these two goals, our expectations about thegoal-tactic relationships were supported. The goal of hurting other/benefitting self led to presence of the other demands/Iwithdraw sequence. The demand/withdraw pattern in which the respondent is demanding had several predictors: it haddirect associations with several negative goals (negative expressiveness, relational progression, and the wish to change theother person), and an inverse relationship to the positive expressiveness goal. Oddly, the I demand/other withdraws patternwas negatively associated with the goal of asserting dominance.

Table 3Indirect effects.

Resolvability Civility Relational satisfaction

Hurt .02 ".02 .10Mutual ".05 ".13 .01NegExp ".02 ".07 ".03PosExp .04 .07 .05Progress ".11 ".23 ".14Change ".07 ".13 ".05Domin ".04 ".01 .04Distrib ".06 ".11Integr .07 .13IDemandODemand ".10 ".18

Note. Blank cells are set to zero by design. Shaded cells contain coefficients that are not statistically significant.



Table 4R2 for each endogenous latent variable, and intercorrelations within panels of latent variables.

R2 Resolvability Civility

Resolvability .22Civility .20 .10Rel satisfaction .64 .06 .06

R2 Distributive Integrative I demand

Distributive .65Integrative .55 ".29I demand .33 .24 ".17Other demand .15 .13 ".07 .14

R2 Hurt Mutual NegExp PosExp Progress Change

Hurt .47Mutual .36 ".15NegExp .42 .12 .17PosExp .54 ".04 .41 .25Progress .29 .24 .12 .28 .24Change .47 .17 .15 .43 .26 .31Dominance .44 .25 ".06 .22 ".01 .20 .23

Indep Interdep Power Masc Fem SPosFace SNegFace OPosFace

Interdep .58Power ".46 ".57Masc .50 .36 ".35Fem .48 .54 ".49 .69SPosFace .22 .30 ".19 .11 .19SNegFace .17 .14 ".05 .12 .00 .30OPosFace .15 .19 ".12 .10 .18 .58 .08ONegFace .04 .09 .02 ".01 .03 .66 .20 .96

The outcomes were predicted by the tactics. The perception that the argument will eventually be resolved was positivelyassociated with the respondent having taken the demanding position. Relational satisfaction was increased by use of anyof the tactics, suggesting that essentially any sort of arguing activity may have exhibited relational commitment. Civilitywas especially important here because it was a strong positive influence on both relational satisfaction and resolvability.Civility itself was directly promoted by use of integrative tactics, but was reduced when any of the forceful tactics were inuse (distributive or either demand/withdraw pattern). This pattern of findings is in general conformity with our expectationthat integrative tactics would improve all the outcomes and that distributive tactics would worsen outcomes.

These results clarify the dynamics of serial arguing in the current data set. They support our general understanding ofthe serial argument process (H1), and define the target system we hope to explain by use of the culture-relevant variables.

Our primary research interest is to explore the influence of culture-relevant variables on the serial arguing processfor people involved in close inter-ethnic relationships (H2). We expected the culture-relevant variables to influence theargument goals and so to set off the process. Due to identification problems, we found it necessary to permit the culture-relevant variables to have paths to the tactics variables as well. We were unable to permit intercorrelations within the threepanels of serial argument variables (goals, tactics, and outcomes), which should have the effect of reducing the fit of ourtheoretical model to the observed data. Informed by modification indices, we again permitted paths from civility to bothrelational satisfaction and resolvability; both paths were expectable based on previous work.

Our structural model including all the hypothesized paths fit well, with "2 (2033, 598) = 3835 (p < .001), "2/df = 1.9. Otherfit indices were good: RMSEA = .039 (CI = .037–.040), CFI = .96, and SRMR = .058. Thus, H2 received support: the culture levelvariables predicted serial argument goals, goals predicted tactics, and tactics predicted outcomes. R2 for the endogenouslatent variables are in Table 4, and those measures indicate that endogenous variables are nicely predicted by earlier latents.The R2 values range from .15 to .65, with most in the range .40 to .65. Of the outcome variables, only relational satisfac-tion was impressively predicted (R2 = .64). Table 4 also displays the intercorrelations among the latent variables in eachpanel. Particularly interesting are the high correlations between masculinity and femininity (r = .69) and independent andinterdependent self-construals (r = .58). We will address these two correlations in Discussion.

The number of variables and significant paths in our structural equation model makes graphical presentation daunting,and so we have decided to omit it. Since our latent variables were assessed on different metrics, we prefer to presentstandardized results. The statistically significant standardized beta and gamma coefficients are in Table 5. Unstandardizedcoefficients are available from the authors.

Among the culture-relevant exogenous variables, by far the most puissant were those pertaining to face. Both of themeasures bearing on other’s face had significant paths to every goal, and their patterns were essentially opposite. A highlevel of concern for other’s positive face deactivated each of the goals, and high concern for other’s negative face made all



Table 5Standardized gammas (above) and betas (below).

Hurt Mut Neg Exp Pos Exp Prog Chng Domin Distr Integ IDem ODem

Indepen .07 .25 .41 .22 .26 .34 ".02 ".42 .25 ".28 ".28Interdep ".12 .18 .16 .16 ".04 .26 .15 ".12 .24 ".19 ".03Power .33 ".11 ".22 ".18 ".05 ".20 .17 .29 ".03 .32 .16Masc ".02 ".04 ".04 .06 .02 .11 ".09 ".01 .08 ".16 .04Femin .18 .25 .59 .27 .37 .48 .35 ".71 .28 ".44 ".25SPosF ".40 ".24 ".79 ".44 ".59 ".83 ".20 1.13 ".36 .58 .40SNegF .01 ".27 ".29 ".37 ".18 ".41 .39 .59 ".27 .34 .09OPosF "1.70 "1.38 "4.23 "2.60 "3.11 "4.69 "1.70 5.47 "2.48 3.95 1.73ONegF 1.82 1.98 4.65 3.46 3.59 5.13 1.59 "6.34 2.97 "4.33 "1.97

Distrib Integrat IDemand ODemand Resolv Civil RelSat

Hurt .31 ".03 .22 .17Mutual .00 .39 ".01 .01NegExp .28 ".27 .42 .12PosExp .13 .00 .11 .11Progress ".03 ".05 .14 .21Change .47 ".07 .31 ".04Domin .48 " .14 .00 .12Distrib ".07 ".12 .15Integrat .04 .18 .21IDemand .11 ".21 .27ODemand .00 ".21 .20Civil .46 .81

Note. Blank cells are set to zero by design. Shaded cells contain coefficients that are not statistically significant.

the goals more forcible. This pattern of results did not entirely support our expectations, since we thought that orientationto other’s face would only result in positive goals coming to the fore, and dampening the force of the negative goals.

A focus on own positive face made the goals of hurting the other, expressing oneself negatively, making a decision whetherto progress in the relationship, and changing the other person, all less attractive. A strong impulse to protect own negativeface made mutual understanding a less powerful goal, but increased the desire to dominate the other person. The results forown negative face support our expectations, but the paths from own positive face do not. The face measures also predictedthree of the tactics. Distributive tactics were more likely when the respondent was highly concerned about self and other’spositive face, but less likely when other’s negative face was salient. Integrative tactics was associated with high concernabout own positive face and low concern for other’s positive face. The I demand/other withdraws sequence occurred moreoften in the opposite circumstances: high concern for other’s positive face and low concern for other’s negative face.

We may summarize the face issues in this way. First, facework was heavily involved in people’s motivations during a serialargument episode. These measures were the most commonly implicated of all our exogenous variables that predicted goalsand tactics. Second, the more powerful orientation was to other’s face, and here we see opposite patterns when we compareconcern for other’s positive and negative face. The impulse to protect other’s self image reduced motivation to participate inthe serial argument at all. Once engaged, however, the respondent took charge aggressively, preferring distributive tactics andthe demanding position. When respondents reported a high commitment to protecting the other’s negative face, they werealso unusually motivated to participate. Consistent with their interest in promoting the other’s freedom, these respondentsdisavowed distributive tactics and the demanding position, preferring instead to use integrative tactics. Third, orientation toown face had more limited effects. A high level of interest in own self-image was associated with low levels of commitmentto anti-social goals (hurting the other, negative expression, etc.), but it did lead to use of distributive tactics. So the impulseswere friendly, but the actions were aggressive. Focus on own freedom of thought and action reduced interest in mutualunderstanding and increased the desire to dominate.

The other culture-relevant variables had more scattered effects. In fact, interdependent self-construal and masculinityhad no significant paths at all, and only one path apiece appeared for independent self-construal, power, and femininity.None of these variables reached as far as the outcomes. Independent self-construal was associated positively with a high levelof the mutual understanding goal, which was not the detailed result we expected. High power scores positively predictedmotivation to hurt the other, in accord with our expectation on this point. High femininity predicted dominance, which wasan unexpected result. Readers should notice that these variables have some substantial correlations with one another (seeTable 2) and so they can still have indirect effects via other variables’ paths. Notably, however, none of these variables werevery strongly associated with the face measures, and so even the indirect effects were somewhat minor. Indirect effects aredisplayed in Table 6. (The indirect effects of the goal and tactics panels in Table 6 are certainly under-estimated because wewere unable to permit free covariance within panels; cf. Tables 2 and 4.)

The panel of goals predicted the tactics. All the tactics had significant paths coming into them, and the only goal unin-volved in predicting tactics was positive expressiveness (Table 5). Most of the goals are anti-social and these all had similarpatterns. The goals of hurting other/benefitting self, negative expression, evaluating whether to progress in the relationship,



Table 6Indirect effects.

Indep Interdp Power Masc Femin SPosF SNegF OPosF ONegF

Resolv .06 .02 ".06 .01 .03 ".06 ".10 ".20 .33Civil .07 .04 ".12 .04 .02 ".02 ".13 ".18 .32RelSat .07 .09 .03 .01 .04 ".05 ".08 ".40 .59Distrib .31 .23 .01 ".01 .64 ".87 ".12 "4.97 5.37Integ ".05 ".01 .00 .00 ".17 .24 ".04 1.36 "1.28IDem .35 .13 ".10 .02 .51 ".80 ".31 "4.30 4.79ODem .13 .02 .02 ".01 .23 ".33 ".05 "1.76 2.00

Resolvability Civility Relational Sat

Distributive .06 ".10Integrative .08 .15I Demand ".10 ".17O Demands ".10 ".17Hurt ".06 .07 .14Mutuality .05 .07 .14Neg Expression ".08 ".20 ".04Pos Expression ".03 ".06 .02Progress in Relatn ".02 ".08 .00Change Other ".06 ".13 .03Dominance ".09 ".11 ".02

Note. Shaded cells contain estimates that are not statistically significant.

changing the other, and dominance, had the general pattern of a positive relationship to distributive tactics, negative paths tointegrative tactics, and positive paths to both demand/withdraw patterns. Mutual understanding, the only positive goal witha significant path predicting tactics, was positively associated with integrative tactics. In short, the negative goals predictedforceful tactics, and the positive goal led to integrative behaviors. These results are not much changed from the earlier onesthat did not include the culture-relevant variables (H1), and so add support to the developing empirical conclusions aboutgoal–tactic relationships.

Our motivating theory did not call for direct paths from goals to outcomes, but Table 6 shows many significant indirecteffects, indicating that goals’ effects on outcomes were mediated by the tactics. There, too, the positive expressiveness goalwas the only one without any impact, this time on outcomes. This goal was essentially irrelevant to the serial arguingprocess in a statistical sense, but all the others had both direct effects on tactics and indirect effects on outcomes. Comparedto the earlier results that did not include the culture-relevant variables (Fig. 1) the effects of mutual understanding andpositive expressiveness (the two positive goals) have been exchanged to a considerable degree. Mutual understanding wasunimportant in Fig. 1 and positive expressiveness had a strong positive relationship to integrative tactics, but in this analysisthe goals have substituted for one another. These two latent variables correlated at r = .41 in this analysis (Table 4), and atr = .74 in the first one (Table 2).

Finally, the tactics predicted the outcomes. Relational satisfaction was increased by use of any of the tactics, suggestingthat simple participation in a serial argument episode had positive implications for relational satisfaction. Civility increasedwhen integrative tactics were used, and was depressed by any of the forceful tactics. Perceived resolvability increased in thepresence of I demand/other withdraws, and was unaffected by the other tactics. Importantly, civility had strong influenceson both relational satisfaction and perceived resolvability. Indirect effects of tactics on outcomes are in Table 6.

5. Discussion

We wish to begin by discussing two correlations that surprised us at first, but which we now believe we can explain. AsTable 4 shows, masculinity and femininity correlated at r = .69, and independent and interdependent self-construals werealso highly associated (r = .58). Both correlations are substantial and positive. (Since the correlations are between latentvariables, they are essentially corrected for attenuation due to measurement error.) Our initial surprise occurred because weshared the common understanding that these pairs of measures were alternatives to one another. They are not understoodas opposites, because both gender identity and self-construals have been theorized to cross, meaning that a particular personcan be high on both paired measures, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. But they are alternative orientations,and so should not be likely to have high positive (or negative) correlations across an entire sample.

We believe that they correlate so highly in our study because every one of our respondents self-identified as being in aninter-ethnic relationship. People who voluntarily enter into, maintain, and value such relationships might well be distinctfrom people who have not or would not. Making a mutual life space with someone from a different ethnicity would seem torequire one of two patterns, unless the two people are fortunate enough to match in the first place. We take our cue from thetheorizing about gender identity. Androgynous people have high scores for both masculinity and femininity, and are ableto enact whichever identity the moment calls out. We speculate that this corresponds theoretically to the people who arelabeled bi-cultural, those who have high scores on both independent and interdependent self-construal. These individuals



should be able to act independently or interdependently as the situation requires. In other words, the people who have highscores on two paired alternative measures are flexible. But having pairs of high scores is not the only way to produce a highpositive correlation in a sample; pairs of low scores will accomplish the same result. People who have low scores on bothmasculinity and femininity are called undifferentiated. Their gender identities are minor elements of self and are unassertivein interaction and reflection. Marginals are the people who have low scores on both independence and interdependence.For them, these cultural orientations are unimportant to personal identity, and so should not be much expressed duringcommunication episodes or reflections on them. Thus, people who have low scores on both measures in a pair are imperviousto those identity issues.

We speculate that both flexible and impervious people are well-suited to inter-ethnic relationships. The flexible peoplecan adapt to whatever gender or cultural identity their partner is projecting and valuing. The impervious people do nottake much notice of these matters and are willing to tolerate either sort of identity projection, if they register it at all. Amore detailed look at Table 4 reveals that in addition to the within-pair correlations we have highlighted, all four elementsof the two pairs were substantially and positively correlated (e.g., independent self-construal correlates with femininity atr = .48). This suggests that flexibility and imperviousness extend beyond either pair individually. These may be quite generalcharacteristics, implying that there may be other rough opposites that the flexibles experience at simultaneously high levels,and that impervious people experience at equally low levels. Our data only concern inter-ethnic relationships, of course,but this reasoning easily projects to intercultural relationships and interactions. Pursuing this line of theory might well beproductive.

The remainder of this section deals with the matters that motivated the study, the nature of serial arguing and itsconnection to culture-relevant variables. Our empirical description of serial arguing processes (Fig. 1) is comparable inmany respects to the results of earlier efforts to generate a structural equation model of serial arguments (Bevan et al.,2008; Hample & Allen, 2010; Hample & Krueger, 2011). These studies did not use precisely the same variables, they didnot explore the same argumentative domains (close relationships, organizational arguments, and classroom arguments),and the modeling was not done with exactly the same technical decisions. Still, some similarities emerge across the fourstudies (including the present one). Distributive tactics are caused by negative goals. Dominance appears in this role inall four studies. Integrative tactics follow from positive goals in all four studies, but mutual understanding and positiveexpressiveness trade off this function from study to study. These two goals are positively correlated (r = .74 in Table 2,for instance) and so obviously share common variance. The demand/withdraw tactics do not have a consistent record inregard to their causative goals. Integrative tactics result in higher levels of civility and/or some sort of positive climate(for organization, classroom, or inter-ethnic relationships) in all three studies that have information about these outcomes.Results for the other tactics and outcomes are uneven. The inconsistent results can be attributed to various design andanalytical differences among the studies as well as bad theory, so it is hard to evaluate non-matching findings. But for theseseveral results to appear across domains (inter-ethnic relationships, close relationships, classrooms, and organizations) andanalytical decisions is encouraging. We may be approaching the point where we can make more specific hypotheses aboutthe details of our structural models of serial arguing.

Finally, what effects do cultural orientations have on serial arguing? With the exception of Radanielina Hita (2009), weknow of no other reports that even approach cultural issues as closely as this study of inter-ethnic relationships does. Wefound (Table 5) that the culture-relevant variables do, in fact, affect the goals that set off the serial arguing episodes. By farthe most important of the exogenous variables were those concerning facework orientations. And of those, the two dealingwith other’s face, positive or negative, were most important. Both of the other-face measures had significant paths into everyone of the serial argument goals, and into all the tactics except other demanded/I withdrew. Concern for other’s negative faceincreased the level of every goal. This suggests that, whatever the substantive issue of the serial argument, our respondentswere very much attuned to the necessity of protecting the other person’s freedom of thought and action, and in fact thisnecessity helped stimulate involvement in the argument. Worry about other’s positive face, in contrast, reduced motivationto argue.

These were the most important findings connecting culture-relevant variables to serial arguing. We frankly do not knowif this pattern is unique to inter-ethnic relationships because the culture measures have not been used in any earlier studiesof serial argument. Whether unique to this domain or not, however, the results indicate that orientation to other’s face maybe a powerful orientation in serial arguing.

6. Limitations and future directions

The most obvious limitations of the present study are its use of college students’ self-reports and its focus on inter-ethnicrelationships in the U.S. College populations are actually a good place to look for inter-ethnic relationships because largeuniversities are quite diverse and offer easy social access to people of different backgrounds. However, the relationshipsthemselves are inherently recent, and it would be interesting to explore our questions in the context of close relationshipsthat are decades old. This study, by being situated in the U.S., had a Western culture at its base, and it would also be interestingto see if the results of serial argument studies in inter-ethnic relationships from other cultural surrounds would be the sameor different from those reported here.

Although we think that inter-ethnic relationships are interesting in their own right, we would welcome more cross-cultural and intercultural work on serial arguments. We have mentioned one study conducted in Madagascar (Radanielina



Hita, 2009) and have recently learned of another using Romanian data (Cionea & Hopârtean, 2011). While the first of theseused a selection of variables that does not line up well with those in the present study, the Romanian investigation is similarto our results in both outline and results regarding serial argument dynamics. We are unaware of any intercultural researchon serial arguing, and suggest that the present study might help form a basis for such an effort.

References

Aberle, D. F., Cohen, A. K., Davis, A. K., Levy, M. J., Jr., & Sutton, F. X. (1950). The functional prerequisites of society. Ethics, 60, 100–111, doi:10.1086/290705.Betancourt, H., & López, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629–637. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.48.6.629Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215Bevan, J. L. (2010). Serial argument goals and conflict strategies: A comparison between romantic partners and family members. Communication Reports,

23, 52–64. doi:10.1080/08934211003598734Bevan, 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.xBevan, J. L., Hale, J. L., & Williams, S. L. (2004). Identifying and characterizing goals of dating partners engaging in serial argumentation. Argumentation and

Advocacy, 41, 28–40. http://www.americanforensics.org/AA/aa info.htmlBevan, J. L., Tidgewell, K. D., Bagley, K. C., Cusanelli, L., Hartstern, M., Holbeck, D., et al. (2007). Serial argumentation goals and their relationships to perceived

resolvability and choice of conflict tactics. Communication Quarterly, 55, 61–71. doi:10.1080/0146337 0600998640Blodgett, J. G., Bakir, A., & Rose, G. M. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 339–349.

doi:10.1108/0736376081 0902477Bresnahan, M. J., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Ohashi, R., & Mosher, D. (2002). Personal and cultural differences in responding to criticism in three countries.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 93–105. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00097Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict styles differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69, 67–87.

doi:10.1080/03637750216536Cai, D. A., & Wilson, S. R. (2000). Identity implications of influence goals: A cross-cultural comparison of interaction goals and facework. Communication

Studies, 51, 307–328. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10510974.aspChen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. Chen, & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp.

3–17). Westport, CT: Ablex.Christopher, M. S., & Skillman, G. D. (2009). Exploring the link between self-construal and distress among African American and Asian American college

students. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 44–56. Retrieved from http://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=sppfac&sei-redir=1#search=%22ethnic%20differences%20self%20construals%22.

Cionea, I. A., & Hopârtean, A.-M. (2011, November). Serial arguments: An exploratory investigation in Romania. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Cionea, I. A., & Patel, S. R. (2008, November). Intercultural research: A review of trends in intercultural literature as reflected by articles published. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90018-3

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2001). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142–179.doi:10.1177/1088868310373752

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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). Philadelphia, 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.Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703–723.

doi:10.1177/009365096023006004Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 22, 207–233. doi:10.1177/0265407505050944Fink, E. L. (2009). The FAQs on data transformation. Communication Monographs, 76, 379–397. doi:10.1080/03637750903310352Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York, NY: Anchor Books.Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Grindsted, A. (1991). Argumentative styles in Spanish and Danish negotiation interaction. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A.

Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 725–733). Amsterdam: International Society for the Studyof Argumentation.

Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. 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, CA.Hample, D., & Krueger, B. (2011). Serial arguments in classrooms. Communication Studies, 62, 1–21. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.576746Hample, D., Warner, B., & Young, D. (2009). Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation, 23, 21–37. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9107-xHampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., & John, O. P. (1987). Category-breadth and social-desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Journal of Personality,

1, 241–258. doi:10.1002/per.2410010405Hazen, D. M., & Inoue, N. (1991). Argument processes and informal logic: The case of Japan and the United States. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.

A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (pp. 734–745). International Society for the Study ofArgumentation: Amsterdam.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443–463.

doi:10.1080/03637750701716578Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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 relationalharm. Argumentation, 14, 1–15. doi:10.1023/A:1007837310258

Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Kazoleas, D. C. (1995, November). Living with argumentatives: The impact of argumentativeness on issue closure and serial arguments. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.Kluckhohn, C. (1957). The study of culture. In L. A. Coser, & B. Rosenberg (Eds.), Sociological theory: A book of readings (pp. 49–63). New York, NY:

MacMillan.Kluckhohn, C., & Kelly, W. H. (1945). The concept of culture. In R. Linton (Ed.), The science of man in the world crisis (pp. 78–106). New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.Kobayashi, F. (2005). Self-construal, ethnic identity, and classroom organization preferences: Findings from Black, Hispanic, and White college students. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED490381.pdfLakey, 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, AZ.Lam, A. G., & Zane, N. W. S. (2004). Ethnic differences in coping with interpersonal stressors: A test of self-construals as cultural mediators. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 446–459. doi:10.1177/0022022104266108Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2003). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication

Research, 29, 291–308. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00840.xMalis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006a). Demand/withdraw patterns in serial arguments: Implications for well-being. Human Communication Research, 32,

198–216. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00009.xMalis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006b). Features of serial arguing and coping strategies: Links with stress and well-being. In B. A. LePoire, & R. M. Dailey (Eds.),

Applied interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 39–66). New York: Peter Lang.Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2007, May). Communication during serial arguments: Connections with individuals’ mental and physical well-being. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 223–253.

doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41, 152–176. doi:10.1525/sp.1994.41.1.030430nNorenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653–684.

doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00082-4Ohbuchi, K., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behavior social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1345–1366.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01647.xOetzel, J. G., Myers, K., Meares, M., & Lara, E. (2003). Interpersonal conflict in organizations: Explaining conflict styles via face-negotiation theory. Commu-

nication Research Reports, 20, 105–155. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face-negotiation theory. Communication

Research, 30, 599–624. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., & Takai, J. (2000). A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative

strangers. Communication Quarterly, 48, 397–419. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841Okazaki, S. (1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian American and White American college students on measures of depression and anxiety.

Journal of. Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52–60. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.52Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.

Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialects and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.54.9.741Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1990). Japanese and American tendencies to argue. Psychological Reports, 66, 802.Prunty, A. M., Klopf, D. W., & Ishii, S. (1991). Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research

Reports, 7, 75–79.Radanielina Hita, M. (2009, May). 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.Savage, M. (2007, November). The effects of self-construal and perceptions of power distance on communication apprehension and argumentativeness.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.Serlin, R. C., & Kaiser, H. F. (1976). A computer program for item selection based on maximum internal consistency. Educational and Psychological Measure-

ment, 36, 757–759. doi:10.1177/001316447603600328Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.

doi:10.1177/0146167294 205014Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., Peterson, M. F., & Leung, K. (1998). Individualism: Collectivism and the handling of disagreement. A 23 country study. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 351–367. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00012-1Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede values survey module 1994: A

comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 50, 269–281. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00058Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.

213–235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Face and facework. In J. Mio, J. Trimble, P. Arredondo, H. Cheatham, & D. Sue (Eds.), Key words in multicultural interventions (pp.

125–127). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural

training (3rd ed., pp. 217–248). Oaks, CA: Sage.Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.

71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S.-L., et al. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A

study in five cultures. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296. doi:10.1108/eb022702Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 22, 187–225. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict management styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87-104. Retrieved from

http://www. westcomm.org/publications/comm reports.asp.Tinsley, C. H. (1998). Models of conflict resolution in Japanese, German, and American cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 316–323. doi:10.1037//0021-

9010.83.2.316http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F%2F0021-9010.83.2.316Trapp, R., & Hoff, N. (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 1–11.Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323Trickett, E. J., Watts, R. J., & Birman, D. (1994). Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S. L. (1991). The influence of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 15, 65–84. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(91)90074-Q

Warnick, B., & Manusov, V. (2000). The organization of justificatory discourse in interaction: A comparison within and across cultures. Argumentation, 14,381–404, doi:10.1023/A:1007832910904.

Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, G. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application toseeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64–96. doi:10.1111/j. 1468-2958.1998.tb00437.x

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Tomasz, L. (2001). Measuring cultural values: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Working paper, Georgia State University, Atlanta,GA.

Young, L. W. L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 72–84). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Yu, T. H., & Wen, W. C. (2004). Monologic and dialogic styles of argumentation: A Bakhtinian analysis of academic debates between Mainland China and

Taiwan. Argumentation, 18, 369–379. doi:10.1023/B:ARGU.0000046730.40288.4

Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships (Hample & Cionea, 2012)

Documents

Transcript of Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships (Hample & Cionea, 2012)