A Fresh Perspective 1 Researching Family Conflict: A … online/readings/parent...A Fresh...
Transcript of A Fresh Perspective 1 Researching Family Conflict: A … online/readings/parent...A Fresh...
A Fresh Perspective
Researching Family Conflict: A Fresh Perspective
Abstract
Conflict occurs more often in family units than any other and such conflict is most
intense during a child’s transition into adulthood, especially during adolescence (Sillars, Canary,
& Tafoya, 2004). In an effort to understand family conflict, specifically between mothers and
daughters, fathers and sons, and siblings, this study considers previous research conducted on (1)
the conflict strategies used in managing conflict, (2) communication traits, such as verbal
aggression and argumentativeness, that influence such behaviors, and (3) the impact of
individual differences on conflict. More specifically, in examining conflict strategies, the review
of literature explores how conflict strategies correlate with parenting styles and family
environments. For instance, results of Pecchioni and Nussbaum’s (2001) study indicated that
when mothers used fewer controlling strategies (i.e., persistent arguing, verbal force, negative
evaluation) during conflict, daughters had higher levels of involvement, which resulted in greater
motivation, on the behalf of the daughter, to use more compromising and collaborating conflict
strategies. A similar concept can be found when exploring the relationship between verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness to parenting styles. To understand this relationship one
must consider the impact of social and biological factors on the development of such conflict
behaviors. Comparisons of family relationships to relationships outside of the family likewise
contribute to the understanding of family interactions. An examination of the literature then
yields a set of knowledge claims and directions for future research. While the knowledge claims
recognize what researchers know about family conflict, the directions for future research offer a
fresh perspective on family conflict.
Researching Family Conflict: A Fresh Perspective
1
A Fresh Perspective
Conflict occurs more often in family units than any other and such conflict is most
intense during a child’s transition into adulthood, especially during adolescence (Sillars, Canary,
& Tafoya, 2004). Montemayer (1986) found that parents and adolescents engaged in at least two
intense conflicts per week (as in Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). Even more conflicts were
experienced between siblings (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). For this reason, conflict is a
popular topic for researchers to examine. Despite the numerous amounts of research conducted
on family conflict, the frequency of conflict among the members of the family makes this topic
worthy of further study. Lastly, researchers still question the influence of biologically based
communication traits (Bayer & Cegala, 1992) and sex differences (Laursen & Collins, 1998;
Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998; Renk et al., 2005) on family conflict.
In an effort to understand family conflict, specifically between mothers and daughters,
fathers and sons, and siblings, this study will consider the previous research conducted on (1) the
conflict strategies used in managing conflict, (2) some communication traits that influence such
behaviors, and (3) the impact of individual differences on conflict. Comparisons of family
relationships to relationships outside of the family likewise contribute to the understanding of
family interactions. Lastly, a set of knowledge claims and directions for future research will be
offered.
Before exploring this research, it is essential to define interpersonal conflict. Scholars
define interpersonal conflict as an expressed struggle between two interdependent parties over
scarce rewards and resources with perceived incompatible goals (Hocker & Wilmont, 1995). It
becomes evident from this definition that expressing struggle requires communication.
Likewise, managing such conflict requires communication. The first section will examine the
conflict strategies employed when engaging in family conflict.
Conflict Strategies
2
A Fresh Perspective
Research has found that there are multiple strategies that people use to manage conflict
(Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993; Noeller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Rahim & Magner, 1995) and such
strategies are used consistently (Leung, 1987, 1988; Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Sternberg &
Soriano, 1984; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). While researchers disagree about how to label the
strategies people use to approach conflict, this paper focuses on the five styles presented by
Rahim and Magner (1995). These strategies are avoiding, accommodating, confronting,
compromising, and collaborating.
People who employ avoiding strategies retreat from the issue on a physical and/or
emotional level (as in Dumlao & Botta, 2000). Communicatively, they change the topic,
disclose little, and stop communicating to get away from the issue. Accommodators usually put
the needs and concerns for others above their own and usually allow the other person to have
what they want. Those people who employ confronting are usually aggressive in achieving what
they want with no concern for the other person’s needs or desires. Confronting individuals are
inflexible and tend to escalate conflict. Compromising works to achieve what both individuals
want or need. Both parties involved give up something but both also gain something. While this
strategy uses low to moderate amounts of self-disclosure, they are intermediately assertive and
cooperative in their communication. Lastly, when collaborating occurs, the individuals work to
redefine the conflict in order to find a solution to meet both party members’ needs. This style
requires high levels of disclosure and discussion of perceptions (as in Dumlao & Botta, 2000).
The use of these strategies then influences the dynamic of the interpersonal relationship
within the family unit. For instance, researchers have found a connection between the use of
conflict strategies and parenting styles (Pecchioni & Nussbaum, 2001). A study conducted by
Pecchioni and Nussbaum (2001) interviewed 36 pairs of mothers and daughters to measure the
level of involvement, level of regard, existence of disagreement, and conflict between the dyad.
3
A Fresh Perspective
Results of the study indicated that when mothers used fewer controlling strategies (i.e., persistent
arguing, verbal force, negative evaluation) during the conflict, daughters had higher levels of
involvement. An individual was considered more involved when she made suggestions or
offered alternatives during the paired interviews. Someone who just agreed with the
communication partner was considered less involved. Daughters who felt less involvement in
their relationships with their mothers, likewise, had less motivation to use compromising or
collaborating conflict strategies, promoting confrontation during conflict. Overall, summary
scores revealed that despite their preferred conflict strategies, mothers used more non-
confrontational or avoiding and accommodating. Daughters, on the other hand, used more
solution-oriented or collaborating and compromising strategies.
Beyond parenting styles, Dumlao and Botta (2000) found that the entire family
communication environment affected how individuals engaged in conflict. In this study, the
researchers examined how family communication patterns influenced the manners in which
college students approached conflict with their fathers. Researchers in this study explained four
family environments: (1) laissez-faire, (2) protective, (3) pluralistic, and (4) consensual. Laissez-
faire family environments were loosely connected and “emotionally divorced” from each other.
Children of laissez-faire fathers used more collaborating, accommodating, and confronting
conflict styles. However, they learned such conflict strategies by turning outside the family.
While lassiez-faire families were less concerned about family connections, persons in
protective family environments perceived conflict as a serious threat to the integrity of the family
unit; therefore, conformity was essential (Dumlao & Botta, 2000). Respondents in protective
families were more likely to avoid conflict with their father because addressing the issue
disrupted the family. When they did not avoid, they employed more accommodating strategies.
Pluralistic environments placed greater value on communication and essentially “thrived on
4
A Fresh Perspective
conflict.” Instead of promoting conformity, these families promoted conversation. Participants
with a pluralistic father were skilled in collaboration techniques. They did not use collaboration
to confront but rather to meet everyone’s expressed needs. Lastly, consensual families
encouraged open communication, but only if it promoted the beliefs of the parents. Children of
these fathers used more collaborative strategies and fewer accommodating (Dumlao & Botta,
2000).
Overall, this section explored the conflict strategies commonly employed in interpersonal
dyads. These strategies have been found to correlate with parenting styles. The conflict
strategies and parenting styles explain the common communication behaviors employed in the
family and contribute to understanding how conflict is managed within the family. Other
contributing factors are communication traits like verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness.
The next section of this paper will explore these traits.
Communication Traits
In examining family conflict, this part of the paper will consider the role of verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness in managing conflict. Verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness are two communication traits that have been found to predict better
communication behavior than personality traits (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Verbal aggression is
explained by researchers as communication that attacks another person’s self-concept (Infante,
1987; Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996; Infante & Wigley, 1986). Verbal aggressiveness is an
expression of hostility because it hurts person(s) involved. Argumentativeness, on the other
hand, is communication that attacks a position when one is defending his or her own position
(Infante, 1987; Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996). This form of aggressive behavior concentrates on
content instead of on people (Bayer & Cegala, 1992).
5
A Fresh Perspective
In examining verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness in family conflict, scholars
have viewed these communication traits from a social cognitive theory perspective (Bandura,
1977, 1986) as well as a biological perspective. Both perspectives offer useful implications for
family interactions. Therefore, both will be discussed.
A study conducted by Martin and Anderson (1997) examined verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness using social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), which suggests that
people learn communication behaviors from their own experiences as well as from observing
others’ interactions. Participants in this study included 160 students and their parents (N=320).
Each participant completed Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness Scale, Richmond
and McCroskey’s (1990) Assertiveness-Responsiveness Measure, and Infante and Wigley’s
(1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale. Canonical correlation analyses revealed that daughters
who were high in argumentativeness, but low in verbal aggressiveness had mothers who were
likewise high in argumentativeness and low in verbal aggressiveness. The same was true for
sons who were low in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness. Surprisingly,
correlations revealed no significant relationship between fathers and daughters and sons. The
researchers suggest that these results may reflect the common caregiving role taken on by the
mother. The greater amount of time shared between a mother and offspring influences the
children to model the mother’s communication traits (Martin & Anderson, 1997).
From a biological perspective, which suggests that people are predisposed to verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness, these findings would suggest that these communication
traits are predominantly carried by women. Communibiological theorists argue that
environmental factors do not accurately explain communication behaviors (Beatty &
McCroskey, 1997; Eysenck, 1986). In fact, meta-analytic research (Lish, Savoussi, & Caccaro,
6
A Fresh Perspective
1996) revealed that the magnitude of environmental factors, although significant, displayed too
small of a magnitude to explain communication behaviors.
Some researchers of conflict in family take this perspective. For instance, Bayer and
Cegala (1992) examined the relation of predispositions for verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness to parenting styles. Two hundred thirty-three parents and legal guardians of
elementary school age children completed the Parents Report (Dibble & Cohen, 1974), Verbal
Aggressiveness Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986), and Verbal Argumentativeness Scale (Infante,
1981; Infante & Gorden, 1985; Infante & Rancer, 1982). Parenting behavior was identified as
authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive (Bayer & Cegala, 1992).
Authoritative parents were identified as parents who used reason to gain their children’s
compliance and encouraged communication exchange to reach an agreement with the children
(Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Authoritarian parents were identified as being highly demanding and
concurrently insensitive to children’s needs. Lastly, permissive parents were reluctant to engage
in disagreements and often used guilt in conflict (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Researchers found
that a predisposition to verbal aggressiveness was associated with the authoritarian parenting
style, while argumentativeness was positively correlated with the authoritative parenting style
(Bayer & Cegala, 1992).
The explanation of these parenting styles suggests that they contribute to the earlier
discussed family environments (i.e., laissez-faire, protective, pluralistic, consensual). For
instance, Bayer and Cegala’s (1992) description of authoritative parents correlates with the
depiction of pluralistic and consensual family environments. Authoritarian parents and laissez-
faire complement each other, as well as permissive parents and protective family environments.
Deductive reasoning, therefore, allows one to assume that verbal aggression is more common in
7
A Fresh Perspective
lassiez-faire environments and argumentativeness is common among pluralistic and consensual
family environments.
From the biological perspective, the predisposition to verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness overpower the societal influences. In other words, the biological perspective
would suggest that children who are low in verbal aggressiveness but have authoritarian parents,
who are shown in Bayer and Cegala’s (1992) study to be more verbally aggressive, would
employ more argumentativeness. On the other hand, this would suggest that children who are
low in argumentativeness but have authoritative parents, who are strongly associated with
argumentativeness, would employ greater verbal aggressiveness because of their biological
predisposition. These concerns have yet to be addressed in family conflict literature.
Just as social cognitive theory suffers a few weaknesses, the biological argument cannot
stand alone. A strict biological perspective ignores that people still have to be taught to use the
predisposition they are given. For instance, there are people who are naturally better speakers,
but it is not until they are taught communicating skills that they know how to use their natural
ability. Similarly, those predisposed to high levels of argumentativeness and low levels of verbal
aggressiveness who are constantly exposed to managing conflict in a hostile manner, probably do
not know how to construct a message to demonstrate their argumentativeness. They are not
taught the skills necessary to practice what feels natural to them. Infante, Trebing, Shepherd,
and Seeds (1984) explain this as an argumentative skills deficiency (ASD). Infante et al.’s
(1984) research found that training in argumentation could shrink the probability for a person to
rely on verbal aggression when confronting an issue. This concept suggests that parents can train
their children who are low in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness to control and
manage their natural tendencies. For this reason, it is important to examine these characteristics
8
A Fresh Perspective
of family conflict from both biological and social cognitive theory perspectives. Moreover,
examining family conflict is important because of the impact it has on relationship satisfaction.
Depending on how the conflict is managed, the struggle between parents and adolescents
can have an impact on the satisfaction in the relationship. The most detrimental combination of
communication behaviors employed during conflict has been identified in research as
demand/withdraw (Caughlin & Malis, 2004). This pattern of behaviors occurs when one partner
criticizes or nags and the other avoids the issue. The description of demand/withdraw
relationships seems to suggest that lassiez-faire family environments with authoritarian parenting
styles, and higher levels of verbal aggressiveness creates the most unsatisfactory parent-
adolescent relationship. The combination of these predictors has been ignored in research, so
such a relationship is not statistically supported. Moreover, these characteristics do not explain
the characteristics employed by adolescents who demand and parents who withdraw which,
according to Caughlin and Malis (2004), does occur. Therefore, demand/withdraw interactions
in the family require more examination of the actual communication behaviors that occur.
Due to the more hostile environment that verbal aggressiveness creates, scholars have
questioned if parents reduce their verbal aggressiveness when they are prepared to address the
conflict. In other words, if a parent is given time to plan how to address the situation, will verbal
aggression occur less in the interaction? While some researchers (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997;
Beatty & McCroskey, w/Valencic, 2001; Gray, 1991) would claim “yes” according to research
on neurobiologically based systems, specifically the fight or flight system, a study found
conducted by Beatty, Burant, Dobos, and Rudd’s (1996) found something different.
Beatty, et al. (1996) examined fathers’ verbal plans for anticipated conflict with sons and
assessed the appropriateness and effectiveness of these interaction plans. Participants included
64 fathers of undergraduate college age sons recruited from an Interpersonal communication
9
A Fresh Perspective
course. Participants completed the Verbal Aggressiveness scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986) and
responded to a scenario of a misbehaving son. In their response, the participants were asked to
write out a detailed action plan of gaining a misbehaving son’s compliance. Appropriateness and
effectiveness of the plan were then rated by 234 undergraduate students. Appropriateness of the
plan was rated using Burleson, Wilson, Waltman, Goering, Ely, and Whaley’s (1988) bi-polar
items, which assessed polite-impolite, considerate-inconsiderate, socially appropriate-socially
inappropriate, and follows social expectations-violates social expectations of tactics used by
fathers. Effectiveness was rated according to differential scales provided by Berger and Bell
(1988).
Results of Beatty, et al.’s (1996) study indicated a significant inverse relationship
between verbal aggressiveness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction
plans. In other words, verbally aggressive fathers were less likely to create appropriate and
effective plans. Further analysis revealed that as time progressed, all of the father’s strategies
became less appropriate and were perceived as less effective. However, the decline in
appropriateness and effectiveness was most prevalent among high verbally aggressive fathers.
These findings suggest that even when verbally aggressive fathers desire to behave in a rational,
thoughtful manner, their plans are consistently less appropriate. In other words, they resort to
their verbally aggressive tendencies.
Sometimes family relational partners do not realize the nature of their verbal aggression.
Beatty, Zelley, Dobos, and Rudd (1994) found that while fathers employed sarcasm and criticism
in a joking manner when relating with their sons, sons perceived such behavior as verbally
aggressive. More specifically, results from this study revealed that fathers’ verbal aggression
accounted for 30% of the variance in sarcasm and criticism. Univariate analyses indicated that
fathers’ sarcasm accounted for 25% of sons’ perceptions of overall verbal aggression. Criticism
10
A Fresh Perspective
explained 16% of sons’ perceptions of verbal aggressiveness. Argumentativeness, on the other
hand, did not show significant relations to sarcasm or criticism. These findings suggest that
fathers who are more verbally aggressive are more likely to use criticism and sarcasm than
fathers who are high in argumentativeness (Beatty et al., 1994). Likewise, fathers who use more
sarcasm and criticism are perceived as more verbally aggressive.
The research presented thus far demonstrates the common conflict strategies used in
family conflict, how those strategies as well as verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness
influence parenting styles, and two different perspectives for examining communication traits
and behaviors in family conflict. While researchers question environmental factors on verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness, research supports the influence of individual differences,
like age and sex, on conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to examine these factors in family
conflict. It is of equal importance to understand the influence conflict with family has on
interactions with those outside the family and personal development. The next sections examine
these areas of research.
Impact of Individual Differences on Conflict
Just as conflict differs according to biological factors, such as verbal aggressiveness and
argumentativeness, researchers have found differences according to age and sex. The following
studies support the influence of these factors on conflict in families.
Two of the most influential individual differences on conflict, primarily in parent-
adolescent conflict, are age and sex. More specifically, studies suggest that adolescents’ age and
sex influences what the dyad gets into conflict about. Likewise, the age and sex of the
participants determined the frequency and intensity of the conflict.
Studies show that conflict occurs more frequently during early adolescence than during
mid to late adolescence (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). However, negative affect is greater
11
A Fresh Perspective
during mid-adolescence than early adolescence. This implies that while the rate of conflict
decreases with age, the intensity of the conflict increases as the adolescent ages. However,
Resse-Weber (2000) suggests that as adolescents aged, they employed less confrontational
management strategies. More specifically, while middle adolescents employed more attack
resolution strategies (i.e., confrontational), late adolescents used more compromising (Reese-
Weber, 2000). Studies examined in Laursen et al.’s (1998) meta-analysis have also questioned
the influence of the pubertal stage of the adolescent in addition to age. Other than the possibility
of having an influence on increasing negative affect, the pubertal stage of the adolescent lacked
statistical significance on parent-adolescent conflict (Laursen & Collins, 1998).
While overall the characteristics of conflict changed with age, these characteristics
slightly differentiated according to the sex of the parent and the child. To demonstrate, the
magnitude of conflict between mothers and daughters, as well as mothers and sons, experienced
a small to moderate decline as the adolescents aged (Laursen & Collins, 1998). While fathers
and daughters experienced a small decline, fathers and sons saw a slight increase during early to
mid-adolescence (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). Sons reported more behavioral problems than
daughters with both mothers and fathers (Renk et al., 2005). Mothers had a similar perception of
their sons. Sons also reported that a more common conflict topic they had with their fathers was
“material possessions,” such as televisions and computers. From fathers’ perspectives,
disagreements with daughters were commonly about “peer group issues” (i.e., accompanying
friends to activities, dating). During a daughter’s adolescence, parents start to intensify the
concern of whereabouts of adolescent daughters more than sons (Renk et al., 2005).
Together, age and sex influence the topics of conflict that occurred in various parent-
adolescent dyads. For instance, researchers found that early adolescents identified arguing with
mothers about rules and household tasks, and both early and late adolescents selected the same
12
A Fresh Perspective
problem with fathers (Renk et al., 2005). Late adolescents noted more conflict with mothers
about the mothers’ behavior. Mothers noticed more school issues as topics during early
adolescence but fathers noted that this problem continues through middle adolescence. Both
parents selected “behavior problems” as more common during early adolescence (Renk et al.,
2005).
As these studies reveal, the age of adolescents and sex of parents and adolescents
influence the various characteristics of parent-adolescent conflict. While these differences
influenced the nature of the conflict, Renk et al., (2005) explains that parent-adolescent conflict
in general occurs over negotiating autonomy and responsibility and parents are just as aware of
conflict with daughters as with sons across stages of adolescence. However, one must question
if the primary difference between the groups of adolescents is how they perceive autonomy and
responsibility.
Perhaps more important in researching parent-adolescent conflict is considering which
relationship partner the information is coming from. In comparing parents’ perspectives to
adolescents’, researchers have discovered that adolescents tend to perceive the magnitude of
conflict as more drastic than their parents (Laursen et al., 1998; Laursen & Collins, 2004).
Likewise, Sieffge-Krenke’s (1998) study found that parents perceived their relationship with
their children in a heightened positive manner. The author of the current paper argues that these
perspective differences in themselves could increase the frustration felt from conflict. For
instance, the parents’ dismissal of the issues could further frustrate the adolescent, and the
adolescent’s exaggeration could displease the parents. However, such a conclusion lacks
statistical support.
Comparison to Relationships Outside of the Family
13
A Fresh Perspective
Researchers have turned outside the family context to understand how conflict in the
family differs from conflict in other relationships, such as between friends and co-workers. In
general, researchers have found that more hostile approaches are used among family members
than in conflict with friends and co-workers (Adams & Laursen, 2001; Infante, Myers, &
Buerkel, 1994; Raffaelli, 1997). Likewise, less sex differences were found among sibling
conflict than conflict with friends (Raffaelli, 1997).
Adams and Laursen (2001) compared how families organized conflict to how friends
organized conflict. In their examination, the researchers found that conflict was similar in
organization, but different in the dynamic of the conflict. In other words, conflict in families as
well as between friends was organized according to conflict topics, conflict resolutions, conflict
outcomes, and affect after the conflict. Familial and friend conflict went through the same stages
when in conflict. However, families employed more coercion than conflict between friends.
They found that friends more commonly withdrew from conflict (Adams & Laursen, 2001).
In addition to comparing families to friends, Infante, Myers, and Buerkel (1994)
compared the use of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in work atmospheres. Results
from their experiment revealed that both verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness were
more likely to occur in family interactions than work. Moreover, the researchers found that
constructive arguments across relationships were perceived as more argumentative and less
verbally aggressive. Verbal aggression was more associated with destructive arguments.
Constructive arguments were identified as having positive outcomes while destructive arguments
had negative outcomes (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994). This study suggests that while
families employed more coercive strategies in their conflict, they also used more argumentative
behaviors.
14
A Fresh Perspective
In an effort to understand environmental/situational factor’s influence on sibling
relationships, Raffaelli (1997) examined sex differences in family and friend conflict. This study
used interviews in addition to the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (Blyth, 1982) to measure
these variables. While sex differences were found in conflict with friends, siblings handled
conflict similarly regardless of sex. The primary difference that was found in sibling conflict
was the type of conflict the participant explained during the interview. Boys described a specific
conflict with siblings (95%), while girls explained a habitual conflict with siblings (38%).
Raffaelli’s (1997) findings suggest that family interactions act as a learning atmosphere provided
for adolescents in sibling conflict where they can assert themselves. This is especially important
for girls who often withdrawal from conflict with friends. More specifically, conflict between
friends provides adolescents with the opportunity to learn interpersonal connections and sibling
conflict allows the adolescent to develop individually (Raffaelli, 1997).
This section reviewed research that has compared families to friends and co-workers.
The results from these studies suggest that the family context acts more as a comfortable
environment where more hostility can occur. However, these studies fail to acknowledge the
differences in family environment. Earlier in this essay, a discussion of family environments and
parenting styles determined the nature of the conflict. This explains why researchers have found
that both more verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness occur in the family context.
Knowledge Claims
The research provided above reveals how much scholars know about family conflict.
The following knowledge claims reiterate this information.
1. A father who encourages significant amounts of quality communication is more likely to
raise children who find an equally advantageous solution for both parties involved in the
15
A Fresh Perspective
conflict. Fathers who encourage more conformity often predict more accommodative and
avoiding conflict styles (Dumlao, & Botta, 2000).
2. Mothers’ highly involved communication styles are related to her likelihood to employ
non-confrontational (accommodating) conflict behavior. When a mother exerts more
controlling behaviors, a daughter’s involvement will decrease (Pecchioni & Nussbaum,
2001).
3. From a social learning theoretical perspective, children are more likely to model the
mother’s communication traits (i.e. argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness) due to the
mother’s higher level of interaction with offspring (Martin & Anderson, 1997). Mothers
with poor argumentativeness (argumentative skill deficiency) are not providing their
children with models of good argumentation (Martin, & Anderson, 1997).
4. The predisposition for verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness influences the way
parents interact with their children (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). They are likewise acting as
models for their children on how to manage their aggression.
5. Verbally aggressive people view opposition from others as a threat and respond by
attacking the other’s self-concept (Bayer, & Cegala, 1992).
6. Authoritarian parents are identified as highly demanding and concurrently insensitive to
children’s needs and are associated with verbal aggressive behaviors. On the other hand,
people high in argumentativeness focus on the issue involved and refrain from attacking
the other’s identity. High argumentativeness was positively correlated with the
Authoritative parenting style. These parents use reason to gain their child’s compliance
and encourage children to communicate their concerns (Bayer, & Cegala, 1992).
16
A Fresh Perspective
7. Even when planning interactions, verbally aggressive fathers approach the behavior in
less appropriate and less effective manners than fathers with high argumentativeness
(Beatty, Burant, Dobos & Rudd, 1996).
8. A verbally aggressive father is more likely to express his aggression through sarcasm and
criticism than a father high in argumentativeness (Beatty, Zelley, Dobos & Rudd, 1994).
The son of a verbally aggressive father is more likely to perceive his father’s sarcasm and
criticism as verbal aggression.
9. Constructive arguments are perceived as more argumentative and less verbally
aggressive. Verbal aggression is more associated with destructive arguments. Both
verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness are more likely to occur in family
interactions than work (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994).
10. Conflict during early and middle adolescence with mothers and fathers primarily
concerns autonomy and responsibility (Renk, Lilehequist, Simpson, & Phares, 2005).
Middle adolescents employed more attack resolution strategies (i.e., confrontational)
while late adolescents used more compromising (Reese-Weber, 2000).
11. While rate of conflict decreases with age, the intensity of the conflict increases with age
(Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). As female adolescents age, parents begin to show
greater concern for daughters’ location than they do with sons (Renk et al., 2005).
12. Just as parents demand and adolescents withdraw, the roles can reverse and adolescents
can take on the demand position and parents can withdraw (Caughlin & Malis, 2004).
Both ways of relating create dissatisfaction in family dyads, as they do in martial dyads
(Caughlin & Malis, 2004).
13. Parent-adolescent conflict is more likely to be coercive while mitigation is used more in
conflict among friends (Adams & Laursen, 2001). Both verbal aggressiveness and
17
A Fresh Perspective
argumentativeness are more likely to occur in family interactions than work (Infante,
Myers, & Buerkel, 1994).
14. Conflicts between friends are more conducive than parent-adolescent conflicts to
mastering conflict management because parent-adolescent conflicts lack the opportunity
for adolescents to practice mitigation (Adams & Laursen, 2001).
15. Conflict in families was more coercive while more mitigation was found in conflict
among friends. Friends were more likely to withdrawal from conflict (Adams & Laursen,
2001).
16. Conflict between friends provides adolescents with the opportunity to learn interpersonal
connections while sibling conflict provides adolescents with the opportunity to develop
individuality. Sibling conflict is greatly marked by the amount of time spent together
(Raffaelli, 1997).
17. As children advance through early, middle, and late adolescence, the frequency of
conflict with their parents decreases while intensity increases. The greatest decrease in
frequency occurs between mothers and adolescents. Meanwhile, fathers and sons
experience a greater increase in intensity (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998).
18. Parent-child interactions transcend to children’s interactions with their siblings. When a
parent and child use more compromising strategies with each other, the child will likely
employ the same tacit with his/her sibling (Reese-Weber, 2000).
19. Scholars need to further acknowledge the impact of the context surrounding conflict as
well as the accuracy of encoding and decoding messages when measuring family conflict
(Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004).
Directions for Future Research
18
A Fresh Perspective
Despite the numerous amount of knowledge accumulated from researching conflict in
families, much is left unknown. Therefore, the following statements offer directions for future
research.
1. To what degree do children with low levels of verbal aggression who have authoritarian
parents employ argumentativeness? While a child’s natural tendency may be to approach
conflict in an argumentative manner, she or he may not have the necessary skills to
employ such tactics. If these children do not have such skills, can they benefit from
argumentative skills training? As mentioned before, Infante et al. (1984) found
individuals relied less on verbal aggression upon receiving training in argumentativeness,
but this approach has not been examined in young children of authoritarian parents.
2. What is the relation of lassiez-faire family environments, authoritarian parenting styles,
and high levels of verbal aggression to parent-adolescent relationship satisfaction? While
scholars understand the low levels of relationship satisfaction in demand/withdraw
relationships, research is lacking in combining these other explanations of family
environments. Perhaps a multiple regression model can assist in answering these
questions.
3. How does verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness, cultured in the family, influence
romantic relationships of these individuals later in life? Do individuals who were raised
in households with greater verbal aggressiveness employ these strategies when
interacting with their own children? Many studies have examined conflict among family
members and with friends, but longitudinal studies have been provided to examine the
long-term effects of such behaviors.
4. Does training in argumentativeness for younger couples prevent the use of verbal
aggressiveness with their children? How do couples who received training differ from
19
A Fresh Perspective
those who did not? The implications of this research suggest that people are more likely
to resort to aggressive behaviors in the family than with friends or co-workers. Previous
research that has tested the impact of training on argumentativeness has not examined the
unique family dynamic. Therefore, it is necessary to test the impact of training for young
couples who are about to have children. To fully examine the effects, a longitudinal
research design would be preferred. Likewise, researchers could examine if these
couples need periodic training to refrain from resorting to old behaviors.
5. What are the more specific differences that occur according to sex versus verbal
aggressiveness? Studies that examined sex differences with family conflict did not
examine the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness of these individuals. Are these
communication traits better indicators than sex?
Summary
The study of conflict in families presents many factors that are unique to the family.
Much of family research has to apply general characteristics of dyadic relationships to the dyads
within the family. However, the research provided here on family conflict demonstrates why it
is important to reexamine communication variables specifically in the mother-daughter, father-
son, and sibling relationships. The interactions that occur within in the family are unique, but
also difficult to capture. Many people are ashamed by the way their family interacts and
therefore choose to not share such private information with researchers. Likewise, when parents
complete information they are likely to report an exaggerated positive perception of the family
interaction. This makes it difficult to truly understand the family and how they engage in
conflict. The best way to overcome such issues when studying the family is to continue
researching communication behaviors in this context with these limitations in mind. Moreover,
20
A Fresh Perspective
there is going to be some truth in what participants report. With more research, more
understanding is acquired.
21
A Fresh Perspective
References
Adams, R., & Laursen, B. (2001). The organization and dynamics of adolescent conflict with
parents and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 97-110. [Electronic version].
Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bayer, C. L., & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness:
Relations with parenting style. [Electronic version]. Western Journal of
Communication, 56, 301-310.
Beatty, M. J., Burant, P. A., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1996). Trait verbal aggressiveness and
the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction plans. Communication
Quarterly, 44, 1-15. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest.
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as
temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446-460.
Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. w/Valencic, K. M. (2001). The Biology of communication: A
communibiological perspective. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Beatty, M. J., Zelley, J. R., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1994). Fathers’ trait and verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness as predictors of adult sons’ perceptions of fathers’
sarcasm, criticism, and verbal aggression. Communication Quarterly, 42, 407-415.
[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest.
Berger, C. R., & Bell, R. A. (1988). Plans and the initiation of relationships. Human
Communication Research, 15, 217-235.
22
A Fresh Perspective
Blyth, D. A. (1982). Mapping the social world of adolescents: Issues, techniques, and problems.
In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social Cognition, context, and social behavior: A developmental
perspective. New York: Guilford.
Burleson, B. R., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, T. K., & Whaley, B. B.
(1988). Item desirability effects in compliance-gaining research: Seven studies
documenting artifacts in the strategy selection procedure. Human Communication
Research, 14, 429-486.
Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and
adolescents as a correlate of relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 17, 59-71.
[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.
Dibble, E., & Cohen, D. J. (1974). Companion instruments for measuring children's competence
and parental style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 30, 805-815.
Dumlao, R., & Botta, R. A. (2000). Family communication patterns and the conflict styles
young adults use with their fathers. Communication Quarterly, 48, 174-179.
Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 1, 3-20.
Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Stelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.),
Explorations in temperament (pp.105-128). New York: Plenum.
Folger, J., Poole, M., & Stutman, R. (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for
relationships, groups, and organizations. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper Cotlins.
Hocker, J. L. & Wilmont, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict. (4th ed.). Madison, Wisconsin:
Brown and Benchmark Publishers.
Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in
situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265-272.
23
A Fresh Perspective
Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and
interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park: Sage.
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness
as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research,
12, 117-125.
Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in
constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal
of Communication, 58, 73-84. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from
Ebsco.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 73-84.
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A review of
recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.
Infante, D. A., Trebing, D. J., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of
argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50,
67-77.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and
measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.
Laursen, B. & Collins, W.A. (2004). Parent-child communication during adolescence. In
A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication. Mahweh: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child
conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817-832.
[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.
24
A Fresh Perspective
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models of conflict resolution: A
cross - national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898 - 908.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology,19, 125-136.
Lish, J. D., Kavoussi, R. J., & Caccaro, E. F. (1996). Aggressiveness. In C. G. Costello (Ed.),
Personality characteristics of the personality disordered (pp. 24-28). New York: Wiley.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1997). Aggressive communication traits: How similar are
young adults and their parents in argumentativeness, assertiveness, and verbal
aggressiveness. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 299-314. [Electronic version].
Retrieved August 28, 2005, from Communication and Mass Media Complete.
Montemayer, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 1, 15-31.
Noller, P. & Fitzpatrick, M. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pecchioni, L. L. & Nussbaum, J. F. (2001). Mother-adult daughter discussions of caregiving
prior to dependency: Exploring conflicts among European-American women. Journal of
Family Communication, 1, 133-140. [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 28, 2005,
from Communication & Mass Media Complete.
Raffaelli, M. (1997). Young adolescents’ conflicts with siblings and friends. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 26, 539-558. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6,
2005, from Ebsco.
Rahim, M. & Magner, N. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: First order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 122-132.
25
A Fresh Perspective
Reese-Weber, M. (2000). Middle and late adolescents’ conflict resolution skills with siblings:
Associations with interparental and parent-adolescent conflict resolution. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 29, 697-711. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005
from Ebsco.
Renk, K., Lilehequist, L., Simpson, J. E., & Phares, V. (2005). Gender and age differences in
topics of parent-adolescent conflict. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for
Couples and Families, 13, 139-149.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the
assertiveness-responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67, 449-450.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1998, December). Families with daughters, families with sons: Different
challenges for family relationships and martial satisfaction. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from Ebsco Database.
Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of
family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication,
(pp413-446). Mahweh: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. & Dobson, D. (1987). Resolving interpersonal conflict: An analysis of stylistic
consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 794-812.
Sternberg, R. & Soriano, L. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 115-126.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H., Lin. S., Nishida,T. (1991). Culture,
face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures.
The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296.
26