Abstract
Arguments occurring in interpersonal relationships can be divided into two types: public issue arguments and personal issue arguments. This study utilizes five beliefs about arguing delineated by Rancer, Kosberg, and Baukus (1992) to examine the different beliefs individuals hold about each type of argument. Public issue arguments, which focus on issues outside of the interpersonal relationship, were reported to have higher enjoyment and a more positive effect on the self‐concept. Personal issue arguments, which relate more closely to the interpersonal relationship, were perceived as resulting in more pragmatic outcomes and higher ego‐involvement. These differences illustrate the need to examine both types of arguments to comprehensively understand arguing in interpersonal relationships.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
