When Serial Arguments Predict Harm: Examining the Influences of Argument Function, Topic of the Argument, Perceived Resolvability, and Argumentativeness

Abstract

This study examines features of serial arguments that predict whether these arguments lead to perceived relational harm and perceived harm to the arguing individual. Similar variables predicted perceived personal and relational harm from a serial argument. Personal-issue arguments with low levels of perceived resolvability had higher levels of perceived harm than public-issue arguments. The two types of arguments did not differ in perceived harm at levels of high perceived resolvability. Whether the argument functioned to resolve behavioral incompatibility was positively related to both relational and personal harm. The function of gaining and giving knowledge was negatively related to relational harm, and the function of portraying oneself in a positive light was positively related to personal harm. Low and conflicted-feeling moderate argumentatives had higher levels of perceived personal harm from the serial argument than high and apathetic moderate argumentatives. High argumentatives perceived less relational harm from the serial argument than low or moderate argumentatives.