Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article "Argument interdependence: Connections to serial argument goals and tactics in romantic relationships" by Cionea, Johnson, and Bostwick (2019) examines the concept of argument interdependence and its relationship to serial argument goals, tactics, and changes in relational satisfaction. The study is based on interdependence theory and the goals-plans-action framework. The authors argue that understanding argument interdependence can lead to less detrimental effects on arguers and their relationship.

The article provides a clear definition of argument interdependence as "the degree to which the two arguers depend on each other to resolve the serial argument issue." The authors also distinguish it from relational interdependence, which focuses on the rewards and costs associated with a relationship. However, the article does not provide enough evidence for why perceived argument interdependence is important to examine or how it affects partners' subsequent behaviors.

The study's methodology involves participants providing cross-sectional data via an online questionnaire. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to examine the study's predictions. The results show that argument interdependence is associated with four of the seven goals examined: positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding, desire to hurt other, and relational termination. It was also associated with integrative tactics both directly and indirectly, and distributive tactics indirectly. Both tactics were related to changes in relational satisfaction.

While the study provides interesting findings about the relationship between argument interdependence, goals, tactics, and changes in relational satisfaction, there are some potential biases in the research design. For example, relying solely on self-reported data may lead to social desirability bias or inaccurate reporting of behavior. Additionally, using an online questionnaire may limit generalizability as it only captures a specific population who have access to technology.

Furthermore, while the authors acknowledge that serial arguments can have positive effects on relationships such as increased relational satisfaction when believing issues are resolvable; they do not explore these positive effects further. The article also does not consider the potential risks of argument interdependence, such as becoming too dependent on one's partner to resolve issues or feeling trapped in a repetitive cycle of arguments.

Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the concept of argument interdependence and its relationship to serial argument goals, tactics, and changes in relational satisfaction. However, there are potential biases in the research design and missing points of consideration that limit the generalizability and applicability of the findings.