Beliefs about arguing: a comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments.

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.

**********

* Arguments occurring in interpersonal relationships can be divided into two types: public issue arguments and personal issue arguments. Arguing about issues tied to personal relationships, such as trust and jealousy and leisure time spent together (personal issue arguments) can be very different from arguing over public issues, such as welfare or politics (public issue arguments). Most previous research on argumentation in interpersonal relationships has focused on personal issue arguments (e.g., Canary, Brossmann, Brossman, & Weger, 1995; Semic & Canary, 1997; Trapp & Hoff, 1985), and nearly all scholars of interpersonal argument have not made a distinction between the two types of arguments in their research (for an exception see Newell and Stutman, 1988). This paper seeks to differentiate these two types of arguments by focusing on the beliefs that individuals hold about each type. Individuals are asked to recall both a public issue and a personal issue argument that occurred in an interpersonal relationship and to report their beliefs regarding each argument.

Five beliefs about arguing (enjoyment, ego-involvement, dysfunctional outcomes, pragmatic outcomes, and self-concept) were delineated by Rancer, Kosberg, and Baukus (1992). Rancer and his colleagues emphasize the benefits of being able to argue well, both in public life and in personal life (Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985; Rancer et al., 1992). Their exploration of beliefs about arguing aimed to shed light on how individuals perceive arguing and thus help people understand how to argue more effectively. However, for the research on argument beliefs to fulfill this desired application, one must also understand the different beliefs that individuals hold when considering public issue arguments, such as politics or the environment, versus when they are considering personal issue arguments, such as conflicts over time spent together. If different beliefs are held about each of these types of arguments, these various beliefs need to be taken into account when considering how individuals can argue about both types of issues more effectively in their interpersonal relationships.

DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC ISSUE AND PERSONAL ISSUE ARGUMENTS

Two types of arguments have previously been distinguished, disagreements over behaviors and disagreements over ideas (Newell & Stutman, 1988). Johnson (2000) extended Newell and Stutman's differentiation of disagreements by defining public issue and personal issue arguments. Public issue arguments do not focus on the particular relationship between the two individuals arguing. Rather, the focus is on concerns outside of the relationship that do not have as many direct implications for the behavior within the arguing interpersonal dyad. The term "public" refers to what individuals argue about and is not utilized in the sense of the setting in which they argue or with whom they argue. The argument can have implications for behavior-e.g., for whom one should vote in an election--but these implications are not as closely tied to the day-to-day functioning of the individuals within that particular dyad. Earlier research has illustrated that these types of arguments are reported to occur in interpersonal relationships (Johnson, 1999; 2000), although most previous research that has examined these types of arguments have utilized strangers (e.g., Infante, 1982; Levine & Boster, 1996). Examples of such public issue argument topics include politics, women's right to choose abortion, the environment, the death penalty, drug legalization, and many other topics about which people discuss and argue in their everyday lives.

Personal issue arguments focus on issues related more intensively to the interpersonal relationship of the two individuals arguing. Such arguments could include arguing over issues related directly to the behavior that each person enacts in their relationship or indirectly to the behavior of the individuals by focusing on the behavior of other intimates of the two (e.g., arguing over in-laws). Previous research has examined the importance of these topics for interpersonal relationships. Specifically, Zietlow and Sillars (1988) found that irritability and lack of communication were ranked as the most salient problems, while disagreements about leisure time and division of household responsibilities were rated some of the least salient topics. Examples of personal issue arguments include broken plans, one's hurt feelings or one's choice of behaviors that stem from or reflect on the relationship, and many other topics that affect the ability of people to interact positively with one another. Next, a potential framework for further understanding the differences between these two types of arguments will be presented as a functional approach to interpersonal argument.

THE FUNCTIONS OF INTERPERSONAL ARGUMENT

To move beyond the definitions of public and personal issue arguments and delve more deeply into how they differ, a consideration of the functions of arguing is beneficial. The functional approach has been utilized to study many different topics including talk (e.g., Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), attributions (e.g., Forsyth, 1980), and reasons that people volunteer (e.g., Clary, et al. 1998). However, the most common and widespread application of functions has been in the area of attitude change (e.g., Herek, 1987; Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). (1) Herek claims that the functional approach answers the question of "why" rather than "how" or "what." In other words, rather than asking what do people in interpersonal relationships argue about or how do they argue, a functional approach focuses on the question of why do individuals in interpersonal arguments argue in the first place? What purpose does arguing serve for the individuals and for the relationship? The varied reasons help to illuminate the differences between public issue and personal issue arguments.

Deutsch (1973) claims that one potential positive function of conflict is to air problems and find solutions. In an interpersonal relationship, many differences concerning how each relational partner behaves can occur on a daily basis. An argument, which would involve a verbal exchange between the two individuals regarding the incompatibility, could have as its function to seek to resolve this incompatibility concerning behavior by changing the behavior or attitude of one of the individuals involved in the interpersonal relationship. A second function of an argument in an interpersonal relationship might be to express one's views on a subject that differ from one's relational partner. An argument might be used to express one's values on an issue that the person feels strongly about. This function is similar to Katz's (1960) value expressive function.

A third function of interpersonal argument might be simply to pass the time. Duck, Rutt, Hurst, and Strejc (1991) discuss the often underestimated role of routine, everyday talk in enacting interpersonal relationships. Arguing over issues about which one has differing opinions could help to serve this function in an interpersonal relationship. Utilizing an argument to gain or give knowledge to a relational partner could represent a fourth function of interpersonal arguing, as listed by Hample (1983). This is similar to the knowledge function delineated by Katz (1960). A fifth function of interpersonal arguing might be to portray oneself in a positive light to one's interpersonal partner. A person can use an argument to seek to persuade their relational partner that he or she is a "good" romantic partner, friend, or family member. This is similar to Katz's ego-defensive function.

Johnson (2002) found that public issue arguments were reported to fulfill the functions of gaining or giving knowledge, general talk, and expressing one's views more often than personal issue arguments. Personal issue arguments were reported to more often fulfill the functions of solving behavioral incompatibilities and portraying oneself in a positive light. Considering the functions that these two types of arguments fulfill provides a basis for understanding the beliefs that individuals hold concerning each type of argument.

BELIEFS ABOUT ARGUING

One of the main benefits of determining beliefs about arguing is to aid in instructing individuals by enhancing "motivation and skill in argument and conflict management behaviors" (Rancer et al., 1992, p. 383). However, if people hold different beliefs about public and personal issue arguments, these variations need to be taken into consideration before this research can be utilized to teach individuals to argue more effectively about each type of topic.

To explore how beliefs differ based on the type of argument, five beliefs defined by Rancer et al. (1992) are utilized. These beliefs resulted from an exploratory factor analysis of items developed from responses gathered in a previous study (Rancer et al., 1985). Five factors were derived and identified as enjoyment, pragmatic outcomes, self-concept, ego-involvement, and dysfunctional outcomes.

The first category of beliefs is enjoyment (Rancer et al., 1992). This belief relates to whether the person perceives the argument as a fun experience. The amount of enjoyment in an argument should relate to the function of that argument in the interpersonal relationship. For example, utilizing an argument as a form of routine, everyday talk or to transmit knowledge might lead to more enjoyment than an argument seeking to achieve a solution to a disagreement over behavior or persuading another that one is a "good" relational partner. The amount of enjoyment involved in an argument that has as its function the expression of values would probably depend on the importance of the value for the individual. As public issue arguments have been found more likely to have as their function routine, everyday talk or transmitting knowledge (Johnson, 2002), these arguments are predicted to result in higher enjoyment scores.

H1: Public issue arguments will be reported to hold more enjoyment than personal issue arguments.

The second type of belief listed by Rancer et al. (1992) is pragmatic outcomes. This relates to whether the individual believes that arguing about this issue will solve the conflict and will reduce aggression and tension between the two individuals arguing. As personal issue arguments often function as a means to resolve some conflict involving behavior between the two individuals, pragmatic outcomes might be more likely to result from personal issue arguments than public issue arguments. On the other hand, Johnson and Hall (2001) illustrated that individuals reported that agreeing to disagree was the most common solution to public issue arguments. This could be especially true if these arguments served the function of routine, everyday talk or transmitting knowledge. Therefore, such pragmatic outcomes as solving the argument might not be as important in public issue arguments.

H2: Personal issue arguments will be perceived as having more pragmatic outcomes than public issue arguments.

The third type of belief presented by Rancer et al. (1992) is self-concept. They claim that it relates to the "belief that arguing is a reflection of one's self-concept" (p. 380). The measure of self-concept utilized in this study sought to represent whether the reported arguments caused the respondents to feet positively or negatively about themselves. A higher score on this measure relates to the feeling that the argument has more positive implications for the self-concept.

A variable believed to be relevant to the effect of type of argument on self-concept is argumentativeness, which is defined as "a generally stable trait which predisposes the individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to attack verbally the positions which other people take on these issues" (Infante & Rancer, 1982, p. 73). For high argumentatives, public issue arguments should illustrate a higher score on the self-concept variable than personal issue arguments. Their ability to argue is probably important to high argumentatives and might be more relevant in public issue arguments where they can argue about controversial issues. However, this difference should not exist for low argumentatives who might perceive both public and personal issue arguments as having a negative effect on self-concept, leading to lower scores on the measure of this belief.

H3: Level of argumentativeness should interact with type of argument to affect self-concept beliefs, such that highly argumentative individuals should report a more positive effect on one's self-concept in the public argument condition than the personal argument condition, but no such difference should be apparent for low argumentatives.

The fourth type of belief presented by Rancer et al. (1992), is ego-involvement. This belief relates to whether the person argues because the topic is perceived as very important. Ego-involvement might also relate to whether the topic of the argument is tied to the person's values (B. Johnson & Eagly, 1989) or a person's sense of self (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965). Ego-involvement should be higher in those arguments that fulfill such functions as seeking to express a certain view of oneself, to express one's values, or to resolve a behavioral incompatibility between two individuals that might threaten the relationship. As personal issue arguments are perceived to be more likely to be utilized for two of these three functions, these arguments are posited to be higher in ego-involvement. If an argument topic relates to a deeply held value, both public issue and personal issue arguments can be ego-involving. However, in general, the following prediction is made:

H4: Personal issue arguments will be reported to involve higher ego-involvement than public issue arguments.

The fifth type of belief is dysfunctional outcomes. From the items originally utilized to represent this belief (Rancer et al., 1992), dysfunctional outcomes appear to relate to whether issues can be discussed fully, and whether arguments often turn vicious. For this study, the items created focused on whether the argument reported had a negative effect on the relationship, whether it allowed the issue to be discussed fully, and whether it increased feelings of conflict and tension. Personal issue arguments should result in more reports of dysfunctional outcomes than public issue arguments. As personal issue arguments by definition have more implications for the behavior of the two, whether individuals discuss the issue fully might be more important. Also, if the issue is not resolved, this might lead to more conflict and tension than if the dyad is arguing about public issue arguments where they may just "agree to disagree."

H5: Personal issue arguments will be reported to have more dysfunctional outcomes than public issue arguments.

METHOD

Participants and Procedures

One hundred and eighty (N = 180) undergraduate students from a mid-sized southwestern university completed a survey. Individuals were administered the survey during their class time and received credit toward a research participation requirement. The questionnaire asked the participants to think of an argument about one of the topics provided that they had recently experienced with a friend, romantic partner, or family member. They briefly described the argument and then answered questions related to their beliefs about that argument. Next, they received a second list of topics and repeated the same procedure. Half of the participants received the list of public issue argument topics first, while half received the list of personal issue argument topics first. After answering the questions about both types of arguments, participants completed the argumentativeness scale (Infante & Rancer, 1982).

Measures

The personal and public issue argument topics were taken from previous research focused on arguments (Canary, Weger, & Stafford, 1991; Canary et al., 1995; Johnson, 2000; Legge & Rawlins, 1992; Levine & Boster, 1996). Based on the definitions delineated of public and personal issue arguments (Johnson, 2000), topics were designated by the author as either public or personal.

Public issue argument topics included the following: abortion; death penalty; the environment; drug legalization; underage alcohol drinking; racial prejudice; sex discrimination; discrimination based on sexual orientation; religious issues; gun control; drug testing; increased military spending; animal experimentation; drug legalization; surrogate mothering; increased restriction of foreign products; sports; movies; etiquette/manners; race discrimination; politics. Personal issue argument topics included the following: conflicts over romantic partners; how to spend leisure time together; other friends; how much time to spend together; household chores; roommate problems; one person's hurt feelings; money/bills; trust and jealousy; showing consideration for friend; use of alcohol; space in apartment; broken plans; using each other's possessions; giving advice; doing favors for each other.

The measures of argument beliefs were modified forms of ones utilized by Rancer et al., (1992). They derived their scales from an exploratory factor analysis. Based on their items, face validity, and the definitions of the different beliefs provided by Rancer et al. (1992), five scales were formed by the author: enjoyment, pragmatic outcomes, self-concept, ego-involvement, and dysfunctional outcomes. All questions related to argument beliefs utilized a seven-point Likert scale which ranged from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Examples of the items include the following. Enjoyment--"I enjoyed having this argument with this person"; Pragmatic outcomes--"This argument helped us to resolve our conflict"; Self-concept--"Arguing about this topic helped me to feel good about myself"; Ego-involvement--"The topic of this argument is very important to me"; Dysfunctional outcomes--"Arguing about this issue only increased the tension between us." Complete scales can be obtained from the author.

The scale measuring argumentativeness (Infante & Rancer, 1982) has been used extensively in previous research and was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from "almost never true" to "almost always true." Example items include "I am energetic and enthusiastic when I argue," and "I have the ability to do well in an argument."

Reliability analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the questionnaire using Hamilton and Hunter's CFA program (1988). Individual items were assessed for content, internal consistency, and parallelism. All items met these criteria. The reliabilities for each of the measures were as follows: argumentativeness, [alpha] = .92; in the public argument condition, enjoyment, [alpha] = .96, pragmatic outcomes, [alpha] = .82, self-concept, [alpha] = .83, ego-involvement, [alpha] = .95, dysfunctional outcomes, [alpha] = .87; in the personal argument condition, enjoyment, [alpha] = .94, pragmatic outcomes, [alpha] = .87, self-concept, [alpha] = .81, ego-involvement:, [alpha] = .92, dysfunctional outcomes, [alpha] = .88.

RESULTS

Descriptives

For the public issue argument condition, individuals reported that the argument occurred with the following individuals: acquaintance (6%), friend (53%), romantic partner (19%), relative (15%), other (6%), missing (1%). For the personal issue argument condition, individuals reported that the argument occurred with the following individuals: acquaintance (2%), friend (39%), romantic partner (41%), relative (7%), other (10%), missing (1%). The percentage of romantic partners reported appears to be higher in the personal issue argument condition than in the public issue argument condition.

Tests of Hypotheses

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with type of argument (personal/public) as the independent variable and the five beliefs as the dependent variables. MANOVA was justified as the analysis procedure because measures were repeated. Using Wilks' Lambda, the combined dependent variables were significantly related to the independent variable, F(5, 172) = 26.67, p < .001, partial [[eta].sup.4] = .44. All of the univariate tests were significant at p < .02, except for dysfunctional outcomes, which had a p-value equal to .052. The univariate tests will be reported individually in relation to each hypothesis. (2) See Table One for the means and standard deviations that correspond to each hypothesis. Two-way mixed ANOVAs were utilized to examine whether topic (personal or public), level of argumentativeness, and the interaction between them predicted each type of belief. Level of argumentativeness was divided into three approximately equivalent groups (low--3.00 or less on a five point scale, n = 63; moderate--3.05 to 3.65, n = 58; high--3.70 to 5.00, n = 57). No interactions between topic type and level of argumentativeness were significant for any of the five beliefs. The main effect for topic was significant for all beliefs except dysfunctional outcomes. The main effect for argumentativeness was significant for pragmatic outcomes, self-concept, and dysfunctional outcomes. Tukey's honestly significant differences tests were utilized to examine the differences between the three argumentativeness groups. For pragmatic outcomes, all three means were significantly different ([M.sub.HIGH] = 4.43, [M.sub.MODERATE] = 3.76, [M.sub.LOW] = 3.01). For self-concept, all three means were significantly different ([M.sub.HIGH] = 5.37; [M.sub.MODERATE] = 4.64; [M.sub.LOW] = 4.16). For dysfunctional outcomes, the low and high argumentativeness groups differed from each other, but neither differed significantly from the moderate argumentativeness group ([M.sub.HIGH]. = 3.47; [M.sub.MODERATE] = 3.19; [M.sub.LOW] = 2.99).

Hypothesis one claimed that public issue arguments would be reported to hold more enjoyment than personal issue arguments. The data supported this hypothesis: F(1, 176) = 100.89, p < .001, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .36. The means reveal that individuals agreed that public issue arguments were enjoyable. However, the means in the personal issue arguments were slightly below neutral.

Hypothesis two was supported. Individuals reporting on personal issue arguments reported greater pragmatic outcomes than people reporting on public issue arguments: F(1, 176) = 7.66, p = .006, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .04. The means revealed that in both public and personal issue arguments, individuals agreed that pragmatic outcomes resulted, but they more strongly agreed in the personal issue argument condition.

Hypothesis three predicted that level of argumentativeness would moderate the relationship between type of argument and self-concept. High argumentatives were predicted to score higher on this measure in the public argument condition than in the personal argument condition. No difference was expected for low argumentatives. A two-way mixed ANOVA with topic as the within-subject variable and argumentativeness (three groups divided into low, moderate, and high) as the between-subject variable showed no interaction between the two variables on self-concept: F(1, 117) = .23, p > .05, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .004. Rather, the univariate test from the MANOVA illustrated that overall, self-concept was higher in the public argument condition than in the personal argument condition: F(1, 176) = 27.45; p < .001, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .14.

Personal issue arguments were perceived as involving higher ego-involvement than public issue arguments, supporting hypothesis four: F(1, 176) = 6.27, p = .013, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .034. Amount of ego-involvement was ranked above the neutral midpoint for both types of arguments, but was significantly higher in the personal issue argument condition.

Hypothesis five claimed that personal issue arguments would be reported as having more dysfunctional outcomes than public issue arguments. The data were in the direction of this hypothesis, but did not reach the traditional .05 level of significance: F(1,176) = 5.72, p = .052, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .02. The means revealed that individuals scored below the midpoint for both personal and public issue arguments, in that they slightly disagreed that these arguments resulted in dysfunctional outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This study illustrates the different beliefs that individuals hold about public and personal issue arguments. It provides further evidence that these two types of arguments, which have typically not been differentiated by other argument researchers, are perceived differently by individuals who report both types of arguments occurring in their interpersonal relationships. These distinct beliefs are essential to consider when examining Rancer and his colleagues' (1985, 1992) previous research on beliefs about arguing. If one wishes to utilize this prior research to help individuals argue more effectively, he or she should consider whether a person is arguing about a public or a personal issue.

When a participant was considering a public issue argument, he or she reported greater enjoyment and a higher score on self-concept, which focused on whether the argument caused the participants to feel good about themselves, than when the participant was considering a personal issue argument. On the other hand, personal issue arguments were reported as resulting in more pragmatic outcomes and higher ego-involvement than public issue arguments. The majority of these differences were in the expected direction in that public issue arguments were conceptualized as being less tied to the relationship of the individuals arguing. Therefore, these arguments can be perceived as more enjoyable and can help the person gain confidence in their ability to argue a point effectively. However, in these arguments, it is probably not as important to solve the argument (pragmatic outcomes). Personal issue arguments, on the other hand, are closely tied to the day-to-day functioning of the arguing dyad and their ability to interact effectively. These types of arguments are more important to seek to resolve (pragmatic outcomes) so that the relationship can continue to be satisfactory. Also, as these arguments tend to focus more on behavioral change for one or both of the arguing dyad, individuals are more ego-involved in these types of arguments. With the increased importance of these arguments for the arguing dyad's relationship, the decreased enjoyment and decreased ability of these arguments to help an individual to feel better about him- or herself are reasonable.

Considering the differing functions that arguments serve in interpersonal relationships help to interpret these findings. Johnson (2002) found that the different types of arguments tend to be associated with certain functions more often than others. Public issue arguments were more often utilized to fulfill the functions of routine, everyday talk and exchanging knowledge. This might explain why these arguments were perceived to result in more enjoyment than personal issue arguments. Personal issue arguments were reported to be used more frequently to seek to solve incompatibilities between two individuals (specifically the ones concerning behavior) and to present a certain view of oneself to one's relational partner. Thus, personal issue arguments were reported to result in more pragmatic outcomes, in that arguing about these issues was more likely to reduce tension and solve the argument, and higher ego-involvement, where the arguments were considered more important to the individual.

The finding that public issue arguments scored higher on the self-concept measure is less easily explained. The belief that personal issue arguments serve the function of presenting a certain view of oneself might lead to the prediction that these arguments could be used to help a person to feel good about him- or herself if the argument is successful in its function. On the other hand, the potential negative consequences associated with personal issue arguments, such as possible behavioral and relational changes, may decrease the ability of these arguments to increase positive feelings about the self. As public issue arguments may provide a way to exchange knowledge and to bond more closely to the interpersonal partner through the use of argument as routine talk, these arguments provide a person with opportunities to gain confidence. The finding that public issue arguments scored higher on the self-concept measure supports Rancer and his colleagues' (1985, 1992) beliefs that arguing can be beneficial to a person, particularly in the case of public issue arguments.

One limitation of this study is the use of an undergraduate sample. Whether this sample differs from the rest of the population in how they perceive these two types of arguments awaits future research. Also, this study utilized recall rather than observing actual argument behavior. Further research should attempt to rectify these limitations by examining individuals from diverse stages of life. Another possibility might be to observe actual arguing behavior and have respondents report their beliefs immediately following the argument.

Future research directions include a further examination of the influence of argument function on such factors as the effect of an argument on the relationship and whether an argument is resolved. Also, whether two individuals participating in an interpersonal argument tend to have the argument serve the same function for each is an unanswered question. Future research should examine whether the argument serving the same function for both individuals affects whether the argument is resolved and the influence the argument has on the relationship.

In conclusion, this study illustrates that individuals have different types of beliefs concerning arguing over public issues versus arguing over personal issues. These variations need to be taken into account when utilizing these beliefs to help individuals argue better in both types of arguments. These results also illustrate that these two types of arguments, public issue and personal issue, are perceived differently by individuals. Therefore, this distinction between public and personal issue arguments should be considered to fully understand arguing in interpersonal relationships.

TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Type of Topic and Belief

                           Public Issue      Personal Issue
                             Argument           Argument

                                Standard           Standard
                         Mean   Deviation   Mean   Deviation

Enjoyment                4.47     1.75      2.96     1.55
Pragmatic Outcomes       4.10     1.10      4.45     1.28
Self-Concept             4.99     1.71      4.42     1.23
Ego-Involvement          4.84     1.77      5.27     1.45
Dysfunctional Outcomes   3.11     1.35      3.35     1.37

ENDNOTES

(1.) Although many researchers interested in attitude functions have developed their own list of functions that attitudes serve (e.g., Herek, 1987, Katz, 1960, Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956), these functions have been found to fall into similar categories (see Lapinski, 2000). Katz's (1960) list of functions will be utilized to compare the current list of functions for interpersonal argument.

(2.) The Multivariate Analysis of Variance is often criticized as a low power test. Paired sample t-tests examining the independent variable with each dependent variable individually illustrated an identical pattern of results.

REFERENCES

Canary, D. J., Brossmann, J. E., Brossmann, B. G., & Weger, H. (1995). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument. Analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs, 62, 183-212.

Canary, D. J., Weger, H., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples' argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 159-179.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). The functions of attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 184-189.

Hamilton, M., & Hunter, J. (1988). CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. A computer program to perform confirmatory factor analysis. Program available from first author at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Hample, D. (1983). The functions of argument. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Argument in transition (pp. 560-575). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285-303.

Honeycutt, J. M., & Wiemann, J. M. (1999). Analysis of functions of talk and reports of imagined interactions (IIs) during engagement and marriage. Human Communication Research, 25, 399-419.

Infante, D. A. (1982). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265-272.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.

Johnson, A. J. (February, 1999). Public Issue Versus Personal Issue Arguments: Examining Arguments Concerning Public Issues in Interpersonal Relationships. Paper presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division of the Western States Communication Association for their annual meeting at Vancouver, British Columbia.

Johnson, A. J. (June, 2000). Public Issue Versus Personal Issue Arguments: Factors Which Affect Public Issue Arguments in Friendships. Paper presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division of the International Communication Association for their annual meeting at Acapulco, Mexico.

Johnson, A. J. (March, 2002). Interpersonal Argument Functions: Differences Between Public and Personal Issue Arguments. Paper presented to the Interpersonal Interest Group of the Western States Communication Association for their annual meeting at Long Beach, CA.

Johnson, A. J., & Hall, H. T. (May, 2001). Public Issue and Personal Issue Arguments: Validating a Distinction Between Interpersonal Argument Topics. Paper presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division of the International Communication Association for their annual meeting at Washington, D.C.

Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.

Lapinski, M. K. (2000). The functional approach: A historical perspective on theory and measurement. Paper presented to the Intrapersonal Division of the National Communication Association for their annual meeting at Seattle, Washington, November, 2000.

Legge, N. J., & Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Managing disputes in young adult friendships: Modes of convenience, cooperation, and commitment. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 226-247.

Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (1996). The impact of self and others' argumentativeness on talk about controversial issues. Communication Quarterly, 44, 345-358.

Newell, S. E., & Stutman, R. K. (1988). The social confrontation episode. Communication Monographs, .55, 266-285.

Rancer, A. S., Baukus, R. A., & Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations between argumentativeness and belief structures about arguing. Communication Education, 34, 37-47.

Rancer, A. S., Kosberg, R. L., & Baukus, R. A. (1992). Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management. Communication Education, 41, 375-387.

Semic, B. A., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions. Communication Quarterly, 45, 355-378.

Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Smith, M. B., Brunet, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York: Wiley.

Trapp, R., & Hoff, N. (1985). A model of serial argument in interpersonal relationships. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 1-11.

Zietlow, P. H., & Sillars, A. L. (1988). Life-stage differences in communication during marital conflicts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 223-245.

Amy Janan Johnson (Ph.D., 1999, Michigan State University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 (office: 405-325-2561; fax: 405-325-7625; amyjj@ou.edu). A previous version of this paper was presented to the Interpersonal Division of the National Communication Association for their annual conference in Seattle, Washington, November, 2000.