Serial arguments are conflict episodes that recur in a relationship about the same issue. Given empirical inconsistencies produced by a conventional conception of seriality (e.g. duration and frequency), this study aims to reconceptualize seriality as a cognitive schema that arises from past conflict experiences, stores knowledge and guides arguers in the interpretation and production of behaviors in serial arguments. Furthermore, the authors theorized that the seriality concept manifests in a trait form (i.e. general belief that conflicts are serial) and a state form (i.e. a particular episode continues from past conflict). This study is a first test of a schematic conception of seriality.
The authors conducted two cross-sectional surveys that asked respondents to report on a conflict episode and the relationship in which it occurred, as well as their general beliefs about interpersonal conflict.
Across two studies, trait seriality was positively associated with generalized constructive and destructive beliefs about conflict. State seriality was associated with trait seriality, relationship satisfaction, issue ownership and the duration and occurrences of serial arguments. Both trait and state facets of seriality corresponded with lower perceived resolvability; state seriality covaried with self-reported behaviors within recalled conflict episodes.
By explicating seriality as a cognitive schema, this study contributes to the ongoing theorizing about the causal processes related to serial arguments as a common and consequential occurrence in personal relationships.
