A Fresh Perspective

Researching Family Conflict: A Fresh Perspective

Abstract

Conflict occurs more often in family units than any other and such conflict is most

intense during a child’s transition into adulthood, especially during adolescence (Sillars, Canary,

& Tafoya, 2004). In an effort to understand family conflict, specifically between mothers and

daughters, fathers and sons, and siblings, this study considers previous research conducted on (1)

the conflict strategies used in managing conflict, (2) communication traits, such as verbal

aggression and argumentativeness, that influence such behaviors, and (3) the impact of

individual differences on conflict. More specifically, in examining conflict strategies, the review

of literature explores how conflict strategies correlate with parenting styles and family

environments. For instance, results of Pecchioni and Nussbaum’s (2001) study indicated that

when mothers used fewer controlling strategies (i.e., persistent arguing, verbal force, negative

evaluation) during conflict, daughters had higher levels of involvement, which resulted in greater

motivation, on the behalf of the daughter, to use more compromising and collaborating conflict

strategies. A similar concept can be found when exploring the relationship between verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness to parenting styles. To understand this relationship one

must consider the impact of social and biological factors on the development of such conflict

behaviors. Comparisons of family relationships to relationships outside of the family likewise

contribute to the understanding of family interactions. An examination of the literature then

yields a set of knowledge claims and directions for future research. While the knowledge claims

recognize what researchers know about family conflict, the directions for future research offer a

fresh perspective on family conflict.

Researching Family Conflict: A Fresh Perspective

1

A Fresh Perspective

Conflict occurs more often in family units than any other and such conflict is most

intense during a child’s transition into adulthood, especially during adolescence (Sillars, Canary,

& Tafoya, 2004). Montemayer (1986) found that parents and adolescents engaged in at least two

intense conflicts per week (as in Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). Even more conflicts were

experienced between siblings (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). For this reason, conflict is a

popular topic for researchers to examine. Despite the numerous amounts of research conducted

on family conflict, the frequency of conflict among the members of the family makes this topic

worthy of further study. Lastly, researchers still question the influence of biologically based

communication traits (Bayer & Cegala, 1992) and sex differences (Laursen & Collins, 1998;

Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998; Renk et al., 2005) on family conflict.

In an effort to understand family conflict, specifically between mothers and daughters,

fathers and sons, and siblings, this study will consider the previous research conducted on (1) the

conflict strategies used in managing conflict, (2) some communication traits that influence such

behaviors, and (3) the impact of individual differences on conflict. Comparisons of family

relationships to relationships outside of the family likewise contribute to the understanding of

family interactions. Lastly, a set of knowledge claims and directions for future research will be

offered.

Before exploring this research, it is essential to define interpersonal conflict. Scholars

define interpersonal conflict as an expressed struggle between two interdependent parties over

scarce rewards and resources with perceived incompatible goals (Hocker & Wilmont, 1995). It

becomes evident from this definition that expressing struggle requires communication.

Likewise, managing such conflict requires communication. The first section will examine the

conflict strategies employed when engaging in family conflict.

Conflict Strategies

2

A Fresh Perspective

Research has found that there are multiple strategies that people use to manage conflict

(Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 1993; Noeller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Rahim & Magner, 1995) and such

strategies are used consistently (Leung, 1987, 1988; Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Sternberg &

Soriano, 1984; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). While researchers disagree about how to label the

strategies people use to approach conflict, this paper focuses on the five styles presented by

Rahim and Magner (1995). These strategies are avoiding, accommodating, confronting,

compromising, and collaborating.

People who employ avoiding strategies retreat from the issue on a physical and/or

emotional level (as in Dumlao & Botta, 2000). Communicatively, they change the topic,

disclose little, and stop communicating to get away from the issue. Accommodators usually put

the needs and concerns for others above their own and usually allow the other person to have

what they want. Those people who employ confronting are usually aggressive in achieving what

they want with no concern for the other person’s needs or desires. Confronting individuals are

inflexible and tend to escalate conflict. Compromising works to achieve what both individuals

want or need. Both parties involved give up something but both also gain something. While this

strategy uses low to moderate amounts of self-disclosure, they are intermediately assertive and

cooperative in their communication. Lastly, when collaborating occurs, the individuals work to

redefine the conflict in order to find a solution to meet both party members’ needs. This style

requires high levels of disclosure and discussion of perceptions (as in Dumlao & Botta, 2000).

The use of these strategies then influences the dynamic of the interpersonal relationship

within the family unit. For instance, researchers have found a connection between the use of

conflict strategies and parenting styles (Pecchioni & Nussbaum, 2001). A study conducted by

Pecchioni and Nussbaum (2001) interviewed 36 pairs of mothers and daughters to measure the

level of involvement, level of regard, existence of disagreement, and conflict between the dyad.

3

A Fresh Perspective

Results of the study indicated that when mothers used fewer controlling strategies (i.e., persistent

arguing, verbal force, negative evaluation) during the conflict, daughters had higher levels of

involvement. An individual was considered more involved when she made suggestions or

offered alternatives during the paired interviews. Someone who just agreed with the

communication partner was considered less involved. Daughters who felt less involvement in

their relationships with their mothers, likewise, had less motivation to use compromising or

collaborating conflict strategies, promoting confrontation during conflict. Overall, summary

scores revealed that despite their preferred conflict strategies, mothers used more non-

confrontational or avoiding and accommodating. Daughters, on the other hand, used more

solution-oriented or collaborating and compromising strategies.

Beyond parenting styles, Dumlao and Botta (2000) found that the entire family

communication environment affected how individuals engaged in conflict. In this study, the

researchers examined how family communication patterns influenced the manners in which

college students approached conflict with their fathers. Researchers in this study explained four

family environments: (1) laissez-faire, (2) protective, (3) pluralistic, and (4) consensual. Laissez-

faire family environments were loosely connected and “emotionally divorced” from each other.

Children of laissez-faire fathers used more collaborating, accommodating, and confronting

conflict styles. However, they learned such conflict strategies by turning outside the family.

While lassiez-faire families were less concerned about family connections, persons in

protective family environments perceived conflict as a serious threat to the integrity of the family

unit; therefore, conformity was essential (Dumlao & Botta, 2000). Respondents in protective

families were more likely to avoid conflict with their father because addressing the issue

disrupted the family. When they did not avoid, they employed more accommodating strategies.

Pluralistic environments placed greater value on communication and essentially “thrived on

4

A Fresh Perspective

conflict.” Instead of promoting conformity, these families promoted conversation. Participants

with a pluralistic father were skilled in collaboration techniques. They did not use collaboration

to confront but rather to meet everyone’s expressed needs. Lastly, consensual families

encouraged open communication, but only if it promoted the beliefs of the parents. Children of

these fathers used more collaborative strategies and fewer accommodating (Dumlao & Botta,

2000).

Overall, this section explored the conflict strategies commonly employed in interpersonal

dyads. These strategies have been found to correlate with parenting styles. The conflict

strategies and parenting styles explain the common communication behaviors employed in the

family and contribute to understanding how conflict is managed within the family. Other

contributing factors are communication traits like verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness.

The next section of this paper will explore these traits.

Communication Traits

In examining family conflict, this part of the paper will consider the role of verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness in managing conflict. Verbal aggressiveness and

argumentativeness are two communication traits that have been found to predict better

communication behavior than personality traits (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Verbal aggression is

explained by researchers as communication that attacks another person’s self-concept (Infante,

1987; Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996; Infante & Wigley, 1986). Verbal aggressiveness is an

expression of hostility because it hurts person(s) involved. Argumentativeness, on the other

hand, is communication that attacks a position when one is defending his or her own position

(Infante, 1987; Infante & Rancer, 1982, 1996). This form of aggressive behavior concentrates on

content instead of on people (Bayer & Cegala, 1992).

5

A Fresh Perspective

In examining verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness in family conflict, scholars

have viewed these communication traits from a social cognitive theory perspective (Bandura,

1977, 1986) as well as a biological perspective. Both perspectives offer useful implications for

family interactions. Therefore, both will be discussed.

A study conducted by Martin and Anderson (1997) examined verbal aggressiveness and

argumentativeness using social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), which suggests that

people learn communication behaviors from their own experiences as well as from observing

others’ interactions. Participants in this study included 160 students and their parents (N=320).

Each participant completed Infante and Rancer’s (1982) Argumentativeness Scale, Richmond

and McCroskey’s (1990) Assertiveness-Responsiveness Measure, and Infante and Wigley’s

(1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale. Canonical correlation analyses revealed that daughters

who were high in argumentativeness, but low in verbal aggressiveness had mothers who were

likewise high in argumentativeness and low in verbal aggressiveness. The same was true for

sons who were low in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness. Surprisingly,

correlations revealed no significant relationship between fathers and daughters and sons. The

researchers suggest that these results may reflect the common caregiving role taken on by the

mother. The greater amount of time shared between a mother and offspring influences the

children to model the mother’s communication traits (Martin & Anderson, 1997).

From a biological perspective, which suggests that people are predisposed to verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness, these findings would suggest that these communication

traits are predominantly carried by women. Communibiological theorists argue that

environmental factors do not accurately explain communication behaviors (Beatty &

McCroskey, 1997; Eysenck, 1986). In fact, meta-analytic research (Lish, Savoussi, & Caccaro,

6

A Fresh Perspective

1996) revealed that the magnitude of environmental factors, although significant, displayed too

small of a magnitude to explain communication behaviors.

Some researchers of conflict in family take this perspective. For instance, Bayer and

Cegala (1992) examined the relation of predispositions for verbal aggressiveness and

argumentativeness to parenting styles. Two hundred thirty-three parents and legal guardians of

elementary school age children completed the Parents Report (Dibble & Cohen, 1974), Verbal

Aggressiveness Scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986), and Verbal Argumentativeness Scale (Infante,

1981; Infante & Gorden, 1985; Infante & Rancer, 1982). Parenting behavior was identified as

authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive (Bayer & Cegala, 1992).

Authoritative parents were identified as parents who used reason to gain their children’s

compliance and encouraged communication exchange to reach an agreement with the children

(Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Authoritarian parents were identified as being highly demanding and

concurrently insensitive to children’s needs. Lastly, permissive parents were reluctant to engage

in disagreements and often used guilt in conflict (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). Researchers found

that a predisposition to verbal aggressiveness was associated with the authoritarian parenting

style, while argumentativeness was positively correlated with the authoritative parenting style

(Bayer & Cegala, 1992).

The explanation of these parenting styles suggests that they contribute to the earlier

discussed family environments (i.e., laissez-faire, protective, pluralistic, consensual). For

instance, Bayer and Cegala’s (1992) description of authoritative parents correlates with the

depiction of pluralistic and consensual family environments. Authoritarian parents and laissez-

faire complement each other, as well as permissive parents and protective family environments.

Deductive reasoning, therefore, allows one to assume that verbal aggression is more common in

7

A Fresh Perspective

lassiez-faire environments and argumentativeness is common among pluralistic and consensual

family environments.

From the biological perspective, the predisposition to verbal aggressiveness and

argumentativeness overpower the societal influences. In other words, the biological perspective

would suggest that children who are low in verbal aggressiveness but have authoritarian parents,

who are shown in Bayer and Cegala’s (1992) study to be more verbally aggressive, would

employ more argumentativeness. On the other hand, this would suggest that children who are

low in argumentativeness but have authoritative parents, who are strongly associated with

argumentativeness, would employ greater verbal aggressiveness because of their biological

predisposition. These concerns have yet to be addressed in family conflict literature.

Just as social cognitive theory suffers a few weaknesses, the biological argument cannot

stand alone. A strict biological perspective ignores that people still have to be taught to use the

predisposition they are given. For instance, there are people who are naturally better speakers,

but it is not until they are taught communicating skills that they know how to use their natural

ability. Similarly, those predisposed to high levels of argumentativeness and low levels of verbal

aggressiveness who are constantly exposed to managing conflict in a hostile manner, probably do

not know how to construct a message to demonstrate their argumentativeness. They are not

taught the skills necessary to practice what feels natural to them. Infante, Trebing, Shepherd,

and Seeds (1984) explain this as an argumentative skills deficiency (ASD). Infante et al.’s

(1984) research found that training in argumentation could shrink the probability for a person to

rely on verbal aggression when confronting an issue. This concept suggests that parents can train

their children who are low in argumentativeness and high in verbal aggressiveness to control and

manage their natural tendencies. For this reason, it is important to examine these characteristics

8

A Fresh Perspective

of family conflict from both biological and social cognitive theory perspectives. Moreover,

examining family conflict is important because of the impact it has on relationship satisfaction.

Depending on how the conflict is managed, the struggle between parents and adolescents

can have an impact on the satisfaction in the relationship. The most detrimental combination of

communication behaviors employed during conflict has been identified in research as

demand/withdraw (Caughlin & Malis, 2004). This pattern of behaviors occurs when one partner

criticizes or nags and the other avoids the issue. The description of demand/withdraw

relationships seems to suggest that lassiez-faire family environments with authoritarian parenting

styles, and higher levels of verbal aggressiveness creates the most unsatisfactory parent-

adolescent relationship. The combination of these predictors has been ignored in research, so

such a relationship is not statistically supported. Moreover, these characteristics do not explain

the characteristics employed by adolescents who demand and parents who withdraw which,

according to Caughlin and Malis (2004), does occur. Therefore, demand/withdraw interactions

in the family require more examination of the actual communication behaviors that occur.

Due to the more hostile environment that verbal aggressiveness creates, scholars have

questioned if parents reduce their verbal aggressiveness when they are prepared to address the

conflict. In other words, if a parent is given time to plan how to address the situation, will verbal

aggression occur less in the interaction? While some researchers (Beatty & McCroskey, 1997;

Beatty & McCroskey, w/Valencic, 2001; Gray, 1991) would claim “yes” according to research

on neurobiologically based systems, specifically the fight or flight system, a study found

conducted by Beatty, Burant, Dobos, and Rudd’s (1996) found something different.

Beatty, et al. (1996) examined fathers’ verbal plans for anticipated conflict with sons and

assessed the appropriateness and effectiveness of these interaction plans. Participants included

64 fathers of undergraduate college age sons recruited from an Interpersonal communication

9

A Fresh Perspective

course. Participants completed the Verbal Aggressiveness scale (Infante & Wigley, 1986) and

responded to a scenario of a misbehaving son. In their response, the participants were asked to

write out a detailed action plan of gaining a misbehaving son’s compliance. Appropriateness and

effectiveness of the plan were then rated by 234 undergraduate students. Appropriateness of the

plan was rated using Burleson, Wilson, Waltman, Goering, Ely, and Whaley’s (1988) bi-polar

items, which assessed polite-impolite, considerate-inconsiderate, socially appropriate-socially

inappropriate, and follows social expectations-violates social expectations of tactics used by

fathers. Effectiveness was rated according to differential scales provided by Berger and Bell

(1988).

Results of Beatty, et al.’s (1996) study indicated a significant inverse relationship

between verbal aggressiveness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction

plans. In other words, verbally aggressive fathers were less likely to create appropriate and

effective plans. Further analysis revealed that as time progressed, all of the father’s strategies

became less appropriate and were perceived as less effective. However, the decline in

appropriateness and effectiveness was most prevalent among high verbally aggressive fathers.

These findings suggest that even when verbally aggressive fathers desire to behave in a rational,

thoughtful manner, their plans are consistently less appropriate. In other words, they resort to

their verbally aggressive tendencies.

Sometimes family relational partners do not realize the nature of their verbal aggression.

Beatty, Zelley, Dobos, and Rudd (1994) found that while fathers employed sarcasm and criticism

in a joking manner when relating with their sons, sons perceived such behavior as verbally

aggressive. More specifically, results from this study revealed that fathers’ verbal aggression

accounted for 30% of the variance in sarcasm and criticism. Univariate analyses indicated that

fathers’ sarcasm accounted for 25% of sons’ perceptions of overall verbal aggression. Criticism

10

A Fresh Perspective

explained 16% of sons’ perceptions of verbal aggressiveness. Argumentativeness, on the other

hand, did not show significant relations to sarcasm or criticism. These findings suggest that

fathers who are more verbally aggressive are more likely to use criticism and sarcasm than

fathers who are high in argumentativeness (Beatty et al., 1994). Likewise, fathers who use more

sarcasm and criticism are perceived as more verbally aggressive.

The research presented thus far demonstrates the common conflict strategies used in

family conflict, how those strategies as well as verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness

influence parenting styles, and two different perspectives for examining communication traits

and behaviors in family conflict. While researchers question environmental factors on verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness, research supports the influence of individual differences,

like age and sex, on conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to examine these factors in family

conflict. It is of equal importance to understand the influence conflict with family has on

interactions with those outside the family and personal development. The next sections examine

these areas of research.

Impact of Individual Differences on Conflict

Just as conflict differs according to biological factors, such as verbal aggressiveness and

argumentativeness, researchers have found differences according to age and sex. The following

studies support the influence of these factors on conflict in families.

Two of the most influential individual differences on conflict, primarily in parent-

adolescent conflict, are age and sex. More specifically, studies suggest that adolescents’ age and

sex influences what the dyad gets into conflict about. Likewise, the age and sex of the

participants determined the frequency and intensity of the conflict.

Studies show that conflict occurs more frequently during early adolescence than during

mid to late adolescence (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). However, negative affect is greater

11

A Fresh Perspective

during mid-adolescence than early adolescence. This implies that while the rate of conflict

decreases with age, the intensity of the conflict increases as the adolescent ages. However,

Resse-Weber (2000) suggests that as adolescents aged, they employed less confrontational

management strategies. More specifically, while middle adolescents employed more attack

resolution strategies (i.e., confrontational), late adolescents used more compromising (Reese-

Weber, 2000). Studies examined in Laursen et al.’s (1998) meta-analysis have also questioned

the influence of the pubertal stage of the adolescent in addition to age. Other than the possibility

of having an influence on increasing negative affect, the pubertal stage of the adolescent lacked

statistical significance on parent-adolescent conflict (Laursen & Collins, 1998).

While overall the characteristics of conflict changed with age, these characteristics

slightly differentiated according to the sex of the parent and the child. To demonstrate, the

magnitude of conflict between mothers and daughters, as well as mothers and sons, experienced

a small to moderate decline as the adolescents aged (Laursen & Collins, 1998). While fathers

and daughters experienced a small decline, fathers and sons saw a slight increase during early to

mid-adolescence (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). Sons reported more behavioral problems than

daughters with both mothers and fathers (Renk et al., 2005). Mothers had a similar perception of

their sons. Sons also reported that a more common conflict topic they had with their fathers was

“material possessions,” such as televisions and computers. From fathers’ perspectives,

disagreements with daughters were commonly about “peer group issues” (i.e., accompanying

friends to activities, dating). During a daughter’s adolescence, parents start to intensify the

concern of whereabouts of adolescent daughters more than sons (Renk et al., 2005).

Together, age and sex influence the topics of conflict that occurred in various parent-

adolescent dyads. For instance, researchers found that early adolescents identified arguing with

mothers about rules and household tasks, and both early and late adolescents selected the same

12

A Fresh Perspective

problem with fathers (Renk et al., 2005). Late adolescents noted more conflict with mothers

about the mothers’ behavior. Mothers noticed more school issues as topics during early

adolescence but fathers noted that this problem continues through middle adolescence. Both

parents selected “behavior problems” as more common during early adolescence (Renk et al.,

2005).

As these studies reveal, the age of adolescents and sex of parents and adolescents

influence the various characteristics of parent-adolescent conflict. While these differences

influenced the nature of the conflict, Renk et al., (2005) explains that parent-adolescent conflict

in general occurs over negotiating autonomy and responsibility and parents are just as aware of

conflict with daughters as with sons across stages of adolescence. However, one must question

if the primary difference between the groups of adolescents is how they perceive autonomy and

responsibility.

Perhaps more important in researching parent-adolescent conflict is considering which

relationship partner the information is coming from. In comparing parents’ perspectives to

adolescents’, researchers have discovered that adolescents tend to perceive the magnitude of

conflict as more drastic than their parents (Laursen et al., 1998; Laursen & Collins, 2004).

Likewise, Sieffge-Krenke’s (1998) study found that parents perceived their relationship with

their children in a heightened positive manner. The author of the current paper argues that these

perspective differences in themselves could increase the frustration felt from conflict. For

instance, the parents’ dismissal of the issues could further frustrate the adolescent, and the

adolescent’s exaggeration could displease the parents. However, such a conclusion lacks

statistical support.

Comparison to Relationships Outside of the Family

13

A Fresh Perspective

Researchers have turned outside the family context to understand how conflict in the

family differs from conflict in other relationships, such as between friends and co-workers. In

general, researchers have found that more hostile approaches are used among family members

than in conflict with friends and co-workers (Adams & Laursen, 2001; Infante, Myers, &

Buerkel, 1994; Raffaelli, 1997). Likewise, less sex differences were found among sibling

conflict than conflict with friends (Raffaelli, 1997).

Adams and Laursen (2001) compared how families organized conflict to how friends

organized conflict. In their examination, the researchers found that conflict was similar in

organization, but different in the dynamic of the conflict. In other words, conflict in families as

well as between friends was organized according to conflict topics, conflict resolutions, conflict

outcomes, and affect after the conflict. Familial and friend conflict went through the same stages

when in conflict. However, families employed more coercion than conflict between friends.

They found that friends more commonly withdrew from conflict (Adams & Laursen, 2001).

In addition to comparing families to friends, Infante, Myers, and Buerkel (1994)

compared the use of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in work atmospheres. Results

from their experiment revealed that both verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness were

more likely to occur in family interactions than work. Moreover, the researchers found that

constructive arguments across relationships were perceived as more argumentative and less

verbally aggressive. Verbal aggression was more associated with destructive arguments.

Constructive arguments were identified as having positive outcomes while destructive arguments

had negative outcomes (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994). This study suggests that while

families employed more coercive strategies in their conflict, they also used more argumentative

behaviors.

14

A Fresh Perspective

In an effort to understand environmental/situational factor’s influence on sibling

relationships, Raffaelli (1997) examined sex differences in family and friend conflict. This study

used interviews in addition to the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire (Blyth, 1982) to measure

these variables. While sex differences were found in conflict with friends, siblings handled

conflict similarly regardless of sex. The primary difference that was found in sibling conflict

was the type of conflict the participant explained during the interview. Boys described a specific

conflict with siblings (95%), while girls explained a habitual conflict with siblings (38%).

Raffaelli’s (1997) findings suggest that family interactions act as a learning atmosphere provided

for adolescents in sibling conflict where they can assert themselves. This is especially important

for girls who often withdrawal from conflict with friends. More specifically, conflict between

friends provides adolescents with the opportunity to learn interpersonal connections and sibling

conflict allows the adolescent to develop individually (Raffaelli, 1997).

This section reviewed research that has compared families to friends and co-workers.

The results from these studies suggest that the family context acts more as a comfortable

environment where more hostility can occur. However, these studies fail to acknowledge the

differences in family environment. Earlier in this essay, a discussion of family environments and

parenting styles determined the nature of the conflict. This explains why researchers have found

that both more verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness occur in the family context.

Knowledge Claims

The research provided above reveals how much scholars know about family conflict.

The following knowledge claims reiterate this information.

1. A father who encourages significant amounts of quality communication is more likely to

raise children who find an equally advantageous solution for both parties involved in the

15

A Fresh Perspective

conflict. Fathers who encourage more conformity often predict more accommodative and

avoiding conflict styles (Dumlao, & Botta, 2000).

2. Mothers’ highly involved communication styles are related to her likelihood to employ

non-confrontational (accommodating) conflict behavior. When a mother exerts more

controlling behaviors, a daughter’s involvement will decrease (Pecchioni & Nussbaum,

2001).

3. From a social learning theoretical perspective, children are more likely to model the

mother’s communication traits (i.e. argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness) due to the

mother’s higher level of interaction with offspring (Martin & Anderson, 1997). Mothers

with poor argumentativeness (argumentative skill deficiency) are not providing their

children with models of good argumentation (Martin, & Anderson, 1997).

4. The predisposition for verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness influences the way

parents interact with their children (Bayer & Cegala, 1992). They are likewise acting as

models for their children on how to manage their aggression.

5. Verbally aggressive people view opposition from others as a threat and respond by

attacking the other’s self-concept (Bayer, & Cegala, 1992).

6. Authoritarian parents are identified as highly demanding and concurrently insensitive to

children’s needs and are associated with verbal aggressive behaviors. On the other hand,

people high in argumentativeness focus on the issue involved and refrain from attacking

the other’s identity. High argumentativeness was positively correlated with the

Authoritative parenting style. These parents use reason to gain their child’s compliance

and encourage children to communicate their concerns (Bayer, & Cegala, 1992).

16

A Fresh Perspective

7. Even when planning interactions, verbally aggressive fathers approach the behavior in

less appropriate and less effective manners than fathers with high argumentativeness

(Beatty, Burant, Dobos & Rudd, 1996).

8. A verbally aggressive father is more likely to express his aggression through sarcasm and

criticism than a father high in argumentativeness (Beatty, Zelley, Dobos & Rudd, 1994).

The son of a verbally aggressive father is more likely to perceive his father’s sarcasm and

criticism as verbal aggression.

9. Constructive arguments are perceived as more argumentative and less verbally

aggressive. Verbal aggression is more associated with destructive arguments. Both

verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness are more likely to occur in family

interactions than work (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994).

10. Conflict during early and middle adolescence with mothers and fathers primarily

concerns autonomy and responsibility (Renk, Lilehequist, Simpson, & Phares, 2005).

Middle adolescents employed more attack resolution strategies (i.e., confrontational)

while late adolescents used more compromising (Reese-Weber, 2000).

11. While rate of conflict decreases with age, the intensity of the conflict increases with age

(Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). As female adolescents age, parents begin to show

greater concern for daughters’ location than they do with sons (Renk et al., 2005).

12. Just as parents demand and adolescents withdraw, the roles can reverse and adolescents

can take on the demand position and parents can withdraw (Caughlin & Malis, 2004).

Both ways of relating create dissatisfaction in family dyads, as they do in martial dyads

(Caughlin & Malis, 2004).

13. Parent-adolescent conflict is more likely to be coercive while mitigation is used more in

conflict among friends (Adams & Laursen, 2001). Both verbal aggressiveness and

17

A Fresh Perspective

argumentativeness are more likely to occur in family interactions than work (Infante,

Myers, & Buerkel, 1994).

14. Conflicts between friends are more conducive than parent-adolescent conflicts to

mastering conflict management because parent-adolescent conflicts lack the opportunity

for adolescents to practice mitigation (Adams & Laursen, 2001).

15. Conflict in families was more coercive while more mitigation was found in conflict

among friends. Friends were more likely to withdrawal from conflict (Adams & Laursen,

2001).

16. Conflict between friends provides adolescents with the opportunity to learn interpersonal

connections while sibling conflict provides adolescents with the opportunity to develop

individuality. Sibling conflict is greatly marked by the amount of time spent together

(Raffaelli, 1997).

17. As children advance through early, middle, and late adolescence, the frequency of

conflict with their parents decreases while intensity increases. The greatest decrease in

frequency occurs between mothers and adolescents. Meanwhile, fathers and sons

experience a greater increase in intensity (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998).

18. Parent-child interactions transcend to children’s interactions with their siblings. When a

parent and child use more compromising strategies with each other, the child will likely

employ the same tacit with his/her sibling (Reese-Weber, 2000).

19. Scholars need to further acknowledge the impact of the context surrounding conflict as

well as the accuracy of encoding and decoding messages when measuring family conflict

(Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004).

Directions for Future Research

18

A Fresh Perspective

Despite the numerous amount of knowledge accumulated from researching conflict in

families, much is left unknown. Therefore, the following statements offer directions for future

research.

1. To what degree do children with low levels of verbal aggression who have authoritarian

parents employ argumentativeness? While a child’s natural tendency may be to approach

conflict in an argumentative manner, she or he may not have the necessary skills to

employ such tactics. If these children do not have such skills, can they benefit from

argumentative skills training? As mentioned before, Infante et al. (1984) found

individuals relied less on verbal aggression upon receiving training in argumentativeness,

but this approach has not been examined in young children of authoritarian parents.

2. What is the relation of lassiez-faire family environments, authoritarian parenting styles,

and high levels of verbal aggression to parent-adolescent relationship satisfaction? While

scholars understand the low levels of relationship satisfaction in demand/withdraw

relationships, research is lacking in combining these other explanations of family

environments. Perhaps a multiple regression model can assist in answering these

questions.

3. How does verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness, cultured in the family, influence

romantic relationships of these individuals later in life? Do individuals who were raised

in households with greater verbal aggressiveness employ these strategies when

interacting with their own children? Many studies have examined conflict among family

members and with friends, but longitudinal studies have been provided to examine the

long-term effects of such behaviors.

4. Does training in argumentativeness for younger couples prevent the use of verbal

aggressiveness with their children? How do couples who received training differ from

19

A Fresh Perspective

those who did not? The implications of this research suggest that people are more likely

to resort to aggressive behaviors in the family than with friends or co-workers. Previous

research that has tested the impact of training on argumentativeness has not examined the

unique family dynamic. Therefore, it is necessary to test the impact of training for young

couples who are about to have children. To fully examine the effects, a longitudinal

research design would be preferred. Likewise, researchers could examine if these

couples need periodic training to refrain from resorting to old behaviors.

5. What are the more specific differences that occur according to sex versus verbal

aggressiveness? Studies that examined sex differences with family conflict did not

examine the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness of these individuals. Are these

communication traits better indicators than sex?

Summary

The study of conflict in families presents many factors that are unique to the family.

Much of family research has to apply general characteristics of dyadic relationships to the dyads

within the family. However, the research provided here on family conflict demonstrates why it

is important to reexamine communication variables specifically in the mother-daughter, father-

son, and sibling relationships. The interactions that occur within in the family are unique, but

also difficult to capture. Many people are ashamed by the way their family interacts and

therefore choose to not share such private information with researchers. Likewise, when parents

complete information they are likely to report an exaggerated positive perception of the family

interaction. This makes it difficult to truly understand the family and how they engage in

conflict. The best way to overcome such issues when studying the family is to continue

researching communication behaviors in this context with these limitations in mind. Moreover,

20

A Fresh Perspective

there is going to be some truth in what participants report. With more research, more

understanding is acquired.

21

A Fresh Perspective

References

Adams, R., & Laursen, B. (2001). The organization and dynamics of adolescent conflict with

parents and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 97-110. [Electronic version].

Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bayer, C. L., & Cegala, D. J. (1992). Trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness:

Relations with parenting style. [Electronic version]. Western Journal of

Communication, 56, 301-310.

Beatty, M. J., Burant, P. A., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1996). Trait verbal aggressiveness and

the appropriateness and effectiveness of fathers’ interaction plans. Communication

Quarterly, 44, 1-15. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest.

Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as

temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446-460.

Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. w/Valencic, K. M. (2001). The Biology of communication: A

communibiological perspective. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Beatty, M. J., Zelley, J. R., Dobos, J. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1994). Fathers’ trait and verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness as predictors of adult sons’ perceptions of fathers’

sarcasm, criticism, and verbal aggression. Communication Quarterly, 42, 407-415.

[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from ProQuest.

Berger, C. R., & Bell, R. A. (1988). Plans and the initiation of relationships. Human

Communication Research, 15, 217-235.

22

A Fresh Perspective

Blyth, D. A. (1982). Mapping the social world of adolescents: Issues, techniques, and problems.

In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social Cognition, context, and social behavior: A developmental

perspective. New York: Guilford.

Burleson, B. R., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, T. K., & Whaley, B. B.

(1988). Item desirability effects in compliance-gaining research: Seven studies

documenting artifacts in the strategy selection procedure. Human Communication

Research, 14, 429-486.

Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and

adolescents as a correlate of relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 17, 59-71.

[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.

Dibble, E., & Cohen, D. J. (1974). Companion instruments for measuring children's competence

and parental style. Archives of General Psychiatry, 30, 805-815.

Dumlao, R., & Botta, R. A. (2000). Family communication patterns and the conflict styles

young adults use with their fathers. Communication Quarterly, 48, 174-179.

Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Can personality ever be scientific? Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 1, 3-20.

Gray, J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Stelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.),

Explorations in temperament (pp.105-128). New York: Plenum.

Folger, J., Poole, M., & Stutman, R. (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for

relationships, groups, and organizations. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper Cotlins.

Hocker, J. L. & Wilmont, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict. (4th ed.). Madison, Wisconsin:

Brown and Benchmark Publishers.

Infante, D. A. (1981). Trait argumentativeness as a predictor of communicative behavior in

situations requiring argument. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 265-272.

23

A Fresh Perspective

Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and

interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park: Sage.

Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness

as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction. Human Communication Research,

12, 117-125.

Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in

constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal

of Communication, 58, 73-84. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from

Ebsco.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 73-84.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A review of

recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.

Infante, D. A., Trebing, D. J., Shepherd, P. E., & Seeds, D. E. (1984). The relationship of

argumentativeness to verbal aggression. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50,

67-77.

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and

measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

Laursen, B. & Collins, W.A. (2004). Parent-child communication during adolescence. In

A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication. Mahweh: Lawrence Earlbaum

Associates.

Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child

conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817-832.

[Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from Ebsco.

24

A Fresh Perspective

Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models of conflict resolution: A

cross - national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898 - 908.

Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology,19, 125-136.

Lish, J. D., Kavoussi, R. J., & Caccaro, E. F. (1996). Aggressiveness. In C. G. Costello (Ed.),

Personality characteristics of the personality disordered (pp. 24-28). New York: Wiley.

Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1997). Aggressive communication traits: How similar are

young adults and their parents in argumentativeness, assertiveness, and verbal

aggressiveness. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 299-314. [Electronic version].

Retrieved August 28, 2005, from Communication and Mass Media Complete.

Montemayer, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 1, 15-31.

Noller, P. & Fitzpatrick, M. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pecchioni, L. L. & Nussbaum, J. F. (2001). Mother-adult daughter discussions of caregiving

prior to dependency: Exploring conflicts among European-American women. Journal of

Family Communication, 1, 133-140. [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 28, 2005,

from Communication & Mass Media Complete.

Raffaelli, M. (1997). Young adolescents’ conflicts with siblings and friends. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 26, 539-558. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6,

2005, from Ebsco.

Rahim, M. & Magner, N. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling

interpersonal conflict: First order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 80, 122-132.

25

A Fresh Perspective

Reese-Weber, M. (2000). Middle and late adolescents’ conflict resolution skills with siblings:

Associations with interparental and parent-adolescent conflict resolution. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 29, 697-711. [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 6, 2005

from Ebsco.

Renk, K., Lilehequist, L., Simpson, J. E., & Phares, V. (2005). Gender and age differences in

topics of parent-adolescent conflict. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for

Couples and Families, 13, 139-149.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1990). Reliability and separation of factors on the

assertiveness-responsiveness measure. Psychological Reports, 67, 449-450.

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1998, December). Families with daughters, families with sons: Different

challenges for family relationships and martial satisfaction. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence. [Electronic version]. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from Ebsco Database.

Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of

family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication,

(pp413-446). Mahweh: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. & Dobson, D. (1987). Resolving interpersonal conflict: An analysis of stylistic

consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 794-812.

Sternberg, R. & Soriano, L. (1984). Styles of conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47, 115-126.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H., Lin. S., Nishida,T. (1991). Culture,

face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296.

26