Advertisement

What Can Studying Designed Marital Argument Interventions Contribute to Argumentation Scholarship?

  • Harry WegerJr.
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I take a design approach to the study of marital argumentation. Two marriage education programs, the prevention and relationship enhancement program (PREP) and the practical application of intimate relationship skills (PAIRS) program are examined. Each curriculum presents communication tools/guides/procedures for either directly improving argumentation behavior or by indirectly improving arguments by enhancing the partners’ commitment and intimacy. After discussing specific communication tools from each program, I identify design hypotheses underlying the programs that can then be applied to more general issues related to argumentation theory.

References

  1. Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberts, J. K. (1988). An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints. Communication Monographs, 55, 184–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberts, J. K., & Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation: The trajectory of couples’ conversational complaints. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baucom, B. R., Atkins, D. C., Eldridge, K., McFarland, P., Sevier, M., & Christensen, A. (2011). The language of demand/withdraw: Verbal and vocal expression in dyadic interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 570–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canary, D. J., Brossmann, J., Brossmann, B. G., & Weger, H., Jr. (1994). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs, 62, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., Sillars, A. L., & LoVette, S. (1987). Married couples’ argument structures and sequences: A comparison of satisfied and dissatisfied dyads. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 475–484). Annandale, VA: SCA.Google Scholar
  7. Canary, D. J., & Weger, H., Jr. (2009). An observational analysis of conversational argument sequences and assessments of communication quality: A minimally rational perspective. In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument: Selected papers from the fifteenth biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 95–109). Washington, DC: NCA.Google Scholar
  8. Canary, D. J., & Weger, H., Jr. (2015). Competence in conflict management. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Canary, D. J., Weger, H., Jr., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrol, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations, 52, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casriel, D. (1972). A scream away from happiness. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke-Stewart, A., & Brentano, C. (2006). Divorce: Causes and consequences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’s error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Milan: Adelphi.Google Scholar
  14. Demaris, A. (2000). Till discord do us part: The role of physical and verbal conflict in union disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 683–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durana, C. (1996). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of the PAIRS psychoeducational program for couples. Family Therapy, 23, 11–36.Google Scholar
  16. Floyd, K., & Afifi, T. D. (2011). Biological and physiological perspectives on human communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 423–444). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1956). Embarrassment and social organization. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, L. H. (2008). A PAIRS curriculum for supporting healthy marriages: Facilitator’s guide and curriculum for facilitators, managers, and family support staff. Miami, FL: PAIRS Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, T. (1975). P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York, NY: New American Library.Google Scholar
  20. Gottman, J. M. (1976). Distressed marital interaction: Analysis and interventions. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  23. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottman, J. M., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles of making marriage work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harmony.Google Scholar
  26. Houdé, O., Zago, L., Crivello, F., Moutier, S., Pineau, A., Mazoyer, B., et al. (2001). Access to deductive logic depends on a right ventromedial prefrontal area devoted to emotion and feeling: Evidence from a training program. Neuroimage, 14(6), 1486–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., Stearns, S., & Hall, B. (1991). Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction (pp. 43–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S., Dickinson, S. L., et al. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 1377–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markman, H. J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S., & Jamieson, K. (1984). A cognitive/behavioral program for the prevention of marital and family distress: Issues in program development and delivery. In K. Hahlweg & N. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction: Analysis and modification (pp. 369–428). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  32. Markman, H. J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S., & Storaasli, R. (1988). The prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2001). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Orlov, A. B. (1992). Carl Rogers and contemporary humanism. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(1), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Violent emotions: Shame and rage in marital quarrels. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roloff, M. E., Reznik, R. M., Miller, C. W., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). “I thought we settled this?!” Antecedents and consequences of resolution of an initial episode in a serial argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52, 8–31.Google Scholar
  37. Satir, V. (1976). Making contact. Berkeley, CA: Celestial arts.Google Scholar
  38. Satir, V. (1988). The new peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.Google Scholar
  39. Saver, J. L., & Damasio, A. R. (1991). Preserved access and processing of social knowledge in a patient with acquired sociopathy due to ventromedial frontal damage. Neuropsychologia, 29, 1241–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz, B., Ketrow, S. M., & Urban, D. M. (1995). Improving decision quality in the small group: The role of reminder. Small Group Research, 26, 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sillars, A. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1991). Communication strategies in conflict and mediation. In J. Wiemann & J. Daly (Eds.), Communicating strategically: Strategies in interpersonal communication (pp. 163–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Helping couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. In R. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples’ therapy (pp. 279–303). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., Saiz, C. C., Bloomstrom, G., Thomas, R., et al. (2005). Dissemination and evaluation of marriage education in the army. Family Process, 44, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanley, S. M., Bradbury, T. N., & Markman, H. J. (2000). Structural flaws in the bridge from basic research on marriage to interventions for couples: Illustrations from Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Terman, L. M., Buttenweiser, P., Ferguson, L. W., Johnson, W. B., & Wilson, D. P. (1938). Psychological factors in marital happiness. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Ithaca, NY: ILR.Google Scholar
  47. Weger, H., Jr. (2001). Pragma-dialectical theory and interpersonal interaction outcomes: Unproductive interpersonal behavior as violations of rules for critical discussion. Argumentation, 15, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weger, H., Jr. (2011). Engineering argumentation in marriage: Pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, and the “Fair Fight for Change” in marriage education. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1951–1965). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  49. Weger, H., Jr., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weger, H., Jr., & Canary, D. J. (2010). Conversational argument in close relationships: A case for studying argument sequences. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weger, H. Jr., & Jacobs, S. (1995). The burden of going forward with the argument: Argumentative relevance in pragma-dialectics. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 525–531). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  52. Weiss, R. L. (1978). The conceptualization of marriage from a behavioral perspective. In T. J. Paolino & B. S. McCrady (Eds.), Marriage and marital therapy: Psychoanalytic, behavioral and systems theory perspectives (pp. 165–239). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations