IDENTIFYING AND CHARACTERIZING GOALS OF DATING PARTNERS ENGAGING IN SERIAL ARGUMENTATION Jennifer L. Bevan, Jerold L, Hale, and Sandra L, Williams mentation continues to be of interest to ners enter into a serial argument thus can scholars of both argumentation and rela- illuminate the relationship between serial ar- tional communication (e.g., Canary, Bross- guments and relational health. This study mann, Brossmann, & Weger, 1995; Hample enlarges the body of research on serial argu- etal., 1999; Trapp, 1989), one aspect contin- ments by identifying and categorizing the arguments that extend beyond a single, iso- engage in ongoing argument with one an- search has investigated these serial argu- episodes that focus on a particular issue" flohnson & Roloff, 1998, p. 329). Serial ar- guments are consistent with O'Keefe's 'n ™ interpersonal relationship context, (1982) concept of argument, and often have argument can refer to "convergence-seeking no discernible beginning or end (Trapp, discourse" that involves the partners' agree- 1990). Interpersonal arguments can "reflect "lent or understanding about a topic and on the health of romantic involvements" progress toward agreement about potential (Canary et al., 1995, p. 184) and reconcilia- fu^re actions (Canary et al., 1995, p. 18S). tion of clashing goals is "one of the most Further, although they can be prompted by difficult and important problems encoun- conflict, characterized by disagreement and tered in any relationship" (Peterson, 1989, p. reason giving, and employed to resolve con- 330). Thus, examining partners' goals in a Oict (Trapp, 1989), arguments involve both serial argument is important because both cooperative and competitive behaviors, partners continually must seek agreement on whereas conflict is primarily competitive (Canary et al., 1995). Previous research on interpersonal argument has employed con- versation analysis techniques to analyze ar- he conseque d bd tTZ,t^l^L^t"Fdhw Hample et al., 1999), and has examined the 'e col'l°cttd"i'l'hTuSvmav '""P"" selecting when arguing (e.g., Hample iion of Ihis paper was pre & Dallinger, 1987). ^GA^''i(H}f"pie'a5e" address Despite this interest in interpersonal argu- I. "imi «9.MBSf tS; ™=^' =d specifically on mial arguments ^ohn-