By: MJ Gabriel

They did it again.  Your significant other left their dishes in the sink for the fourth time this week, even after you repeatedly told them not to.  You let out a sigh and brace yourself for what’s coming next: it’s time to get into another argument.

Repeated arguments over the same topic, also known as serial arguments, are a familiar experience for many.  But is there any hope in solving them?  According to a study led by Ioana Cionea, professor of Communication at the University of Oklahoma, the way you understand and approach the conversation can affect your attitude and, eventually, the solvability of that pesky problem.

In the study made up of 18- to 65-year-olds in some form of a romantic relationship, 539 people were asked to complete a survey in which they ranked some qualities of their relationships.  Participants rated statements describing their relationship qualities, conflict styles, and goals in their serial argument on a scale from one to seven.  Using this scale, the survey was able to test how one’s goals, or desired outcomes in an argument, can affect one’s tactics and ultimately, the solvability of the problem.

Cionea and her colleagues focused on seven potential goals of a serial argument: positive relational expressiveness, mutual understanding/resolution, negative expressiveness, dominance/control, hurting the other, and relational termination.

Their most striking discoveries are found within the research of these goals.

They found that more positive goals such as mutual understanding between partners and the open communication in positive relational expressiveness were associated with integrative tactics, a more constructive and healthy approach to an argument.  Meanwhile, goals such as dominance, inflicting pain or terminating the relationship were closely linked to the more negative and controlling distributive tactics.  Pursuing a noble goal led to a warmer environment while a pessimistic approach shut down the conversation.

Furthermore, the use of integrative tactics in an argument made the partner look more positively toward the future.  Those that used integrative tactics in their serial arguments were filled with hope of solving the serial argument later down the line, while those that used distributive tactics felt little satisfaction in the resolvability of the repeat problem, as they were only interested in “winning” the argument in the moment.

This shows that the way in which you approach an argument can actually affect your outlook on it.  While you might think venting to your partner may provide some relief in the short term, distributive tactics will worsen a serial argument in the long term.  However, with positive goals and collaborative tactics, you too can have hope to smooth over that one annoying quirk of your partner’s.

To make matters even better for those who live in different locations than their partner, the study showed little difference in results between long distance relationships and geographically close relationships.  So, the use of cooperative, integrative methods will be effective both over the phone and in person.

So, the next time you are gearing up for another round of arguments with your partner, stop and think about what you hope to accomplish in this conversation.  Do you wish to put them down?  Or do you really want to solve this recurring conflict?  Your desires will affect the methods you use to communicate with your partner.  And those methods, whether collaborative or dominating, will determine how you see this problem in the future.

Do you want to keep bickering about dirty dishes forever?  Not many do.  To help ensure an optimistic view of your next serial argument, consider evaluating what you want to see happen and what you do to get there.  A moment of clarity might go a long way in getting you partner to do their dishes.