| This study examined individual differences in emotional thresholds for ongoing, repetitive conflicts known as serial arguments. Specifically, this study proposed that individuals' motivation for, and likelihood of, continuing a serial argument varies as a function of their personalities (i.e., emotional intelligence and tolerance for disagreement) and contextual elements unique to each serial argument (i.e., perceived resolvability of the argument), ultimately influencing relational satisfaction and closeness. Participants included 476 young adults who reported on ongoing serial arguments in either family or romantic relationships. After describing features of the serial argument (i.e., duration, initiator, and perceived resolvability), participants completed measures of emotional intelligence, tolerance for disagreement, relational satisfaction, and closeness.;Preliminary analyses revealed significant differences in argumentative features based on relationship type (family vs. romantic), duration, and typical initiator (self vs. partner), and thus, hypotheses were tested separately for each relationship type while controlling for these differences. In family relationships, hierarchical regression analyses suggest that individuals who believe their argument will be resolved and those who are more tolerant of disagreement in general are more motivated to sustain their serial argument. Additionally, emotional intelligence and perceived resolvability were unique predictors of relational satisfaction in both romantic and family relationships. Intriguingly, closeness in romantic relationships was associated with both situational factors (i.e., perceived resolvability, initiator, and likelihood of continuing the argument) and individual factors (i.e., emotional intelligence). Collectively, these results extend previous research by identifying factors that contribute meaningful variance to previously understudied aspects of serial arguments. |
