Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts

  • 297 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, J. K. (1988). An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints. Communication Monographs, 55, 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, J. K., & Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation: The trajectory of couples’ conversational complaints. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 394–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casriel, D. (1972). A scream away from happiness. New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke-Stewart, A., & Brentano, C. (2006). Divorce: Causes and consequences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’s error. Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Milan: Adelphi.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durana, C. (1996). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of the PAIRS psychoeducational program for couples. Family Therapy, 23, 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Goffman, E. (1956). Embarrassment and social organization. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 264–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gordon, T. (1975). P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York, NY: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1976). Distressed marital interaction: Analysis and interventions. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles of making marriage work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harmony.

    Google Scholar 

  • HoudĂ©, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. L. (2001). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlov, A. B. (1992). Carl Rogers and contemporary humanism. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(1), 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Violent emotions: Shame and rage in marital quarrels. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Satir, V. (1976). Making contact. Berkeley, CA: Celestial arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satir, V. (1988). The new peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

    Harry Weger Jr.

Authors
  1. Harry Weger Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry Weger Jr. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HEP-BEJUNE, University of Teacher Education, Biel, Switzerland

    Francesco Arcidiacono

  2. (USI), UniversitĂ  della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

    Antonio Bova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weger, H. (2017). What Can Studying Designed Marital Argument Interventions Contribute to Argumentation Scholarship?. In: Arcidiacono, F., Bova, A. (eds) Interpersonal Argumentation in Educational and Professional Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59084-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59083-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59084-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation