A Test of the Conflict Linkage Model in the Context of Serial Arguments

Abstract

This investigation tests Honeycutt's (2003) conflict linkage theory in the context of serial arguing. Reports on the characteristics of imagined interactions were obtained before, after, and between two episodes of the same serial argument. Analysis (N = 223) showed that imagined interactions affect the goals and tactics used in serial arguments. Imagined interactions have strong relationships among themselves, and this is a stronger effect than that of the arguments on the imagined interactions. Results support conflict linkage theory and add consistent support to the emerging empirical description of the internal dynamics of serial arguing processes.

Keywords:

• Conflicted Linkage Theory
• Imagined Interaction
• Serial Argument

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the National Communication Association meeting in New Orleans in 2011.

Notes

Note. n = 120.

*p < .01.

Note. n = 50.

*p < .05.

Note. n = 46.

*p < .01.

Note. n = 117.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Note. n = 37.

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dale Hample

Dale Hample (PhD, University of Illinois) is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Maryland

Adam S. Richards

Adam S. Richards doctoral student in the same department.

Ling Na

Ling Na doctoral student in the same department.