Katie McGhee

COMM 460-01

Conflict Engagement by Millennials on Social Media

Introduction

Conflict communication used on social media is a phenomenon that is quickly

becoming dominant in our age of technology, especially with millennials, or those born

between 1981 and 2000. The conflict communication traits of what is referred to as

argumentativeness, or the tendency to argue, and verbal aggression often present

themselves as causes of conflict on social media. It is important to understand how these

traits can affect millennial’s conflict communication on social media, so that we can learn

to engage in more effective conflict communication. Millennials are entering the “real

world” and need to learn how to engage in more effective conflict communication.

Looking at why conflict on social media is primarily used by millennials, as opposed to

in person, may help aid millennials in the daily task of conflict communication. By

looking at the traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggression, along with the causes of

conflict communication, the conflict that takes place on social media by millennials can

be better predicted and understood.

Millennials and Social Media

This communication phenomenon comes to light, because of the surge of social

media use in the last decade. Millennials have been exposed to this type of technology

from a young age. This has provided the millennial generation a new way to express

them, as Valeriya Safronova explains in her article (2014). Safronova discusses the social

media platform, Tumblr, and quotes Zellie Thomas, a popular social activism blogger, wo

claims of millennials that, “Now, with social media, they feel empowered, like people are

hearing their voice. And Tumblr is a great platform for all types of media.” Using social

media as an outlet for frustrations, or other emotions, does not just occur on Tumblr. By

scrolling through Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram it can be seen that many millennials

voice their opinions, beliefs, and concerns on social media. This is where the

phenomenon of conflict communication comes in. Millennials use social media as a

means of confrontation to avoid issues face-to-face interactions.

This becomes an issue when it begins to affect their personal and professional

lives. Merav Gur (2014) notes that millennial women tend to turn toward avoidance in

face-to-face conflicts for fear of leaving their comfort zone. This fear of conflict is

leading to a lack of intimate relationships for millennial women, thus hindering their

personal relationships. Rek Huppke notes that millennials, “seem to have a problem with

personal interaction and conflict resolution” (2012). After speaking with psychologist Dr.

Linda Gravett, Huppke explains that millennials are lacking necessary confrontational

skills needed in a professional setting. After asking millennials why they do not simply

ask another individual to coffee to discuss a conflict, she claims many regarded that as

“too personal.” This lack of face-to-face conflict communication can be detrimental to

learning how to handle conflict and confrontation in person. It can also cause the traits of

argumentativeness and verbal aggression to be displayed by social media users. The

purpose of this study will be to identify causes of the conflict communication traits of

verbal aggression and argumentativeness for millennials on social media.

Theoretical Grounding

Social Information Processing Theory, by Walther, explains how people get to

know one another when online and without the help of nonverbal cues. Walther (1992)

discusses how people develop and maintain relationships in an online world. As it relates

to my topic, there are two main constructs that can help explain how millennials use

social media. The concept of translation of cues is an important construct to this theory,

as it explains that language can take the place of nonverbal cues and still be effective in

an online relationship. For example, using “caps lock” in place of yelling can be

considered a translation of verbally aggressive cues. Another key construct is rate, which

describes the effect that a slower rate of communication through online communication

can have on developing a relationship online. The Since messages online do not take

place in real time, it can take longer to develop relational communication, and therefore

personal relationships. Therefore an argument, or conflict, through social media can take

place over a span of days, weeks, or months and generates more organic responses, as

opposed to a face-to-face argument that cannot rely on the time away from social media

used to respond.

Conflict Reasoning and Causes

Conflict communication can involve a variety of factors, from the traits of

argumentativeness and verbal aggression to avoiding a conflict altogether.

Argumentativeness and verbal aggression have the ability to influence how an individual

responds to conflict situations. The causes of conflicts can also provide background as to

why or how someone responds to conflict or confrontation. Confrontation may have

become an issue depending on an individual’s background and it may go beyond the

traits of verbal aggression and argumentativeness. Avoidance as a strategy of conflict

communication is commonly used by millennials, as well, and is important to the

understanding of conflict communication. This section will explore the 5 areas related

areas of research proven to be significant to this issue: Argumentativeness, verbal

aggression, confrontation, causes of conflict and avoidance.

Argumentativeness

Miller & Roloff (2014) sought to understand whether the trait of

argumentativeness was involved in engaging in conflict or ending conflict between

romantic partners. It was found that argumentativeness is positively related with the

“willingness to confront a partner regardless of the personal attack type” (Miller &

Roloff, 2014). This suggests that when presented with confrontation, people who enjoy

arguing are prone to approach their partner, engaging in conflict, rather than avoid them

after hurtful comments have been made. Meluch & Walter (2012) discuss

argumentativeness in relation to computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-

face (FTF) communication. It was found that, the trait of argumentativeness, or the

tendency to argue, was expressed regardless of the context used (FTF or CMC).

However, the results show that CMC has a higher average score of argumentativeness.

The authors state that, though “this is not statistically significant, we have reason to

believe that future studies may indicate that an individual is more likely to be

argumentative while in engaging in conflict online than when in FTF interactions”

(Meluch & Walter, 2012). In conclusion, the trait argumentativeness can be significant

when engaging in conflict and confrontation. Though the results of Meluch & Walter

(2012) show that argumentativeness does not change across contexts, it can play a role in

the frequency of conflict taking place on social media.

Verbal Aggression

Aloia & Solomon (2013) investigates the association between familial history

exposure to verbal aggression and the tendency to be verbally aggressive in romantic

relationships by surveying college-aged students. The finding suggests that individuals

who have been exposed to verbal aggression as a child may become more accustom to

those experiences by my not viewing them as problematic (Aloia & Solomon, 2013). The

authors’ research explains that exposure to verbal aggression can desensitize cues that are

used to “trigger empathic responding by undermining the development of emotion

regulation skills,” (Aloia & Solomon, 2013) thus causing individuals to not respond

normally to conflict situations.

Croucher et al. (2012) discusses how the demographics of sex, education,

religion, and religiosity influence the relationship between argumentativeness and verbal

aggression based on surveys given to people aged 18-78. Religiosity refers to the

different aspects of religious dedication and belief. Researchers found that all of the

variables can influence verbal aggression, whether it increases it or decreases it. Males

were found to be highly more verbally aggressive than females, and that “women who

were more likely to stereotype men as argumentative, were also likely to stereotype men

as aggressive” (Croucher et al, 2012). However, the traits of verbal aggression and

argumentativeness do not appear to be related. In conclusion, background demographics

and exposure to verbal aggression can affect an individual’s likelihood to be verbally

aggressive in conflict.

Confrontation

Meluch & Walters (2012) found that confrontational strategies do not seem to

change depending on the context. This can be related to their findings that an

individual’s willingness to argue does not change based on context (CMC or FTF).

Nevell & Stutman (1983) examined social confrontation as a problematic situation and

how it affects people by having undergraduates role-play confrontation situations. This

study found from the six role-playing situations displaying social confrontation that,

depending on who the confrontation is between, there are different expectations.

Negotiating and establishing social rules in a social confrontation is necessary to

resolving confrontation (Nevell & Stutman, 1983, p. 733). Nevell & Stutman (1983)

explain that, “how confrontation is initiated may reflect the confidence of the confronter

in the legitimacy, or shared understanding, of the rule, and thus influence the entire

process of the confrontation encounter.” In conclusion, confrontation can be a type of

conflict communication that depends entirely on the background of the individual

engaging in conflict.

Causes of Conflict

Miller & Roloff (2014) suggest that insults instigated by a romantic partner can

cause an individual to engage in conflict communication. The researchers explain that an

argumentative individual confronts their partner primarily for utilitarian reasons, “such as

refuting the attack, reducing their stress, and/or changing their partner’s view of them”

(Miller & Roloff, 2014).

Meluch & Walters (2012) found that in computer-mediated communication;

miscommunication can often be a cause of conflict and lead to further misunderstandings

(p. 36). The researchers suggest that this could be because there is a lack of immediacy in

CMC, as opposed to FTF interactions. In FTF interactions, there is a perception that there

may be more at stake because of this immediacy. It can cause participants to be more

involved (Meluch & Walters, 2012).

Avoidance

Wang, Fink, and Cai (2012) create a typology, or classification system,

encompassing different conflict goals to demonstrate how avoidance is a conflict strategy

based on questionnaires from students ranging from ages 17-25. The results of this study

find that the typology created help predict the avoidance and non-avoidance strategies

used in conflict and the conflict goals used. These conflict goals are competitive goals

and cooperative goals, and either may become the most important depending on the

conflict situation. Competitive goals become most important when there is a perceived

incompatibility that is stronger than a mutual dependence. When interdependence is more

important then cooperative goals become the most important (Wang et al, 2012). Conflict

goals successfully predict avoidance strategies used in conflict and help show that these

strategies are of importance to conflict communication. Wang et al (2012) found that

avoidance in a conflict does not necessarily mean that an individual has a low concern for

the situation.

Methodology

This study will be conducted with quantitative methodology. The frequency,

or rate, of the conflict communication will be a main focus and what is measured. In

addition, the causes of the communication phenomenon are a primary interest of

the study. This approach will help predict particular outcomes involved with

engaging in conflict communication on social media. Many previous studies have

used quantitative methodologies to analyze this phenomenon, therefore this

approach is effective in understanding certain gaps associated with conflict

communication. A quantitative approach is better to gage the frequency of this

particular communication experience and therefore the causes of it.

H1: A higher family history of verbal aggression and argumentativeness in

millennials will cause there to be a higher frequency of conflict on social media.

This hypothesis will fill a research gap by showing how the conflict traits of verbal

aggression and argumentativeness affect millennials’ approach to conflict on social

media. It will show the willingness of millennials to argue based on their

background.

H2: A more verbally aggressive or argumentative millennial will be engaged in

more conflict on social media.

This hypothesis will display how these conflict traits affect the amount of conflict a

person is engaged in. It is not known if these two traits make an individual involved

in more conflict than someone who does not display these traits.

Participants

Millennials, or those born between 1981 and 2000, are the specific group to

be studied, because they are a majority of the people who use social media as a

means of communication. Different social media sites will be examined, such as

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram, for this study in order to analyze the

different contexts versus face-to-face conflict. By looking at participants’

experiences, certain communicative behaviors, such as verbal aggression and

argumentativeness, can be understood when they are present in conflict on social

media. The frequency of which this phenomenon occurs and how it is related to

people who display verbal aggression and argumentativeness will be the focus of

the study. The traits of verbal aggression and argumentativeness are important to

know and understand before beginning research. Past studies will be useful in

identifying and recognizing when these traits are being displayed in conflict

situations. Recognizing the different nonverbal cues that do not translate the same

over computer-mediated communication will also be necessary for recognizing

verbal aggression and argumentativeness.

Procedure

Participants will be asked to take a survey with questions relating to the

areas of verbal aggression, argumentativeness, avoidance, confrontation, and causes

of conflict. More specifically, the surveys will focus on family history, the frequency

of confrontational occurrences on social media, and the context (FTF or CMC) of

which conflicts take place on. One independent variable that would be studied is the

conflict trait of verbal aggression. Verbal aggression is identified as the tendency to

criticize the self-concepts of an individual along with their opinions or ideas of

certain topics (Aloia & Solomon, 2013). Other researchers have found relationships

between verbal aggression and romantic relationships and between verbal

aggression and family background. However, there has not been research done to

uncover the relationship between verbal aggression and social media. The

dependent variable will be the confrontation on social media as a result of verbal

aggression.

The ANOVA test will be used to test these variables. An ANOVA test is an

analysis of variance that will determine the different levels of the independent

variable (N. Johnson, personal communication). The independent variable would be

verbal aggression and the 3+ groups of this independent variable would be high

verbal aggression, moderate verbal aggression, and low verbal aggression. These

levels were chosen, because they can help explain how much verbal aggression can

lead to conflict on social media. An individual who is moderately verbally aggressive

may engage in less conflict on social media than one who is highly verbally

aggressive.

According to our class slides, surveys help “Identity self-reported behaviors

and practices and identify attitudes/beliefs” (N. Johnson, personal communication).

This definition explains what will be done with the survey for this particular study.

The survey will be distributed to a sample of Longwood University students aged

18-25. A few examples of conflict, verbal aggression, and argumentativeness on

social media will be provided for context. Participants will be asked questions about

their background with verbal aggression and argumentativeness. Verbal aggression,

argumentativeness, and avoidance of confrontation will be the general topic areas

discussed in this survey

Conclusion

Although the traits of argumentativeness and verbal aggression have been

discussed—in terms of what influences them, whether they affect conflict, and whether

they are more present in computer-mediated communication—more research needs to be

done on how these traits influence conflict communication for millennials on social

media. Many of these studies used participants in the same age range as millennials,

which will aid in the research. By understanding how millennials are influenced by

argumentativeness and verbal aggression in conflict, the causes of conflict

communication on social media may become clearer.

References

Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic

relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western

Journal Of Communication, 77(4), 411-423. doi:10.1080/10570314.2013.776098

Croucher, S. M., Holody, K., Anarbaeva, S., Braziunaite, R., Garcia-Michael, V., Yoon,

K., Oomen, D. & Spencer, A. (2012). Religion and the relationship between

verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness. Atlantic Journal Of

Communication, 20(2), 116-129. doi:10.1080/15456870.2012.665347

Gur, M. (2014, March 25). Millennials and failed intimate relationships. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Huppke, R. (2012). Millennials struggle with confrontation in the workplace. Retrieved

from http://articles.chicagotribune.com

Meluch, A. L., & Walter, H. L. (2012). Conflict management styles and

argumentativeness: Examining the differences between face-to-face and

computer-mediated communication. Ohio Communication Journal, (50), 31-47.

Miller, C. W., & Roloff, M. E. (2014). Argumentativeness and hurtful message type:

Their relationship with confrontation and pressure to end

conflicts. Communication Research Reports, 31(1), 1-13.

doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.866428

Nevell, S. E., & Stutman, R. K. (1983). Interpersonal disagreement: The study of social

confrontation. Conference Proceedings -- National Communication

Association/American Forensic Association (Alta Conference On Argumentation),

725-739.

Safronova, V. (2014, December 20). Millennials and the age of tumblr activism.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Walther J. B. (1992). ISocial information processing theory: Impressions and

relationship development online. In Braithwaite D. O. & Schrodt P.

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple

perspectives (pp. 417-426). Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications.

Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2012). The Effect of Conflict Goals on Avoidance

Strategies: What Does Not Communicating Communicate?. Human

Communication Research,38(2), 222-252. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01421.x

Appendix A

Survey question example: 1. How often were you exposed to verbal aggression as a child?

Very often Fairly often Occasionally

Rarely Never

Two survey questions that stem from this dependent variable are:1. How often do you engage in conflict on social media?

Very Often Fairly Often Occasionally

Rarely Never

This will help me operationalize the DV, because it will show whether the participant engages in conflict often on social media. It will follow the questions about verbal aggression and help show if there is a relationship between the IV and DV.

2. Do you think computer-mediated confrontation is more effective than face-to-face confrontation? Completely agree Generally Agree

Unsure Generally Agree

Completely Disagree

This question will operationalize the DV, because it will show whether the participant believes CMC is more effective in confrontation. It will also show whether or not verbally aggressive individuals would rather engage in confrontation online or in person.