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-toface (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.