Beliefs about arguing: A comparison of public issue and personal issue arguments

Arguments occurring in interpersonal relationships can be divided into two types: public issue arguments and personal issue arguments. This study utilizes five beliefs about arguing delineated by Rancer, Kosberg, and Baukus (1992) to examine the different beliefs individuals hold about each type of argument. Public issue arguments, which focus on issues outside of the interpersonal relationship, were reported to have higher enjoyment and a more positive effect on the self‐concept. Personal issue arguments, which relate more closely to the interpersonal relationship, were perceived as resulting in more pragmatic outcomes and higher ego‐involvement. These differences illustrate the need to examine both types of arguments to comprehensively understand arguing in interpersonal relationships.