This study examined how dyadic patterns of goal importance during a serial argument interaction predict changes in perceptions of argument resolvability over the course of a specific episode. Seventy romantic couples engaged in a 7-min discussion of a current serial argument and used a video-assisted recall method to report their goals at each minute. Although arguers' initial goals did not predict changes in perceptions of resolvability, increases in a partner's endorsement of partner-identity goals predicted increases in individuals' own perceptions of resolvability. Conversely, increases in a partner's endorsement of selfidentity goals predicted declines in individuals' perceived resolvability. Results suggest that trajectories of identity-focused goals during serial argument episodes may shape the progress of argument perceptions toward or away from resolvability.

This study examined how individuals’ goals and inferences about partners’ goals vary moment-by-moment during romantic conflicts. Seventy romantic couples discussed a current relational conflict for 7 minutes. Participants individually reviewed video recordings of their discussion, rating the importance of their own goals and inferences about the importance of those goals for their partner during each minute. Individuals demonstrated mixed accuracy when inferring partners’ goals. We observed evidence of goal projection, as the more important a goal was to oneself, the more one inferred it was important to the partner. We also observed evidence of goal contagion, as inferences about a partner’s goals mediated several associations between the partner’s previous goals and individuals’ subsequent goals. Furthermore, inferences about partners’ goals also mediated associations between individuals’ own prior goals and their goals at the next minute.