The Influence of Interpersonal Patterns Of

THE INFLUENCE OF INTERPERSONAL PATTERNS OF

FORGIVENESS ON RELATIONAL RESILIENCE

______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication

with a Concentration in

Communication Studies

______

Christopher D. Otmar

Spring 2019

iii

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

The Influence of Interpersonal Patterns of Forgiveness on Relational Resilience by Christopher D. Otmar Master of Arts in Communication with a Concentration in Communication Studies San Diego State University, 2019

This study explores how forgiveness strategies relate to communal orientation, relational maintenance, and resilience in committed romantic relationships. Guided by the theory of resilience and relational load, this study aims to identify how varying strategies of forgiveness can serve as an outcome of relational maintenance behaviors to help facilitate external stress and prevent strain on the relationship. Individuals who had been in a romantic relationship for at least a year and were able to recall one time when their partner hurt their feelings (N = 342) were surveyed using a cross-sectional questionnaire research design. Hypotheses predicting positive associations between both communal orientation and relational maintenance behaviors with interpersonal forgiveness strategies (i.e., direct, discussion, nonverbal) were supported. Additional hypotheses predicting a negative relationship between communal orientation and conditional forgiveness were also supported. Hypotheses predicting a moderating influence of ongoing negative affect on varying forgiveness strategies and resilience were not supported. Further, hypotheses predicting relational maintenance behaviors as mediating the relationship between forgiveness strategies and resilience were also not supported. This study expands the literature on resilience and forgiveness and suggests future studies on this topic should include biosocial research designs. Finally, future studies should consider using resilience as a predicting variable for cross-sectional surveys that are guided by TRRL. Keywords: resilience, forgiveness, relational maintenance, relational transgression, romantic relationships

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Theory of Resilience and Relational Load ...... 2 Dimensions of Communal Orientation ...... 4 Communal Motivation ...... 4 Communal Coping ...... 5 Maintaining and Investing in Close Relationships ...... 5 Emotional Capital ...... 6 Forgiveness in Close Relationships ...... 7 Interpersonal Forgiveness ...... 7 Conditional Forgiveness ...... 9 Ongoing Negative Affect ...... 10 Resilience in Close Relationships ...... 11 2 METHOD ...... 14 Participants ...... 14 Procedure ...... 15 Measures ...... 15 Communal Orientation...... 16 Chronic Emotional Capital ...... 16 Relational Maintenance ...... 16 Forgiveness Communication ...... 17

Transgression Severity ...... 18 Ongoing Negative Affect ...... 18 Resilience ...... 18 3 RESULTS ...... 19 Communal Orientation Hypotheses (H1-H2) ...... 19 Forgiveness Hypotheses (H3-H7) ...... 19 Ongoing Negative Affect Hypotheses (H8-H9) ...... 20 Resilience Hypotheses (H10-H13) ...... 21 Minimizing the Transgression as a Forgiveness Strategy...... 22 4 DISCUSSION ...... 23 Research Findings ...... 23 Theoretical Implications ...... 25 Clinical Implications ...... 26 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 27 REFERENCES ...... 29 APPENDICES A MODELS ...... 37 B HYPOTHESES ...... 42 C INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 44 D REPRODUCED QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 48 E ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION TABLE OF VARIABLES...... 56

vii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Zero-Order Correlation Table of Variables ...... 57

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the theory of resilience and relational load...... 38 Figure 2. Selected relational maintenance behaviors...... 39 Figure 3. Forgiveness strategies leading to positive relational outcomes...... 40 Figure 4. The relationship between communal orientation and resilience mediated by relational maintenance...... 41 Figure 5. The relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and resilience mediated by relational maintenance...... 41

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The ubiquity of transgressions in romantic relationships inevitably leads to the seeking of—and often granting of—forgiveness. Forgiveness is often understood as the “moral relation between two individuals, one of whom has wronged the other, and who are capable of communicating with each other” (Griswold, 2007, p. xvi). Moreover, forgiveness is inherently a dyadic process (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). A victim can grant forgiveness to a transgressor in a variety of ways, such as nonverbal affection, saying “I forgive you,” discussing the transgression, or avoidance. Additionally, some communicative qualities of forgiveness tend to operate in concert, such as nonverbal affection and discussion, comprising larger interaction patterns of general forgiveness strategies (e.g., interpersonal, minimization, conditional). The negotiation of transgressions and forgiveness is likely to entail turbulence and stress in a relationship. There is little doubt that the competence with which the transgression episode is negotiated, and the extent to which forgiveness is experienced and granted, are likely to influence the stressfulness of such episodes; however, the influence that forgiveness strategies have on a couple’s ability to cope with stress is not well understood. Furthermore, personal relationship scholars have yet to investigate if the interpersonal conflict resolution strategy of a dyad associates with the couple’s ability to cope with an external stressor. Guided by the theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL; T. D. Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2016), this study aims to identify how varying strategies of forgiveness (Waldron & Kelley, 2005) can serve as an outcome of relational maintenance behaviors to help facilitate external stress and prevent strain on the relationship. Although the forgiveness process has received attention from many scholars (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Kelley, 1998; Merolla, 2016), the literature is sparse on how individuals’ specific communicative qualities of forgiveness relate to the ability to cope with

2 external stress following the transgression. Because most relationships will go through a transgressional period when forgiveness is needed (Kelley, 1998), and resilience is an important variable in relational satisfaction (Bradley & Hojjat, 2017), there is a need to further understand how forgiveness strategies influence the ability for individuals to cope with future stressors. That is, do forgiveness granting strategies with a partner predict ability to cope with stressors in a social system? Although there is minimal research exploring how the forgiveness process relates to adaption in the face of adversity, a concentrated body of literature exists suggesting a positive association between forgiveness and resilience. Forgiveness can play an important role in the process of creating resilience (Braithwaite et al., 2018), and granting forgiveness promotes the victim’s sense of relational robustness (Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008). Additionally, both forgiveness and resilience positively associate with factors such as gratitude, attachment, and spirituality (McCullough & Snyder, 2000; Merolla, 2014). According to T. D. Afifi and Denes (2013), resilience is an overlooked factor that may promote forgiveness in post-divorce families, indicating that close relationships suffering from severe turbulence (e.g., post-divorce families) could benefit from the forgiveness process in order to cope and move forward. Overall, there appears to be a significant, albeit underexplored, link between resilience and forgiveness in personal relationships that TRRL’s framework can help explain.

THE THEORY OF RESILIENCE AND RELATIONAL LOAD The TRRL is a newer theoretical framework to the field of personal relationships and explains how romantic couples and families adapt to stress within their relational system. An important assumption of TRRL is that people who do not maintain their relationships will enact threat-based communication patterns when stress. T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al. (2016) conclude that individuals should maintain their relationships to avoid allostatic load on the relational system and cultivate resilience when faced with stress. According to TRRL, team-oriented communication (i.e., a communal orientation) will predict the frequency of relational maintenance behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Relational maintenance is conceptualized as communication strategies to sustain a desired relational state (D. J. Canary & Stafford, 1992). These behaviors, when built up over time,

3 result in a buildup of emotional capital for the couple. Feeney and Lemay (2012) define emotional capital as a bank of shared positive experiences that produce a resource essential to a relationship. This emotional capital is then drawn upon during times of adversity to buffer against external stressors. On the other hand, if a couple does not build up emotional wealth through these relational maintenance behaviors before the introduction of a stressor, the couple will suffer strain on the relationship and will generate relational load (see Figure 1). TRRL is a useful framework in many contexts relating to stress. TRRL’s systems approach to personal relationships and a framework that recognizes the functional, goal-driven orientation of communication predicts that actors within a system will seek to adapt to internal and external tensions by relying on the emotional capital they have available. For this reason, TRRL presents a robust framework to guide research relating to dyadic tensions and provides coherent and parsimonious explanation for the results found. T. D. Afifi, Granger, and colleagues (2018) have found support for many of the propositions outlined in TRRL. The theory has been tested in contexts such as economic uncertainty (T. D. Afifi, Davis, et al., 2018), caring for a child with Type I diabetes (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018), coping with the aftereffects of wildfires (Sprague et al., 2015), and refugee camps (T. D. Afifi, Afifi, Merril, & Nimah, 2016). In each of these contexts, researchers have consistently found that stressful events can encourage relational thriving, provided that the conditions outlined in TRRL are met. Studies testing TRRL have explored its predictions using a variety of methods including qualitative (Sprague et al., 2015) and quantitative (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018) analyses, measurements of physiological arousal (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018), psychological self-reporting (T. D. Afifi, Davis, et al., 2018), and in-depth interviews (Sprague et al., 2015) to investigate how dyads adapt to stressful situations. Additionally, the results have suggested that the way partners communicate is the primary reason they are able to adapt to these stressful events (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018). Crucially, studies employing TRRL focus on the communicative nature of conversation between couples rather than the actual topic of the conversation (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018; Sprague et al., 2015). T. D. Afifi, Davis, et al. (2018) argues that this helps to focus on how couples engage in communality during stressful events, regardless of context. This body of literature has consistently found that dyads that approach stressful

4 events by positioning themselves against an “outside threat”—as opposed to turning inward and viewing their relational partner as the stressor—tend to thrive as a couple.

DIMENSIONS OF COMMUNAL ORIENTATION Communal orientation—a communicative approach that concentrates on cohesiveness over autonomy—plays a critical role in close relationships. This strategy emphasizes interpersonal concerns and the needs of others (Elmer, 2006). A communal approach to close relationships diverges from a social exchange framework in that social exchange focuses on the egalitarian aspects of resources within the relationship (Roloff, 1981) whereas communality is concerned with resources for the dyad (Clark & Mills, 1979). Therefore, a communal orientation promotes messages of cohesiveness, unity, and teamwork (Park, Troisi, & Maner, 2011). This self-sacrificing strategy works not only to safeguard the success for the relationship, but also for the partner. Communal orientation tends to play a significant role when couples are undergoing relational stressors. According to Kelley, Waldron, and Kloeber (2019), these relational stressors are disruptions “that ‘just happen’ as … life events force them to adjust and the world around them changes in unexpected and unpleasant ways” (p. 41). Two conceptually distinct dimensions of communal orientation that are particularly salient for interpersonal relationships are communal motivation and communal coping. Both are critical to an overall communal-orientated relationship.

Communal Motivation An important dimension of an overall communal orientation is communal motivation. A partner that is communally motivated is willing to encourage positive relational outcomes in their partnership, has a concern for their partner’s needs, and favors partners who do the same (Le, Lemay, Impett, Muise, & Tskhay, 2018). The conceptual distinction between communal orientation and communal motivation is that communal motivation describes the underlying reason partners are driven to communicate in a communal way. Indeed, communally motivated partners tend to feel a sense of security when enacting prosocial behavior (Lemay & Muir, 2016). Communally-motivated individuals often seek out and report higher levels of relational satisfaction with partners that have a similar communalism (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997). In fact, communal motivation may function to “bolster

5 people in creating more satisfying relationships, through providing desired care to others, and promoting reciprocal care in return” (Le et al., 2018, p. 18). There appears to be a consistent pattern of reciprocity in romantic relationships in which at least one partner is reported to be communally motivated.

Communal Coping The second dimension encompassed in communal orientation describes the communication behaviors partners enact during times of stress. Thus, communal coping concentrates on an external threat to the relationship and partners that engage in communal coping form a mutual vision on how to adapt the stress. From an interpersonal emotion dynamics perspective (Randall & Schoebi, 2018), stress coregulation is nearly inevitable in close relationships (Repetti & McNeil, 2018). Stress tends to be bidirectional in that one partner’s emotions “continually influences the other’s emotional state and the partners develop a synchronous dynamic in which they regulate one another’s emotional experiences” (p. 131). Lewis, McBride, Pollak, Puleo, and Butterfield (2006) argue that couples who engage in communal coping tend to understand these external threats as not just affecting the individual but affecting the dyad and therefore partners create “a vision of shared action about managing the event.” (p. 1374). A communal approach to coping also tends to reduce feelings of isolation and sparks a problem-solving response to an external stressor (Rohrbaugh, Shoham, Skoyen, Jensen, & Mehl, 2012).

MAINTAINING AND INVESTING IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS Sustaining close relationships works in tandem with the amount of strategic and routine behaviors enacted by both partners (D. J. Canary & Stafford, 1994; Duck, 1986). Maintaining relationships through communication is a cornerstone of understanding interpersonal interaction. This is because maintenance behaviors represent the process of keeping a relationship in a state of stability and satisfaction, and fosters relational repair (Baxter & Dindia, 1990; Dindia & Canary, 1993). According to Theiss (2018a), relational maintenance behaviors help manage uncertainty about the relationship and also influence the longevity of the relationship. Stafford and Canary (2006) outline five maintenance strategies, two of which tend to be routine and three which are often used strategically. The two routine

6 maintenance behaviors are positivity (e.g., upbeat, supportive) and sharing tasks with a partner. The maintenance behaviors of openness (e.g., disclosing information, discussing the relationship), social networks (e.g., including family and friends in the relationship), and assurances (e.g., communicating commitment and love to a partner) tend to be strategic. Of course, the boundaries between strategic and routine are often blurred. Guerrero, Andersen and Afifi (2017) argue that a maintenance behavior that is routine in one context may be strategic in another. Three of these maintenance behaviors will be explored in this study due to their salience to relational transgressions and romantic couples: positivity, assurances, and openness (see Figure 2).

Emotional Capital Conceptualizing relational maintenance as emotional capital is a relatively novel way to understand relational investments. Emotional capital was first proposed as a concept to further understand investment in romantic relationships (Feeney & Lemay, 2012) and is a burgeoning body of scholarship. In fact, emotional capital has contributed to varying theoretical frameworks such as TRRL (T. D. Afifi, Afifi, et al., 2016) and the theory of emotional capital (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). Feeney and Lemay (2012) define emotional capital as an “accumulated stock of ‘relationship wealth’ made up of a set of positive, shared emotional experiences that constitute a resource inherent to a particular relationship” (p. 1104). This relational wealth is built from shared experiences that have a mutual and positive valence for the dyad. The metaphor of the “emotional bank account” draws from the scholarship of Gottman (1999) and expands the bank account analogy to understand the consequences that follow when the “account” is depleted of reserves. According to TRRL, communal orientation will predict the perception of emotional capital within the relationship. This aligns with previous scholarship on communal orientation—comprised of both the motivation to be communal (i.e., communal motivation) and having the ability to enact coping behaviors (i.e., communal coping) with a partner. These coping behaviors are expenditures of individual resources on the dyad by investing in the relationship instead of the self (Weiser & Weigel, 2016). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

H1: Communal orientation is positively correlated with emotional capital.

H2: Communal orientation is positively correlated with the relational maintenance strategies of (a) positivity, (b) openness, and (c) assurances.

FORGIVENESS IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS Many close relationships experience transgressions (Caughlin, Vangelisti, & Mikucki-Enyart, 2013), which will likely lead to one or both partners feeling hurt (Vangelisti, 2007). If the relationship is to continue, interpersonal forgiveness—whether direct or indirect—is a necessary process the partners must negotiate between themselves (Emmers & Canary, 1996). Due to the extensive research on the forgiveness process within interpersonal relations, there is a general consensus in the field concerning the definition of interpersonal forgiveness (Merolla, 2016). Forgiveness can be conceptually defined as: [A] relational process whereby harmful conduct is acknowledged by one or both partners; the harmed partner extends underserved mercy to the perceived transgressor, one or both partners experience a transformation from negative to positive psychological states, and the meaning of the relationship is renegotiated with the possibility of reconciliation. (Waldron & Kelley, 2008, p. 260) As such, forgiveness is understood as a relational process. The forgiveness process inherently contains communicative properties that make the exchange of messages crucial to repairing a relational transgression (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Many scholars have found that the seriousness of the relational transgression plays a role in how the forgiveness is sought and communicated by the offender (Girard & Mullet, 1997; Guerrero et al., 2017), especially if the transgression was related to sexual infidelity between romantic partners (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006). Sincerity has demonstrated moderating effects on forgiveness- granting from the victim and continued negative emotion toward the offender (Merolla, 2014). Thus, the transgression influences the forgiveness strategy and the forgiveness strategy tends to influence future interactions of the couple (e.g., lingering negative emotions about the event or offender).

Interpersonal Forgiveness Research has demonstrated a typology of forgiveness-granting strategies (Kelley, 1998; Waldron & Kelley, 2005): Direct/explicit, nonverbal displays, conditional, discussion, and minimize (see Figure 3; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). The five strategies of forgiveness outlined by Waldron and Kelley (2005) have been utilized in a variety of studies across the

8 forgiveness literature (Bachman & Gurerrero, 2006; Knight, 2018; Sheldon, Gilchrist-Petty, & Lessley, 2014). The outcome of the forgiveness interaction tends to be influenced by the particular strategy of forgiveness enacted by the victim. According to Kelley and Waldron (2006), forgiveness strategies focusing on discussion, nonverbal display, and direct forgiveness positively associate with relational strengthening. The first and most straightforward strategy is direct forgiveness. Direct forgiveness is a clear acknowledgement that the offended partner has transitioned from negative to positive feelings about the transgression or event. Direct forgiveness reduces uncertainty of the offended partner’s intention during the forgiveness interaction and indicates an unconditional pardon (Scobie & Scobie, 1998). According to recent studies (Bachman & Gurerrero, 2006; Knight, 2018), perceptions of sincere apologies by the transgressor tend to prompt direct forgiveness strategies by the victim. Minimizing the transgression is the most common form of indirect forgiveness. Minimization tends to avoid confronting the violation with the partner and is the path of least resistance for the interaction. Using indirect strategies of forgiveness indicates that the victim is discounting the transgression, and the message communicated to the offender often does not align with the felt-emotions towards the event of the transgressor. This comports with Merolla’s (2014) finding that minimization forgiveness tends to be communicated in friendships more often than in romantic relationships. Although forgiveness strategies may be conceptualized on a spectrum of direct and indirect, both tend to work in concert with nonverbal forgiveness approaches. Nonverbal displays are one of the most common strategies and serve both direct and indirect forgiveness purposes (Kelley et al., 2019). According Giles & Le Poire (2006), “nonverbal communication is integral to communicative interactions is indisputable” (p. xvi), so it makes sense that nonverbal communication plays a role in granting forgiveness. Nonverbal strategies of forgiveness are dynamic and multimodal, suggesting a more spontaneous message. Indeed, nonverbal behaviors tend to be perceived as more authentic than verbal scripts (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Manusov, 2011). Sheldon et al. (2014) report that the tendency to forgive associates with more immediate nonverbal displays while granting forgiveness (e.g., hugging). Immediacy behaviors in close relationships cultivate relational development and maintenance (Andersen, 2008). This explains why immediate nonverbal

9 displays during the forgiveness-granting episode communicate positive affect towards the offending partner and fosters relational closeness and strengthening (Jones & Guerrero, 2001). The final form of interpersonal forgiveness is discussing the violation during the forgiveness episode. Waldron and Kelley (2008) note that the primary reason for using this strategy is to openly communicate about the transgression and engage in the sense-making process to understand the underlying reason the transgression occurred. Discussion as a forgiveness-granting strategy is likely to promote coming to terms with the violation. Merolla, Zhang, McCullough, and Sun (2017) argue discussion during the forgiveness episode “is preferable because it effectively addresses personal and relational face needs and reduces uncertainty” (p. 568). This tends to provide the offender with the opportunity to fully understand the influence of the transgression and the degree of hurt the violation caused their partner (Vangelisti, 1994).

Conditional Forgiveness As with most social behaviors, communicating forgiveness (or perception of forgiveness) does not always lead to positive relational outcomes. One of the more perplexing and inconsistent parts of the forgiveness literature in communication is forgiving using conditional means. Conditional forgiveness has been found to lead to more ongoing negative affect by the transgressor (Merolla, 2008) and is associated with relationship deterioration (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). This communicative approach to granting forgiveness is often conceptualized as forgiveness with relational demands attached (Kelley, 1998). Even when forgiveness is perceived to have been communicated to the offender of the transgression, granting conditional forgiveness to a partner positively predicted ongoing negative feelings by the victim (Merolla, 2008). Although much of the literature on conditional forgiveness focuses on the negative outcomes, there are occasions where conditional forgiveness may be necessary. A functionalist explanation for using conditional forgiveness suggests that relational demands may discourage repeat offenses from the offender (Vangelisti & Young, 2000). Indeed, if the goal of forgiveness is to discuss the transgression (Waldron & Kelley, 2005) and renegotiate particular morals within the relationship (Merolla, 2016; Waldron & Kelley, 2008), the forgiveness episode may be the

10 interaction where the victim can communicate their expectations for the relationship moving forward. Furthermore, although there is a functional explanation for communicating conditional forgiveness, this does discount the negative influence these messages tend to have on the partner and future relational health of the dyad. Little is known about how the victim’s forgiveness communication strategy relates to the perception of resilience within a relationship and whether the different relational maintenance strategies positively associate with communal qualities of the forgiveness (i.e., interpersonal forgiveness). With a few notable exceptions (McIntyre, Mattingly, & Lewandowski, 2015; Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001), forgiveness is not thought of as a strategy to maintain relationships. Further, when forgiveness and relational maintenance are studied in concert, communicating forgiveness tends to be understood as a form of assurance (Kelley & Waldron, 2005) rather than a conceptually distinct communication maintenance behavior. This is problematic since the process of communicating forgiveness aligns with the Dindia and Canary (1993) conceptualization of maintenance as relational repair, not simply communicating commitment and a future to a partner. On the basis of the theoretical underpinnings outlined above, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H3: Emotional capital is positively correlated with interpersonal forgiveness.

H4: Emotional capital is negatively correlated with conditional forgiveness.

H5: The relational maintenance strategies of (a) positivity, (b) openness, and (c) assurances are positively correlated with interpersonal forgiveness.

H6: The relational maintenance strategies of (a) positivity, (b) openness, and (c) assurances are negatively correlated with conditional forgiveness.

H7: Communal orientation is (a) positively related to interpersonal forgiveness and (b) negatively related to conditional forgiveness. The following research question seeks to clarify the relationships between an individual’s relational maintenance behaviors, victims’ forgiveness granting strategy, and the ability to cope with external stress from their social system.

RQ1: To what extent does minimizing forgiveness associate to (a) emotional capital and (b) communal orientation?

Ongoing Negative Affect Although Murphy and Hampton (1988) conceptualize forgiveness as the “foreswearing of resentment,” the messages communicated to a partner may not comport

11 with the emotions felt by the victim. In fact, Younger, Piferi, Jobe, and Lawler (2005) found that some partners either felt too strongly about the transgression or did not view their partner as worthy of forgiveness even after the “forgiveness” episode. Continuing negative affect after the transgression and rumination about the transgression are related (Mor & Winquist, 2002). Indeed, harboring resentment toward the transgressor after communicating forgiveness is a common experience in post-transgression interactions (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; Merolla, 2008). Recent studies suggest that particular forgiveness messages (e.g., direct, conditional) tend to associate with the amount of ongoing negative affect felt by victims (Merolla, 2014), as well as lower relational satisfaction (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000; McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003; Merolla, 2008).

H8: Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between (a) communal orientation and (b) emotional capital and interpersonal forgiveness.

H9: Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between (a) communal orientation and (b) emotional capital and conditional forgiveness.

RESILIENCE IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS Resilience is a complex and multifaceted social construct that spans multiple levels of analyses including individual, relational, group, community, and nation (Buzzanell & Houston, 2018). Resilience has been defined as the ability to adapt positively in the face of adversity and is defined as a communicative process (T. D. Afifi, 2018; Braithwaite, et al., 2018; Luthar, 2003; Zautra, 2009). Resilience is not only a response to trauma, but a harmonious adaption that works in concert with a variety of positive communication patterns such as gratitude, generosity, and hope (Akhtar, 2013). Resilience is strengthened or diminished through the exchange of messages and meaning-making between actors (Lillie et al., 2017). Overall, the communicative processes that create resilience develop over time to help individuals foster and thrive when faced with adversity. Most interpersonal scholarship on resilience has focused on romantic and family relationships. Theiss (2018b) argues that family systems produce an emergent behavior by reacting cumulatively to external stimuli. Additionally, Haverfield and Theiss (2016) studied resilience among child-parent relationships where the parent suffered from alcoholism. They found that the responsiveness of the parent to the child’s needs strongly associated with resilience in adolescents and higher degrees of autonomy in families. Indeed, resilience may

12 help both families and partners cope with outside stressors such as potential health risks discovered from genetic test results (Smith, Sillars, Chesnut, & Zhu, 2018), raising a child with Type I diabetes (T. D. Afifi, Granger, et al., 2018), or family sense-making during cancer treatment of a parent (Lillie et al., 2017). Similar to family systems, a growing body of literature also indicates that interpersonal resilience fosters marital satisfaction (Bradley & Hojjat, 2017), acts as a key indicator of relational coping (Rossetto, 2013), and curbs initial distress after disappointing medical treatments (e.g., failure of in vitro fertilization; Chochovski, Moss, & Charman, 2013). Resilience may combat a variety of external stressors in romantic relationships as well. T. D. Afifi, Davis, and colleagues (2018) investigated strategies of communal coping during economic hardship and discovered that couples who successfully navigated the turbulent time were able to blame something other than their partner for their stress. Similarly, Beck (2016) researched romantic partners dealing with involuntary unemployment and found that messages of resilience (e.g., partnership and harmony) within the relationship mediated the feelings about job loss and relational satisfaction. As outlined, relational scholars have begun to investigate how resilience might relate to internal conflict resolution within a dyad. This may be because resilience represents the process of transforming an external stressor into a positive adaption. Forgiveness, too, concerns the transformation of an internal transgression into a positive relational repair. Similarly, resilience scholarship has focused on adapting family systems, much like the research concentrating on forgiveness and resilience (e.g., stepchild–stepparent, post-divorce relationships, adult half-siblings); yet, there appears to be a significant gap in the literature investigating the role of forgiveness strategies in adapting to stressful stimuli from a couple’s social system.

H10: Communal orientation is positively correlated with resilience.

H11: Interpersonal forgiveness is positively correlated with resilience.

H12: Relational maintenance behaviors mediate the relationship between communal orientation and resilience.

H13: Relational maintenance behaviors mediate the relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and resilience. The current study seeks to use TRRL’s description of security and threat appraisals to understand how forgiveness strategies operate within stress systems. According to T. D.

Afifi, Merrill, et al. (2016), security-based appraisals “prevent the depletion of resources because people feel validated about themselves and their relationship, helping manage stress,” whereas threat-based appraisals spend resources due to energy exerted in protecting one’s self, which results in stress (p. 671). Specifically, this research is concerned with whether the qualities of interpersonal forgiveness (e.g., discussion, directedness, nonverbal displays; Waldron & Kelley, 2008) act as a security appraisal in the relationship, and whether these qualities associate with the ability to thrive in the face of adversity. Conversely, this study predicts that individuals who report fewer relational maintenance behaviors will be more likely to enact self-centered forgiveness strategies (e.g., conditional forgiveness, minimization, avoidance). It would follow, then, that these self-centered strategies of forgiveness should act as a relational threat-appraisal due to the focus of the strategy on the need to protect the self rather than the dyad. In sum, the more relational maintenance strategies enacted, the more communal qualities forgiveness should entail, such as discussion, directedness, or nonverbal displays (see Figure 3). Therefore, approaching an internal transgression with a relationally-oriented strategy should predict the couple’s ability to cope—and even thrive—when faced with adversity.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

Data was collected through Qualtrics, an online questionnaire platform commonly used in the social and behavioral sciences, and participants were recruited via SONA Research Participant Management system (SONA), an online research recruitment system developed by SONA Systems, Ltd, and via Facebook. This study sought to analyze associations between measured variables and perceptions of relationship patterns, therefore quantitative data collected through survey instruments was an appropriate method of inquiry for this study (Allen, Titsworth, & Hunt, 2009; Fink & Cai, 2013; Singleton & Straits, 2017). Participants were screened for two eligibility requirements: currently in a romantic relationship for at least one year without breaks, and able to recall a specific time when their romantic partners hurt their feelings. If they did not meet these requirements, the system screened them out of the survey. All participants were over the age of 18 at the time the study was conducted and there was no restriction on sexual orientation or gender.

PARTICIPANTS Data was collected from 499 participants, with 342 meeting the minimum eligibility requirements to participate in the study. Frequencies were run to ensure that the final sample demographics (e.g., biological sex) represented all participants surveyed in the study (original sample: 74% female; final sample: 77% female). This was to ensure the eligibility requirements did not bias the sample. Incomplete responses were pairwise excluded from the sample (Howell, 2007) to retain sample size (Myers, 2011) and to avoid introducing bias to the analyses (King, Honaker, Joseph, & Scheve, 1998). The sample had an average age of 25.85 years old (SD = 10.24; range = 18-65) with 22% (n = 74) reporting their sex as male and 77% (n = 253) female. The final sample was largely White (59%) and Hispanic (28%), but also included Asian American (21%), Black/African American (4%), Native American

(1%) as well as participants identifying as other racial identities (n = 9). The majority of the participants reported their relationship status as either seriously dating (n = 233) or married (n = 69), although approximately 7% of the sample reported other relationship statuses (e.g., engaged, life partners). The length of the relationship ranged from 12 to 624 months (M = 68.75, SD = 98.81, Median = 30) with the average relationship lasting approximately six years. The forgiveness episode occurred an average of four months prior to the participant completing the questionnaire (M = 4.15, SD = 8.35, Median = 1.00), and 24% of participants reported the forgiveness episode occurred less than a month before completing the questionnaire.

PROCEDURE After agreeing to participant in the study, students were provided a link to an online questionnaire and were asked to complete the survey individually. Individuals provided demographic information about themselves, their partner (e.g., age, sex), and characteristics of their relationship (e.g., relational closeness, length of relationship). After completing demographic information, the participants were asked to respond to several questions regarding their relational maintenance behaviors within the last month. This timeframe comports with similar studies investigating maintenance behaviors and emotional capital (Feeney & Lemay, 2012; Stafford & Canary, 2006). Additionally, participants were asked to report their perception of communal orientation within their relationship and behaviors they enacted during times of stress during the last month. Similar to maintenance behaviors, this timeframe also aligns with past studies of perceived stressed in relationships (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Next, the participant recalled a time they forgave their partner and responded to a series of questions surrounding particular strategies that were used during that forgiveness episode. Finally, participants were asked to report how severe they felt the transgression prior to the forgiveness episode was, and the degree of negative affect they still felt toward the transgressive event.

MEASURES Participants were instructed to answer all questions with their current romantic partner and relationship in mind. Because the study sought to explore forgiveness-granting

16 behaviors and strategies (i.e., direct, nonverbal, conditional, minimizing, and discussion), self-report data was collected from the victims’ perspectives. In addition, individuals were asked about how they have maintained their current romantic relationships over the past month (i.e., relational maintenance behaviors and chronic emotional capital). Table 1 displays the intercorrelations of the study’s variables.

Communal Orientation A number of recent studies have utilized the communal coping scale in analyzing romantic relationships during stressful contexts (T. D. Afifi, Hutchinson, & Krouse, 2006; T. D. Afifi et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2018). This measure is composed of 22 questions (e.g., “My spouse and I help each other out when we are unsure about recent personal health news”) and employs a 7-point scale for each question (1 = almost never, 7 = almost always; α = .97, M = 5.50, SD = 1.34).

Chronic Emotional Capital Feeney and Lemay’s (2012) measure of chronic emotional capital accounts for both partner’s emotional reserves built up during the relationship. This 11-item measure has participants recall the extent their spouses engaged in particular positive and affectionate behaviors in the last month. Examples of these positive behaviors include, “told me he/she was thinking about me” and “held my hand.” This measure utilizes a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal; α = .92, M = 6.58, SD = 1.28).

Relational Maintenance Stafford and Canary’s (2006) revised Relational Maintenance Strategy Measure was used to assess participants’ relational maintenance behaviors over the past month. Participants were asked to rate how often they enact each maintenance behavior with their current romantic partner. As previously stated, the original measure includes five maintenance strategies, only openness (e.g., “Simply tell him/her how I feel about our relationship”), positivity (e.g., “Am very nice, courteous, and polite when we talk”), and assurances (e.g., “Imply that our relationship has a future”) were used in this study. This measure utilizes a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .97; M = 5.03, SD = 1.51).

Transgression Severity Previous studies have found strong associations between the severity of the transgression and the forgiveness-granting strategy employed (Merolla, 2008, 2014; Waldron & Kelley, 2008). The Bachman and Guerrero (2006) degree of hurt/severity of transgression measure was utilized. This measure employs a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent; α = .91, M = 4.85, SD = 1.65). The items assess the degree to which the event recalled for the forgiveness episode was harmful to the victim (e.g., “The event was very upsetting”).

Ongoing Negative Affect In addition to measuring victims’ forgiveness strategies and the severity of the transgressions, the questionnaire also included items regarding the amount of resentment still harbored by the victims. Merolla’s (2008) ongoing negative affect four-item measure was utilized to measure this emotion. Victims’ perceptions of resentment and negative affect toward the event were assessed using four 7-point Likert items (1 = not at all, 7 = to a very great extent; α = .93, M = 3.94, SD = 1.95). The items measured the extent to which the victims still had negative emotions toward the event (e.g., “I still feel bothered about the things he/she did”). The items were averaged to create a variable of ongoing negative affect.

Resilience The final measure in the questionnaire was to assess the participants’ ability to thrive with their partners in the face of adversity. Resilience was measured using a modified version of the 25-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). The modified version of the CD-RISC was based upon Campbell-Sills and Stein’s (2007) short-form version. According to Campbell-Sills and Stein, the modified 10-item measure of the CD-RISC “captures the core features of resilience; in fact, scores on this short unidimensional measure are very highly correlated with scores on the original instrument” (p. 1027). This study included one additional item from the original CD-RISC that is not present in the Campbell-Sills and Stein modified measure (i.e., know where to turn for help). This item was appropriate to include because this study focused on a specific romantic relationship and the participant was specifically prompted to “think about how you and your partner handle stressful events or difficult times that arise in life.” This measure employed a 7-point scale (1 = rarely true, 7 = true nearly all the time; α = .91, M = 5.63, SD = .92).

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

This study utilized the Social Package for the Social Sciences (i.e., SPSS) Version 24 to analyze all thirteen hypotheses. Most hypotheses were analyzed using a bivariate correlation coefficient, although hypotheses eight and nine, as well as twelve and thirteen, applied a companion script called PROCESS (Hayes, 2018). Due to the sample’s statistical power, confidence levels were set at .01, unless otherwise noted. The following hypotheses are organized by variable of interest and a summary of the results is located in Table 1.

COMMUNAL ORIENTATION HYPOTHESES (H1-H2) Hypothesis one predicted that communal orientation would be positively related to emotional capital. A Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to test hypothesis one. The test revealed that communal orientation was significantly correlated with emotional capital (r = .43, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis one was supported. Hypothesis two predicted that communal orientation would be positively related to the relational maintenance behaviors of (a) positivity, (b) assurances, and (c) openness. The correlation between communal orientation and positivity (r = .63, p < .001), assurances (r =.68, p < .001), and openness (r =.65, p < .001), were significant. Hypothesis two was fully supported.

FORGIVENESS HYPOTHESES (H3-H7) The next set of hypotheses investigated the role of forgiveness with varying relational strategies and perceptions (e.g., maintenance behaviors, emotional capital). Hypothesis three predicted a positive relationship between emotional capital and interpersonal forgiveness. The data revealed a significant relationship between emotional capital and interpersonal forgiveness (r = .29, p < .001), supporting hypothesis three.

Hypothesis four predicted a negative relationship between emotional capital and conditional forgiveness. The relationship was not significant, (r = -.03, p = .38). Therefore, hypothesis four was not supported. Hypothesis five predicted that interpersonal forgiveness would be positively related to the relational maintenance behaviors of (a) positivity, (b) assurances, and (c) openness. The correlations between interpersonal forgiveness and positivity (r = .13, p < .001), assurances (r =.16, p < .001), and openness (r =.19, p < .001) were significant. Hypothesis five was fully supported. Hypothesis six predicted that conditional forgiveness would be negatively related to the relational maintenance behaviors of (a) positivity, (b) assurances, and (c) openness. The correlations between conditional forgiveness and positivity (r = -.23, p < .001), assurances (r =-.31, p < .001), and openness (r =-.19, p < .001) were significant. Therefore, hypothesis six was fully supported.

ONGOING NEGATIVE AFFECT HYPOTHESES (H8-H9) Hypothesis 8a predicted that ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between communal orientation and interpersonal forgiveness, and hypothesis 8b predicted that ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between emotional capital and interpersonal forgiveness. Two regression models utilizing the PROCESS macro were analyzed that included communal orientation and emotional capital as the predictor variables, interpersonal forgiveness as the criterion variable, and ongoing negative affect as the moderating variable. The overall model predicting ongoing negative affect moderating the relationship between communal orientation and interpersonal forgiveness was significant F(3, 294) = 9.57, p < .001; however, results demonstrated that ongoing negative affect does not moderate the effect of communal orientation on interpersonal forgiveness, t = .27, p = .79. Therefore, hypothesis 8a was not supported. The overall model predicting ongoing negative affect moderating the relationship between emotional capital and interpersonal forgiveness was significant F(3, 294) = 13.94, p < .001; however, results demonstrated that ongoing negative affect does not moderate the effect of emotional capital on interpersonal forgiveness, t = .07, p = .95. Therefore, hypothesis 8b was not supported.

Similarly, hypothesis 9a predicted that ongoing negative affect would moderate the relationship between communal orientation and conditional forgiveness, and hypothesis 9b predicted that ongoing negative affect would moderate the relationship between emotional capital and conditional forgiveness. Communal orientation and emotional capital were entered as predictor variables, conditional forgiveness as the criterion variable, and ongoing negative affect as the moderating variable. Although the overall model predicting ongoing negative affect moderating the relationship between communal orientation and conditional forgiveness was significant F(3, 294) = 20.93, p < .001, the results indicated that ongoing negative affect does not moderate the influence of communal orientation on conditional forgiveness, t = 1.51, p = .14, resulting in hypothesis 9a not being supported. The overall model predicting ongoing negative affect moderating the relationship between emotional capital and conditional forgiveness (H9b) was also significant F(3, 294) = 18.68, p < .001. Results determined that ongoing negative affect does not moderate the effect of emotional capital on conditional forgiveness, t = .98, p = .33. Therefore, hypothesis 9b was not supported. Due to both ongoing negative affect hypotheses not being supported, a simple slope analysis was not necessary (Beaujean, 2008).

RESILIENCE HYPOTHESES (H10-H13) Hypothesis 10 predicted communal orientation would be positively related to resilience. The data supported this prediction (r = .45, p < .001). Hypothesis 11, which predicted interpersonal forgiveness would be positively related to resilience, was also supported (r = .27, p < .001). The last two hypotheses, 12 and 13, both utilized the PROCESS macro. Hypotheses 12 predicted relational maintenance behaviors would mediate the relationship between communal orientation and resilience. Communal orientation was entered as the predictor with resilience as the criterion variable and relational maintenance as the mediating variable. Significant unstandardized values of the direct effects, used for the calculation and interpretation of the indirect effects, appear in Figure 4. The overall model was significant and explained approximately 22% of the variance in relational maintenance, F(2, 305) = 42.33, p < .001, R2 = .22. Results from this model, however, suggested mediation did not occur. The direct effects of communal orientation on resilience indicated that communal orientation positively predicted resilience (direct effect: b = .38, SE = .05, p <

.001). The indirect effect of communal orientation on resilience as mediated by relational maintenance behaviors was not significant (b = -.10, SE = .04, p = .02; total effect: b = .31, SE = .04, p < .01). These results suggest that relational maintenance behaviors do not mediate the relationship between communal orientation and resilience in romantic relationships. Therefore, hypothesis 12 was not supported. Hypotheses 13 predicted relational maintenance behaviors would mediate the relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and resilience. Interpersonal forgiveness was entered as the predictor with resilience as the criterion variable and relational maintenance as the mediating variable. Significant unstandardized values of the direct effects, used for the calculation and interpretation of the indirect effects, appear in Figure 5. The overall model was not significant, explaining only 2% of the variance, F(1, 301) = 7.83, p = .005, R2 = .03. Results from this model suggested mediation did not occur. The direct effects of interpersonal forgiveness on resilience indicated that interpersonal forgiveness did not predict resilience (direct effect: b = .08, SE = .02, p < .001). Additionally, the indirect effect of interpersonal forgiveness on resilience as mediated by relational maintenance behaviors was not significant (b = .10, SE = .03; total effect: b = .08, SE = 0.02, p < .01). These results suggest that relational maintenance behaviors do not mediate the relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and resilience in romantic relationships. Hypothesis thirteen was not supported.

MINIMIZING THE TRANSGRESSION AS A FORGIVENESS STRATEGY This study investigated the relationship between a minimizing forgiveness strategy and both communal orientation and emotional capital. Both communal orientation (r = .13, p = .08) and emotional capital (r = .08, p = .19) yielded nonsignificant findings relating to minimizing forgiveness. Alternatively, minimizing forgiveness was associated with interpersonal forgiveness (r = .62, p < .001), specifically nonverbal interpersonal forgiveness (r = .61, p < .001), as well as negatively related to transgression severity (r = -.32, p < .001). This was the strongest relationship among the forgiveness strategies, excluding the relationship between conditional forgiveness and negative forgiveness (r = .76, p < .001).

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

According to Burgoon and Hale (1984), as “communication episodes are enacted, the nature of the relationship between participants is defined” (p. 193). Post-transgression communication between partners in a romantic relationship can be a relationship-defining interaction, especially depending on the extent to which the transgression violated norms of the relationship (W. A. Afifi & Metts, 1998) and the amount of residual uncertainty after the forgiveness-granting episode (Theiss, 2018a). The purpose of this thesis was to explore the influence of forgiveness patterns on resilience in committed romantic relationships. Few research studies have examined how strategies for communicating forgiveness after a particular transgressive episode tend to associate with the overall maintenance of the relationship and the perceived resilience of the couple. Most research identifies resilience in family systems (H. E. Canary & Canary, 2013) and patterns of forgiveness within those systems (Braithwaite et al., 2018; Waldron, Braithwaite, Oliver, Kloeber, & Marsh, 2018). This study represents a departure from this theme within the interpersonal communication literature by exploring forgiveness and resilience within romantic relationships. This section discusses the findings of the study in more detail, offers theoretical implications for TRRL, and suggests future directions for this line of research based upon the findings of this study.

RESEARCH FINDINGS The initial findings of this study were consistent with the theoretical propositions of TRRL. Both relational maintenance behaviors and emotional capital associated with a relational communal orientation. This suggests that the more communally oriented the couple is, the more likely they are to invest in their relationship (T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al., 2016). According to TRRL, these investments depend upon the communal orientation of the couple, but directional conclusions are not possible with the cross-sectional nature of this study.

These associations do align with previous TRRL studies that have found investments operate in concert with communalism (T. D. Afifi, Davis, et al., 2018). Additionally, emotional capital and relational maintenance strategies both positively associated with positive interpersonal qualities of forgiveness. Although the three relational maintenance strategies were negatively associated with conditional forgiveness, it is important to note that emotional capital did not associate with conditional forgiveness. Conceptually, this is an intriguing finding since both emotional capital and relational maintenance strategies represent relational investments (Feeney & Lemay, 2012), with relational maintenance strategies being broken down by particular behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 2006) and emotional capital representing a summative score of investments (Walsh, Neff, & Gleason, 2017). Therefore, future research should investigate why there is an observed difference between the conceptually similar constructs of relational maintenance (Stafford & Canary, 2006) and emotional capital (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). One noteworthy finding from this study is that particular patterns of communicating forgiveness do associate with an overall perception of resilience in romantic relationships. Specifically, communicating forgiveness with particular conditions attached tends to be negatively associated with the ability to cope with stress. This aligns with previous studies that suggest that conditional forgiveness associates with relational deterioration (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Clearly, no causal claims can be made from these associations, but it does follow that relational deterioration, conditional forgiveness, and the lack of perceived relational resilience (i.e., the ability to thrive in the face of stress) associate with negative outcomes—both for the forgiveness episode (r = .38, p < .001) and the relationship (Merolla, 2008; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). In fact, one of the strongest relationships among forgiveness strategies was between conditional forgiveness and negative forgiveness (i.e., pseudo- forgiveness; r = .76, p < .001). Not all hypotheses were supported though. In fact, there was a notable absence of significant results relating to ongoing negative affect moderating the communal orientation or emotional capital with particular strategies of communicating forgiveness; yet, this result does align with ongoing negative affect being an outcome instead of a moderating factor (Merolla, 2014) of granting particular types of forgiveness. Together, the findings from this study suggest that relational investments (i.e., maintenance and emotional capital) do

25 associate with the type of forgiveness communicated by couples after a relational transgression. Positive interpersonal qualities of the forgiveness strategy (e.g., nonverbal immediacy, discussion) do tend to associate with an individual’s perceived relational resilience. Although relational investments associated with more interpersonal qualities of forgiveness, the lack of investment did not necessarily associate with less communal approaches to forgiveness such as conditional forgiveness. Finally, the results also suggest that relational maintenance strategies do not explain the relationship between communalism and interpersonal forgiveness.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS This study serves as the first test of TRRL’s propositions, to the researcher’s knowledge, in the context of interpersonal forgiveness. Although many of the findings supported the propositions of TRRL (H1-H3, H5-H7, and H10-H11), there were notable shortcomings in TRRL’s ability to predict some outcomes anticipated in this study. Indeed, this study predicted that relational maintenance behaviors would explain the proposed relationship between both communal orientation and resilience (H12) and interpersonal forgiveness and resilience (H13). In fact, the data supported neither hypothesis. Perhaps, resilience should be used as a predictor in studies using TRRL rather than as an outcome. According to T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al. (2016), there are “conflicting perspectives about whether resilience is a predictor of how people manage stress, a process, or an outcome” (p. 664). Investigating particular transgressive episodes, and their aftermath, appears to be a good context to use resilience as a predictor of an interaction. Conversely, resilience may have more characteristics as a process of calibration in longitudinal studies (T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al., 2016). In other words, a longitudinal design could display adaptive characteristics of resilience and “patterns of stress responsivity” to particular communication messages (Ellis, Del Giudice, & Shirtcliff, 2017, p. 246). Further, the findings of this study shed light on how future cross-sectional studies should utilize TRRL. Specifically, based upon the results of this study and a post-hoc analysis of the data, resilience appears to be a better predictor of post-transgression communication behaviors rather than as an outcome of particular forgiveness granting strategies. Further, the results of this study suggest that patterns of forgiveness are not indicators of security and threat

26 appraisals, as previously hypothesized. Forgiveness strategies are more likely to be the outcome of investment rather than maintenance strategies in themselves that increase the emotional capital of the couple.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The findings of this study are not limited to theoretical extensions and scholarly insight. In fact, a principal component of TRRL is that the results of studies applying the theory should be used to design interventions for couples and families (Proposition 10: communicative maintenance strategies—with benefits for resilience and thriving—are learned). According to T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al. (2016), these interventions could describe effective communication strategies to support individuals in maintaining and investing in their relationships. Based upon the results of this study, there are clear associations between perceptions of relational resilience and the ways individuals communicate forgiveness to their partners. Although directionality cannot be determined, this study serves as empirical evidence that communicating forgiveness explicitly, discussing the transgression, and enacting immediate nonverbal behaviors tends to foster resilience. Alternatively, conditional forgiveness may have negative effects on the relationship and a conditional strategy closely aligns with negative outcomes of the forgiveness episode. Marriage counselor can inform couples that the “I forgive you, if” strategy may indicate that true forgiveness has not taken place and further discussion of the transgression is needed. Clinicians should also clarify that all forgiveness messages are not equal, and forgiveness strategies that engage the partner to explore the root of the transgression, instead of placing conditions on the relationship, is a healthy practice for couples. Finally, marriage counselors can use the findings of this study to provide a distinction between the psychological process of forgiveness and the act of communicating messages of forgiveness to their romantic partner. After a transgressive incident in a relationship, forgiveness is an important step to rebuild trust and intimacy between partners (Kelley et al., 2019). Marriage counselors and clinicians can help romantic partners understand the process and recommend effective ways of repairing relationships.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS As previously mentioned, this study is limited in the generalizability of its findings. Cross-sectional monadic surveys are a useful snapshot of an individual’s perceptions of communication behaviors, but they are incomplete and only offer one viewpoint of the dyad. This may be especially true because this study focused on the victim’s role in the forgiveness episode rather than the offender. Future studies would benefit from collecting dyadic data to display the interdependence of relationships and present a more dynamic perspective of the forgiveness-granting episode following transgressions (e.g., both offender and victim). The use of longitudinal data and experience sampling would also help answer increasingly complex questions surrounding resilience and forgiveness more broadly. Another important limitation of this study, which future studies should address, is the type (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006) and severity (Morse & Metts, 2011) of transgression incurred often play a role in the type of forgiveness strategies enacted during the forgiveness-granting episode and the outcomes of the transgression negotiation. Therefore, future studies should explore how transgression type and severity interact with both forgiveness and resilience. One emerging area of research within the field of interpersonal relationships is the biosocial response to communication messages. Recent interpersonal scholarship indicates positive physiological responses to communicating affection (Floyd, 2006) and social support (Solomon & Priem, 2016). Studies have utilized biosocial markers of stress such as heart rate (Diao & Sundar, 2004) and salivary samples to assess stress hormone response (T. D. Afifi, Granger, Denes, Joseph, & Aldeis, 2011). Research suggests that particular messages of forgiveness can evoke physiological responses (Lawler et al., 2003). For example, Crowley (2014) found that expressive writing increased forgiveness in LGBQ hate- speech victims and reduced cortisol values in victims who wrote about the positive aspects of the traumatic hate-speech event. Forgiveness strategies after a transgression in romantic relationships may also associate testosterone levels. A recent study by Crowley, Denes, Makos, and Whitt (2018) found that testosterone was negatively correlated with conditional forgiveness and positively correlated with direct forgiveness. Indeed, investigating the physiological effects of forgiveness—whether positive or negative—may be an insightful future direction for researchers, especially considering the multidimensional nature of forgiveness in romantic relationships.

As with most interpersonal episodes, an interaction after a transgression in a romantic relationship is likely made up of many components including cognitive appraisals, emotions, and communicative influences (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, 2016), all of which result in the amount of stress added to the relational system (T. D. Afifi, Merrill, et al., 2016). These systems can become weakened by this stress or thrive in the face of adversity. The conclusions drawn from this study point to scholarly avenues yet unexplored by communication scholars. Stress plays a large role in how dyads communicate with one another. Relational transgressions are particularly stressful and difficult to navigate as dyads work to maintain their relationship—if the transgression does not result in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. Continuing to understand how couples can maintain healthy romantic relationships by overcoming these transgressions through communicating forgiveness is not only important to human communication theory, but also to practitioners counseling couples going through stressful times in their relationship. Kelley (1998) reports that although “forgiveness can be a one-time act, it often involves a process of discussion and repeated requests for forgiveness” (p. 269). As is the nature of forgiveness, so too is the nature of research. There is a need for additional research to be conducted to fully understand the role forgiveness plays in a relational stress system. The current study simply articulates the urgency to continue investigating this critical process.

REFERENCES

Afifi, T. D. (2018). Individual/relational resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 5-9. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1426707 Afifi, T. D., Afifi, W. A., Merrill, A. F., & Nimah, N. (2016). ‘Fractured communities’: Uncertainty, stress, and (a lack of) communal coping in Palestinian refugee camps. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44, 343-361. doi:10.1080/00909882.2016.1225166 Afifi, T. D., Davis, S., Merrill, A. F., Coveleski, S., Denes, A., & Afifi, W. (2015). In the wake of the great recession: Economic uncertainty, communication, and biological stress responses in families. Human Communication Research, 41, 268–302. doi:10.1111/hcre.12048 Afifi, T. D., Davis, S., Merrill, A. F., Coveleski, S., Denes, A., & Shahnazi, A. (2018). Couples’ communication about financial uncertainty following the Great Recession and its impact on stress, mental health and divorce proneness. Journal of Families and Economic Issues, 39(2), 205-219. doi:10.1007/s10834-017-9560-5 Afifi, T. D., & Denes, A. (2013). Divorced and single-parent families: Risk, resiliency, and the role of communication. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 145-160). New York, NY: Routledge. Afifi, T. D., Granger, D., Denes, A., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2011). Parents’ communication skills and adolescents’ salivary α-amylase and cortisol response patterns. Communication Monographs, 78, 273-295. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.589460 Afifi, T. D., Granger, D., Ersig, A., Tsalikian, E., Shahnazi, A., Davis, S. M., … Scranton, A. (2018). Relationship maintenance as a booster shot: Testing the theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL) in families with type I diabetes. Health Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10410236.2018.1461585. Afifi, T. D., Hutchinson, S., & Krouse, S. (2006). Toward a theoretical model of communal coping in post-divorce families and other naturally occurring groups. Communication Theory, 16, 378–409. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00275 Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL). Personal Relationships, 23, 663–683. doi:10.1111/pere.12159 Afifi, W. A. & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365-392. doi:10.1177/0265407598153004

Akhtar, S. A. (2013). Good stuff: Courage, resilience, gratitude, generosity, forgiveness and sacrifice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. K. (2009). Quantitative research in communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Andersen, P. (2008). Immediacy. In S. Littlejohn & K. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 501-503). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45-56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357 Baxter, L. A., & Dindia, K. (1990). Marital partners' perceptions of marital maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 187-208. doi:10.1177/0265407590072003 Beaujean, A. A. (2008). Mediation, moderation, and the study of individual differences. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 422-442). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Beck, G. A. (2016). Surviving involuntary unemployment together: The role of resilience- promoting communication in familial and committed relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 369-385. doi:10.1080/15267431.2016.1215315 Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x Bradley, J., & Hojjat, M. (2017). A model of resilience and marital satisfaction The Journal of Social Psychology, 157, 1-14. doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.1254592 Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., Allen, J., Oliver, B. M., Berquist, G., Brockhage, K., … Tschampl-Diesing, C. (2018). “Feeling warmth and close to her”: Communication and resilience reflected in turning points in positive adult stepchild -stepparent relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 18, 92-109. doi:10.1080/15267431.2017.1415902 Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Manusov, V. (2011). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 239– 280). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193–214. doi:10.1080/03637758409390195 Buzzanell, P. M., & Houston, J. B. (2018). Communication and resilience: Multilevel applications and insights – A Journal of Applied Communication Research Forum. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 1-4. doi:10.1080/00909882.2017.1412086 Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019–1028. doi:10.1002/jts.20271

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. doi:10.1080/03637759209376268 Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relational characteristics through communication strategies and routines. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Academic Press. Canary, H. E., & Canary, D. J. (2013). Family conflict: Managing the unexpected. London, England: Polity Press. Caughlin, J. P., Vangelisti, A. L., & Mikucki-Enyart, S. L. (2013). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 161-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chochovski, J., Moss, S. A., & Charman, D. P. (2013). Recovery after unsuccessful in vitro fertilization: The complex role of resilience and marital relationships. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 34, 122-128. doi:10.3109/0167482X.2013.829034 Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. doi:10.1177/0146167293196002 Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82. doi:10.1002/da.10113 Crowley, J. P. (2014). Expressive writing to cope with hate speech: Assessing psychobiological stress recovery and forgiveness promotion after benefit-finding and traumatic disclosure writing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer victims of hate speech. Human Communication Research, 40, 238-261. doi:10.1111/hcre.12020 Crowley, J. P., Denes, A., Makos, S., & Whitt, J. (2018). Expressive writing to cope with relational transgressions: Tests of a dual-process model of expressive writing and its effects on forgiveness communication and testosterone. Health Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10410236.2018.1431017 Diao, F., & Sundar, S. S. (2004). Orienting responses and memory for web advertisements: Exploring effects of pop-up window and animation. Communication Research, 31, 537-567. doi:10.1177/0093650204267932 Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163–173. doi:10.1177/026540759301000201 Duck, S. (1986). Relating to others. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2017). The adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity: Concepts, findings, and implications for developmental psychopathology. In T. P. Beauchaine & S. P. Hinshaw (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (3rd ed.; pp. 237-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Elmer, N. (2006). Communal orientation. In G. Davey (Ed.), Encyclopaedic dictionary of psychology. London, England: Routledge. Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J., (1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing strategies on young couples' relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44, 166- 182. doi:10.1080/01463379609370008 Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2000). Helping clients forgive: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004-1117. doi:10.1080/01463379609370008 Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2013). Discrepancy models of belief change. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 354–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. A. (2006). The ubiquity and social meaningfulness of nonverbal communication: An introduction. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. xv-xxvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Girard, M., & Mullet, E. (1997). Propensity to forgive in adolescents, young adults, older adults, and elderly people. Journal of Adult Development, 4, 209-220. doi:10.1007/BF02511412 Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York, NY: Norton. Griswold, C. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. New York, NY: cambridge University Press.

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P., & Afifi, W. A. (2017). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gunderson, P. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10, 1-14. doi:10.1080/01463379609370008. Haverfield, M. C., & Theiss, J. A. (2016). Parent’s alcoholism severity and family topic avoidance about alcohol as predictors of perceived stigma among adult children of alcoholics: Implications for emotional and psychological resilience. Health Communication, 31, 606-616. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.981665 Hayes, A. F. (2018). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved from http://www.processmacro.org Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jones, S. M., & Guerrero, L. K. (2001). The effects of nonverbal immediacy and verbal person- centeredness in the emotional support process. Human Communication Research, 27, 567–596. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00793.x Kelley, D. L. (1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 255– 271. doi:10.1080/10510979809368535 Kelley, D. L., & Waldron, V. R. (2005). An investigation of forgiveness-seeking communication and relational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 53, 339-358. doi:10.1080/01463370500101097 Kelley, D. L., & Waldron, V. R. (2006). Forgiveness: Communicative implications for social relationships. Communication Yearbook, 30, 303-341. doi:10.1080/23808985.2006.11679060 Kelley, D. L., Waldron, V. R., & Kloeber, D. N. (2019). A communicative approach to conflict, forgiveness, and reconciliation: Reimagining our relationships. New York, NY: Routledge. King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (1998). Listwise deletion is evil: What to do about missing data in political science [Unpublished manuscript]. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/813e/3040f8a0988bfd3b385f49cbbabb802afa0c.pdf Knight, K. (2018). Transgressor communication after committing a hurtful relational event: Associations with attributed intent, blame, guilt, responsibility, and perceived forgiveness. Western Journal of Communication. Advance online publication. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1325925 Lawler, K. A., Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Edmondson, K., & Jones, W. H. (2003). A change of heart: Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in response to interpersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 373- 393. doi:10.1023/A:1025771716686 Le, B. M., Lemay, E. P., Impett, E. P., Muise, A., & Tskhay, K. O. (2018). Communal motivation and well-being in interpersonal relationships: An integrative review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1–25. doi:10.1177/1948550619829058 Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Muir, H. J. (2016). The action model of relationship security: How one’s own behavior shapes confidence in partners’ care, regard, and commitment. Personal Relationships, 23, 339–363. doi:10.1111/pere.12129 Lewis, M. A., McBride, C. M., Pollak, K. I., Puleo, E., & Butterfield, R. M. (2006) Understanding health behavior change among couples: An interdependence and communal coping approach. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1369-1380. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.006 Lillie, H. M., Venetis, M. K., & Chernichky-Karcher, S. M. (2017). “He would never let me just give up”: Communicatively constructing dyadic resilience in the experience of breast cancer. Health Communication, 49, 255-271. doi:10.1080/10510979809368535 Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McCullough, M. E., Exline, J. J., & Banmeister, R. E (1998). An annotated bibliography of research on forgiveness and related concepts. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of forgiveness (pp. 193-317). Radnor, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. McCullough, M. E., Fincham, F. D., & Tsang, J. A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: The temporal unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540 McCullough, M. E., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Classical sources of human strength: Revisiting an old home and building a new one. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 1-10. doi:10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.43 McIntyre, K. P., Mattingly, B. A., & Lewandowski, G. W. (2015). When “we” changes “me”: The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857-878. doi:10.1177/0265407514553334 McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: The tendency to forgive predicts continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 770–783. doi:10.1177/0146167211407077 Merolla, A. J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59, 114-131. doi:10.1080/10510970802062428 Merolla, A. J. (2014) Forgive like you mean it: Sincerity of forgiveness and the experience of negative affect. Communication Quarterly, 62, 36-56. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.860903 Merolla, A. J. (2016). Forgiveness following conflict: What it is, why it happens, and how it’s done. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 225-249). London, England: Routledge. Merolla, A. J., Zhang, S., McCullough, J. L., & Sun, S. (2017). How do you like your forgiveness? Communication style preferences and effects. Communication Studies, 68(5), 568-587. Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self–focused attention and negative affect: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.638. Morse, C. R., & Metts, S. (2011). Situational and communicative predictors of forgiveness following a relational transgression. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 239– 258. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.571652 Murphy, J. G., & Hampton, J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Myers, T. A. (2011) Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297-310. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.624490

Park, L. E., Troisi, J. D., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Egoistic versus altruistic concerns in communal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 315-335. doi:10.1177/0265407510382178 Randall, A. K. & Schoebi, D. (Eds.). (2018). Interpersonal emotion dynamics in close relationships. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Repetti, R. L., & McNeil, G. D. (2018). Interpersonal emotion dynamics in families. In A. K. Randall & D. Schoebi (Eds.), Interpersonal emotion dynamics in close relationships (pp. 129-148). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health- compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107–121. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01388.x Roloff, M. E. (1981) Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Rossetto, K. R. (2013). Relational coping during deployment: Managing communication and connection in relationships. Personal Relationships, 20, 568-586. doi:10.1111/pere.12000 Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Scobie, E. D., & Scobie, G. E. (1998). Damaging events: The perceived need for forgiveness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 28, 373-401. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00150.x Sheldon, P., Gilchrist-Petty, E., & Lessley, J. A. (2014). You did what? The relationship between forgiveness tendency, communication of forgiveness, and relationship satisfaction in married and dating couples. Communication Reports, 27, 78-90. doi:10.1080/08934215.2014.902486 Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2017). Approaches to social research (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smith, R. A., Sillars, A., Chestnut, R. P., & Zhu, X. (2018). Investigating married adults’ communal coping with genetic health risk and perceived discrimination. Communication Monographs, 85, 181-202. doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1404618 Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42, 507-532. doi:10.1111/hcre.12091 Solomon, D. H., & Priem, J. S. (2016). Outcomes of emotional support in dating relationships: Relational turbulence or sentiment override? Personal Relationships, 23, 698-722. doi:10.1111/pere.12155

Sprague, C. M., Kia-Keating, M., Felix, E., Afifi, T., Reyes, G., & Afifi, W. (2015). Youth psychosocial adjustment following wildfire: The role of family resilience, emotional support, and concrete support. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44, 433-450. doi:10.1007/s10566-014-9285-7 Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227-254. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0604_1 Theiss, J. A. (2018a). The experience and expression of uncertainty in close relationships. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Theiss, J. A. (2018b). Family communication and resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 10-13. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1426706. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L. (2007). Communicating hurt. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 121-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393-424. doi:10.1177/0265407500173005 Waldron, V. R., Braithwaite, D. O., Oliver, B. M., Kloeber, D. N., & Marsh, J. (2018). Discourses of forgiveness and resilience in stepchild-stepparent relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 5, 561-582. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1530447 Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723-742. doi:10.1177/0265407505056445 Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Walsh, C., Neff, L., & Gleason, M. E. (2017). The role of emotional capital during the early years of marriage: Why everyday moments matter. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 513–519. doi:10.1037/fam0000277 Weiser, D. A., & Weigel, D. J. (2016). Self-efficacy in romantic relationships: Direct and indirect effects on relationship maintenance and satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 152-156. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.013 Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L., & Lawler, K. A. (2005). Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 837–855. doi:10.1177/0265407504047843 Zautra, A. J. (2009). Resilience: One part recovery, two parts sustainability. Journal of Personality, 77, 1935-1943. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00605.x

APPENDIX A

MODELS

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the theory of resilience and relational load (Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2016). 38

Figure 2. Selected relational maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 2006). 3 9

Figure 3. Forgiveness strategies leading to positive relational outcomes (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). 40

Relational -.1 .745 Maintenance 01

Communal Resilience Orientation .382**

Figure 4. The relationship between communal orientation and resilience mediated by relational maintenance.

Relational .1 .086 Maintenance 02

Interpersonal Resilience Forgiveness .079**

Figure 5. The relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and resilience mediated by relational maintenance.

APPENDIX B

HYPOTHESES

H1 Communal orientation is positively correlated with emotional capital. Communal orientation is positively correlated with the relational H2a maintenance strategy of positivity. Communal orientation is positively correlated with the relational H2b maintenance strategy of openness. Communal orientation is positively correlated with the relational H2c maintenance strategy of assurances. Emotional capital is positively correlated with interpersonal H3 forgiveness.

H4 Emotional capital is negatively correlated with conditional forgiveness. The relational maintenance strategy of positivity is positively correlated H5a with interpersonal forgiveness. The relational maintenance strategy of openness is positively correlated H5b with interpersonal forgiveness.

The relational maintenance strategy of assurances are positively 42

H5c correlated with interpersonal forgiveness. The relational maintenance strategy of positivity is negatively H6a correlated with conditional forgiveness. The relational maintenance strategy of openness is negatively H6b correlated with conditional forgiveness. The relational maintenance strategy of assurances is negatively H6c correlated with conditional forgiveness.

H7a Communal orientation is positively related to interpersonal forgiveness.

H7b Communal orientation is negatively related to conditional forgiveness. Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between communal H8a orientation and interpersonal forgiveness. Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between emotional H8b capital and interpersonal forgiveness. Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between communal H9a orientation and conditional forgiveness. Ongoing negative affect moderates the relationship between emotional H9b capital and conditional forgiveness.

H10 Communal orientation is positively correlated with resilience.

H11 Interpersonal forgiveness is positively correlated with resilience. Relational maintenance behaviors mediate the relationship between H12 communal orientation and resilience. Relational maintenance behaviors mediate the relationship between H13 interpersonal forgiveness and resilience. *Bold indicates the hypothesis was supported 43

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM San Diego State University INFORMED CONSENT FORM Consent form version date: December 11, 2018

The Influence of Interpersonal Patterns of Forgiveness on Relational Resilience

IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS STUDY:

We are inviting you to join this research study. The purpose of the research is to explore communication behaviors that romantic partners use with one another.

We will give you details about the purposes, procedures, risks and possible benefits related to this study. We will explain other choices you have. We will also give you any other information that you need to make an informed decision about joining this study.

The following information is a more complete description of the study. Please read this description carefully. We want you to ask us any questions that will help you decide whether you want to join this study.

WHO SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS or Concerns?

Principal Investigator: Christopher D. Otmar SDSU Department: School of Communication 44 Address: 5500 Campanile Dr, San Diego, CA 92182 Phone: 831-455-5417 Email: [email protected]

Co-Investigator/Faculty Sponsor: Colter D. Ray SDSU Department: School of Communication Phone: (619) 594-8512 Email: [email protected]

WE ARE INVITING YOU TO JOIN THIS RESEARCH STUDY.

We are inviting you because you have identified yourself as fitting the criteria listed for this research. Up to 500 of participants will be included at San Diego State University.

You do not have to be in this study. You are free to say “yes” or “no”, or to drop out of the study after joining.

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS STUDY?

We are doing this study to find out how specific communication strategies may associate with particular behaviors within romantic relationships. We are particularly interested in communication during stressful time. WHAT IS THE TIME COMMITMENT IF I JOIN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?

Your participation will last approximately 15-20 minutes.

If you discontinue participating in this study, information collected before you stopped being in the study will not be included in the analysis of study results.

WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?

To determine if you are eligible to join the study, you will be asked to answer some questions about your relationship status. If your responses indicate you are eligible to participate, we will ask you to continue answering questions on the survey. If you are not eligible to participate, the information obtained during the screening will not be included in the study data and we will destroy the screening questionnaire will be to protect your privacy. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS INVOLVED IN THE RESEARCH? Because of the personal nature of the questions to be asked, you might reflect on unpleasant memories while completing a questionnaire. If you feel uncomfortable you may decline to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable, or you may discontinue your participation in this study. Even though we will take measures keep information collected in

surveys private, there is a possible risk of loss of privacy. 45

ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS TO PARTICIPATION?

There are no benefits for being in this study; however, by joining this research study, you are helping to provide information which may help science and society.

ARE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES TO JOINING THIS RESEARCH STUDY?

An alternative is to not join the research study.

WILL MY INFORMATION BE PRIVATE?

We will keep your information private, but there are limits to what we can keep private. If we think child or elder abuse is occurring, California law requires that we report the suspected abuse to the authorities.

Research records will be stored on a password-protected electronic device.

We will use the results of the study for publication or scientific purposes, but the results will not include any information that could identify you.

DO I HAVE TO JOIN THIS STUDY?

You do not have to join this research study. If you choose not to participate, there is no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Additionally, you may choose to stop participating at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

WILL I BE TOLD ABOUT THE Research RESULTS? We will not contact you with results of this study after this study is completed. WILL I BE PAID IF I JOIN THE RESEARCH? You will not be paid to participate in this study.

WHOM DO I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? If you have any questions about the research now, please ask. If you have questions later about the research, you may contact Christopher D. Otmar, (831) 455-5417- If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this study, or in the event of a research related injury, you may contact the Division of Research Affairs at San Diego State University (telephone: 619-594-6622; email: [email protected]). At any time during the research, you can contact the IRB for questions about research rights, to discuss problems, concerns, give suggestions, or to offer input.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE: 46 Selecting the “I consent” button below indicates that you have read the information in this document and have had a chance to ask any questions you have about the study. Your selection of the “I consent” button also indicates that you agree to join the study and that the study team has told you that you can change your mind and withdraw your consent to participate at any time. The investigator or a member of his/her research team has provided you with this consent form with information about who to contact in the event you have questions. Your selection of “I do not consent” will take you to the end of the survey.

APPENDIX E

ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION TABLE OF VARIABLES

Table 1. Zero-Order Correlation Table of Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 Communal Orien.

2 Emotional Capital .431**

3 RM .667** .232**

4 RM Positivity .625** .203** .966**

5 RM Assurances .677** .228** .964** .894**

6 RM Openness .652** .259** .943** .840** .905**

7 IP Forgiveness .220** .295** .159** .134** .161** .186**

8 Verbal IP Forgiv. .173** .265** .097* .065 .099* .139** .794**

9 Nonverb IP Forgiv. .211** .252** .174** .160** .175** .182** .877** .398**

10 Minimizing Forgiv. .136 .082 .133 .142 .101 .146 .622** .428** .613**

11 Conditional Forgiv. -.251** -.028 -.251** -.233** -.306** -.197* .272** .287** .221** .363**

12 Negative Forgiv. -.418** -.140* -.362** -.383** -.373** -.253** .112 .082 .102 .259* .757**

13 Transgression Sev. -.138** -.116* -.105* -.095 -.135* -.086 -0.084 -0.03 -.102* -.320** .440** .297**

14 Ongoing Neg. Aff. -.279** -.307** -.199** -.209** -.193** -.154** -.211** -.190** -.165** -.181* .517** .377** .554**

15 Resilience .452** .637** .207** .206** .201** .200** .270** .257** .222** .118 -.02 -.207** -.172** -.386**

Mean 5.502 6.581 5.133 5.033 5.442 5.074 4.272 4.567 4.317 3.297 2.686 2.242 4.855 3.943 5.634 SD 1.338 1.275 1.513 1.518 1.667 1.58 2.413 2.048 2.538 2.25 2.015 1.879 1.653 1.954 0.922 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).