13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 281

13

HURTING THE ONES WE Relational Transgressions

Tia and Jamal are deeply in love and plan to marry after Tia finishes graduate school. During a conver- sation with a mutual friend, Jamal finds out that Tia had lunch with her ex-, Robert, a week earlier. Jamal is flooded with negative thoughts and . He always suspected that Robert regret- ted breaking up with Tia. Worse yet, Robert has become successful over the past couple of years, whereas Jamal’s career has been stalled. Jamal can’t help but wonder if Tia prefers Robert to him. And why hadn’t she told him that they had lunch? Is she trying to hide something? Perhaps even an ? When Jamal confronts Tia later that evening, she tells him that she is completely “over” Robert, that they met by chance and decided to have a quick lunch to “catch up,” and that she didn’t tell him because it did- n’t mean anything and she knew he’d get upset. Tia declares, “I told him that I love you and we are engaged.” Tia’s words provide Jamal with some comfort, but he still can’t seem to stop worrying.

f you were in Jamal’s place, would you still be In this chapter, we focus on understanding how worried about Robert? Research on the “dark relational partners hurt one another, as well as I side” of relationships suggests that Jamal’s sit- how people respond to being hurt. First, we discuss uation is not at all unusual. People commonly expe- hurt feelings in the context of relationships. Then, we rience problems such as , , and review research related to three especially hurtful in their close relationships (Cupach & events: infidelity, jealousy, and deception. This is Spitzberg, 1994; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998). The followed by a review of research on hurtful mes- question becomes, How can people cope with such sages. The last part of the chapter focuses on com- situations most effectively? For example, should munication and following hurtful events. Jamal continue communicating his jealous feelings to Tia, or should he pretend that nothing is wrong? What about Tia? Was her explanation for not telling HURT FEELINGS IN RELATIONSHIPS Jamal about her lunch with Robert plausible? And what can she do or say to convince Jamal that she Think about the last few times you felt emotional him and has been faithful? pain. Chances are that you had close relationships

281 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 282

282 • CHAPTER 10

with the people who directly or indirectly inflicted the partner and the relationship (Feeney, 2005). The that pain. In one study, people described a situation top relational transgressions identified by college that led them to experience hurt feelings (Leary, students are (1) having sex with someone else, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). Of the 168 (2) wanting to or actually others, and (3) participants in this study, only 14 described situa- deceiving one’s partner about something significant tions involving or acquaintances; the other (Metts, 1991). Other transgressions include 154 all described situations involving close rela- with or kissing someone else, keeping secrets from tional partners, such as romantic partners, the partner, becoming emotionally involved with members, or good friends. Scholars have noted the someone else, and betraying the partner’s confi- paradoxical nature of hurt—the people with whom dence (Jones & Burdette, 1994; Roscoe, Cavanaugh, we share the strongest emotional connection have & Kennedy, 1988). Hurtful messages are words the power to hurt us in ways that other people can- that elicit psychological pain. As Vangelisti (1994b) not. As Dowrick (1999) put it, argued, words

It is one of life’s most terrible ironies that have the ability to hurt or harm in every bit as real a can be as connective as love. It can fill your mind and way as physical objects. A few ill-spoken words (e.g., color your senses. It can keep you tied to a person or “You’re worthless,” “You’ll never amount to any- to events as tightly as if you were bound, back to thing,” “I don’t love you anymore”) can strongly affect back—or worse, heart to heart. The person you want individuals, interactions, and relationships. (p. 53) to think of least may become the person you think of constantly. (p. 46) Indeed, studies have shown that hurtful words and events often have negative effects on relation- The most intense hurt feelings arise when a ships. In Jones and Burdette’s (1994) study, 93% of partner’s words or actions communicate devaluation people who had been betrayed by their partners said (Feeney, 2005). Devaluation involves feeling unap- that their relationships had been harmed as a result preciated and unimportant. A person can feel of the transgression. Leary and his colleagues devalued at the individual or relational level. For (1998) examined a wider variety of hurtful events example, if a good friend says she’s not surprised than . Nonetheless, 42% of their partici- that you failed an exam because you’re not very pants said that the hurtful event had permanently smart, you might feel hurt because your friend does damaged their relationships. In , betrayal not value your intellect. At a relational level, deval- leads to less acceptance, trust, and respect (Davis & uation is a perception that one’s partner does not Todd, 1985). In fact, when people are betrayed by a perceive the relationship to be as close, important, friend, they often recast the friend’s entire personal- or valuable as one would like (Leary et al., 1998). If ity to frame her or him in a more negative light someone betrays you, breaks up with you, or says (Wiseman, 1986). To better understand some of the that you are not that important in her or his life, you events that lead to hurt feelings and relational prob- are likely to feel hurt because your partner does not lems, the next part of this chapter provides a more value the relationship (Leary et al., 1998). detailed look at situations involving infidelity, jeal- Communication researchers have studied rela- ousy, deception, and hurtful messages. tional transgressions and hurtful messages as forms of behavior that inflict hurt feelings. Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit INFIDELITY or explicit relational rules (Metts, 1994). For exam- ple, many people believe that romantic partners Infidelity is especially hurtful. Feeney (2004) studied should be sexually faithful and that all close rela- a number of hurtful events and found infidelity to tional partners should be emotionally faithful, loyal, have a particularly strong negative effect on relation- and honest. When people violate these standards of ships. In another study, sexual infidelity, along with faithfulness, loyalty, and honesty, they also devalue relationship , was rated as the least forgivable 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 283

Hurting the Ones We Love • 283

of several hurtful events in dating relationships person, which leads one’s partner to channel “emo- (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b). The way people dis- tional resources such as romantic love, time, and cover sexual infidelity also makes a difference. Afifi, attention to someone else” (Shackelford & Buss, Falato, and Weiner (2001) compared four methods of 1997, p. 1035). discovery: (1) finding out from a third party; (2) wit- Given the prevalence of infidelity, it is impor- nessing the infidelity firsthand, such as walking in on tant to ask why people engage in acts of infidelity in your partner with someone else; (3) having the part- the first place. Research on sexual infidelity sug- ner admit to infidelity after you question her or him; gests that dissatisfaction with the current relation- and (4) having the partner tell you on her or his own. ship is the leading cause (Hunt, 1974; Roscoe et al., People who found out through a third party or by wit- 1988; Sheppard, Nelson, & Andreoli-Mathie, 1995). nessing the partner’s infidelity firsthand were the Other common causes of infidelity include bore- least likely to forgive their partners and the most dom, the need for excitement and variety, wanting to likely to say that their relationships had been dam- feel attractive, sexual incompatibility with one’s aged. People were most likely to forgive their part- partner, and trying to get revenge against the partner ners when they confessed on their own. (Buunk, 1980; Elbaum, 1982; Fleischman et al., 2005; Greene, Lee, & Lustig, 1974; Johnson, 1972; Sexual Versus Emotional Infidelity Roscoe et al., 1988; Wiggins & Lederer, 1984). There has not been much research on the causes of Researchers have distinguished between two types emotional infidelity. It is likely, however, that emo- of infidelity: sexual and emotional. Sexual infidelity tional infidelity is related to feeling dissatisfied with refers to “sexual activity with someone other than the communication and social support a person is one’s long-term partner” (Shackelford & Buss, 1997, receiving in her or his current relationship. p. 1035). Although most people in the United States disapprove of sexual infidelity (Weinbach, 1989; Behavioral Cues to Infidelity Weis & Slosnerick, 1981), several studies indicate that extradyadic are fairly common (see, e.g., While any of the previous reasons might make peo- Thompson, 1984). Estimates of sexual infidelity vary ple worry that their partner could be unfaithful sex- widely. When averaged, studies suggest that around ually or emotionally, researchers have uncovered 30% to 40% of dating relationships and 40% to 60% specific behavioral cues that trigger suspicion about of are marked by at least one incident of infidelity. In particular, a study by Shackelford and sexual infidelity (Guerrero, Spitzberg, & Yoshimura, Buss (1997) looked at cues to both sexual and 2004; Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). Men are more emotional infidelity. In this study, undergraduate likely than women to have a sexual affair, regardless students were asked to describe the cues that would of whether they are in a married or dating relation- lead them to suspect that their partners were ship (Gass & Nichols, 1988; Hansen, 1987; Sprecher (1) being sexually unfaithful (sexual infidelity) and & McKinney, 1993). Gay men may be more likely (2) falling in love with someone else (emotional than lesbians or heterosexual individuals to have sex- infidelity). Fourteen types of behaviors were found ual affairs. In Blumstein and Schwartz’s (1983) clas- to trigger suspicion. As can be seen in Box 13.1, sic study, 82% of gay male couples reported having some of these cues were associated more with sus- nonmonogamous relationships, compared with around picions of sexual infidelity, while others were asso- 28% of lesbian couples and 27% of heterosexual ciated more with suspicions of emotional infidelity. couples. Still other cues were associated about equally with For individuals who value sexual , sexual and emotional infidelity. discovering a sexual affair is extremely hurtful. When Importantly, some of the behaviors that trigger sexual infidelity is coupled with emotional infidelity, suspicion about infidelity are the opposite of those the hurt is usually even more intense. Emotional infi- that people use to maintain their relationships. For delity refers to emotional involvement with another instance, apathetic communication involves shutting 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 284

284 • CHAPTER 13

BOX 13.1 Highlights

Cues to Infidelity Behaviors Leading Primarily to the Suspicion of Sexual Infidelity Behavior Definition Physical signs of disinterest You indirectly find out from your partner that she or he has had sex in sexual exclusivity with someone else (examples: your partner smells like someone else or doesn’t want to have sex with you anymore) Revelations of sexual infidelity You witness or are told directly that your partner is having sex with someone else (examples: your partner confesses or you walk in on your partner in bed with someone else) Changes in routine and You notice that your partner’s actions are different from usual sexual behavior (examples: your partner starts trying new positions during sex or dresses differently) Increased sexual interest and You notice that your partner seems more interested in sex and shows exaggerated displays of more affection than usual, probably as a compensatory strategy affection (example: your partner says “I love you” more than usual) Sexual disinterest/boredom You notice that your partner seems less interested and excited about sex (example: your partner wants to end sex with you quickly)

Behaviors Leading Primarily to the Suspicion of Emotional Infidelity Relationship Your partner reveals that she or he is no longer in love with you and dissatisfaction/loss of love wants to pursue other alternatives (example: your partner wants a sexually ) Emotional disengagement Your partner seems to be distancing herself or himself from you emotionally (examples: your partner forgets your anniversary or doesn’t respond when you say “I love you”) Passive rejection/passive Your partner reveals her or his lack of emotional connection through inconsiderate behavior acts rather than direct rejection (example: your partner is rude to you and your friends) Angry, critical, and Your partner is uncharacteristically angry, critical, or argumentative argumentative with you (example: your partner starts looking for reasons to communication argue with you) Reluctance to spend time Your partner starts to spend less time with you and to separate her or together his social network from yours (example: your partner stops inviting you to spend time with her/his family and friends) Reluctance to talk about Your partner seems reluctant or nervous to talk about a particular a certain person person (example: your partner changes the topic when a certain person’s name comes up in conversation) (Continued) 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 285

Hurting the Ones We Love • 285

BOX 13.1 (Continued)

Guilty and anxious Your partner acts like he or she has done something wrong (example: communication your partner is unusually apologetic)

Behaviors Leading to the Suspicion of Both Sexual and Emotional Infidelity Apathetic communication Your partner seems to be putting less effort into the relationship (examples: your partner stops trying to look attractive for you or stops sharing emotions with you) Increased contact with Your partner seems to be focusing more time and attention on and reference to a another person (examples: your partner accidentally calls you by third party someone else’s name or starts wearing something belonging to someone else)

SOURCE: Information compiled from Shackelford and Buss (1997).

off communication and spending less time together. Buunk’s (1995) research suggests that people gener- As discussed in Chapter 9, self-disclosure, routine ally respond to sexual infidelity in one of the follow- talk, and time spent together are key behaviors that ing three ways. First, people can use angry retreat. help keep a relationship satisfying. Another set of Here, individuals who suspect or confirm sexual infi- behaviors that triggers suspicion about infidelity— delity might feel so much and betrayal that passive rejection—involves acting rude and incon- they turn away from their partner emotionally and siderate, which is the opposite of the maintenance physically, seek revenge (perhaps by having an affair strategy of positivity, which focuses on being cheer- of their own), or terminate the relationship. Second, ful, optimistic, and polite to one’s partner. Another people can use accommodation, which involves infidelity cue is reluctance to spend time together, adapting to the situation by expressing loyalty, trying which involves keeping social networks separate to understand the partner, and perhaps forgiving the rather than integrated. As discussed in Chapter 9, partner. Third, people can use an assertive response, integrating networks is important to relational main- whereby they seek to protect themselves and voice tenance. Thus when people feel that their partners their feelings and concerns. Examples of assertive are no longer working to maintain the relationship, responses include demanding that the partner stop they may suspect this lack of effort is due to emo- seeing other people, having the partner tested for tional or sexual infidelity. If Jamal notices changes HIV, asking the partner to wear condoms during in Tia’s behavior that reflect a lack of effort and intercourse (Buunk & Bakker, 1997), and renegotiat- interest in their relationship, his worries about pos- ing relational rules and boundaries. sible emotional or sexual infidelity might grow. Sex Differences in Infidelity Responses to Infidelity Research has also examined sex differences in reac- Now that you know about the different types of tions to perceived and actual infidelity. Much of the behavior that trigger suspicions about infidelity, you research in this area takes a social evolutionary per- might wonder how people like Jamal act once they spective (Buss, 1989, 1994; see also Chapter 10), suspect that their partners might are been unfaithful. suggesting that men and women react to emotional 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 286

286 • CHAPTER 13

and sexual infidelity differently because they have JEALOUSY different priorities related to reproduction. Women know they are the of a child, but men are When people suspect or discover infidelity, jealousy sometimes uncertain about paternity and, therefore, is a common reaction. Interestingly, jealousy is are more concerned about sexual infidelity. Women, often the result of a relational transgression, such as on the other hand, should be more worried about a partner having an affair or spending extra time emotional infidelity, because they are more con- with someone else. But jealousy is also seen as a cerned with protecting their most important transgression in its own right when a partner’s sus- resource, their relationship (see Chapter 7). picions are unwarranted (Metts, 1994). For exam- Most research on sex differences in reactions to ple, if Tia has been completely emotionally and emotional versus sexual infidelity has supported this sexually faithful to Jamal but Jamal continues to act evolutionary hypothesis (Guerrero et al., 2004). Men suspicious and possessive, Tia is likely to become show greater psychological and physiological dis- upset by his behavior. To Tia, Jamal’s lack of trust tress when they imagine their partner engaging in may very well be seen as a relational transgression. sexual infidelity, whereas women display more dis- tress when they imagine their partner in love with someone else (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, Characteristics of Jealousy 1992; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993). Similarly, in studies where people are asked to choose which This example highlights an important point about would make them more upset—their partner having jealousy—that jealousy can be a reaction to an imag- a one-night stand or their partner falling in love with ined threat or an actual threat. There are also differ- someone else—men identify sexual infidelity as ent types of jealousy. Romantic jealousy occurs more upsetting, whereas women identify emotional when a relational partner worries that a potential infidelity as more upsetting (Becker, Sagarin, rival might interfere with the existence or quality of Guadagno, Millevoi, & Nicastle, 2004; Trost & her or his romantic relationship, just as Jamal worries Alberts, 2006). Of course, both men and women get that Robert might interfere with his relationship with upset when their partners cheat on them—either Tia. As White and Mullen (1989) put it, romantic emotionally or sexually—and the most devastating jealousy “is generated by the perception of a real or effects likely occur when people suspect or confirm potential romantic attraction between one’s partner both sexual and emotional infidelity. and a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (p. 9). Sexual jeal- There may also be sex differences in how peo- ousy is a particular form of romantic jealousy ple perceive possible cues to infidelity and how they whereby an individual worries that a rival is having respond to those cues. In Shackelford and Buss’s or wants to have sex with her or his partner. Bevan (1997) study, women were more likely than men to and Samter (2004) identified five additional forms of see suspicious behaviors as indicative of infidelity jealousy that can occur in romantic relationships, (see Box 13.1). Perhaps this is because, in the friendships, and family relationships: friend jeal- United States, men are somewhat more likely than ousy (feeling threatened by your partner’s relation- women to have extradyadic affairs (Sprecher & ships with friends), family jealousy (feeling McKinney, 1993) or because women are better threatened by your partner’s relationships with fam- encoders of information than are men (Burgoon et ily members), activity jealousy (perceiving that the al., 1996). Buunk and Bakker’s (1997) study also partner’s activities, such as work, hobbies, or school, revealed that women might respond to infidelity are interfering with one’s relationship), power jeal- with angry retreat and assertion more than men. This ousy (perceiving that one’s influence over the part- study did not find a sex difference for accommoda- ner is being lost to others), and intimacy jealousy tion, although other research has shown that women (believing that one’s partner is engaging in more inti- are more likely to forgive men for sexual infidelity mate communication, such as disclosure and advice than vice versa. seeking, with someone else). 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 287

Hurting the Ones We Love • 287

SOURCE: Istockphoto.com Photo 13.1 Jealousy always involves at least three people. Jealousy also tends to involve multiple emotions. What emotions do you think the woman in this photo is feeling?

Jealousy is different from two related con- lose something they value, such as a good relation- structs: and rivalry (Bryson, 1977; Guerrero & ship or high-status position, due to interference Andersen, 1998a; Salovey & Rodin, 1986, 1989). from a third party. The prototypical jealousy situa- Jealousy occurs when people worry that they might tion involves fearing that someone will “steal” 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 288

288 • CHAPTER 13

a romantic partner away. Envy, in contrast, occurs for something that neither one of them has. A prime when people want something valuable that some- example of rivalry involves who are one else has. Prototypical envy situations involve competing to be seen as “best” in the eyes of their feelings of resentment toward someone who seems peers, , and other adults (Dunn, 1988a, to have a better life, often because he or she has 1988b). As these examples illustrate and Figure stronger relationships, is better looking, intelligent, 13.1 shows, jealousy, envy, and rivalry are differen- and talented, or has more stature, money, or posses- tiated by who possesses the desired relationship sions. Rivalry occurs when two people are competing or commodity.

A

A is jealous X B is envious X = the desired relationship or commodity

B The person possesses X A

The person wants X A and B X are rivals

B

Figure 13.1 Differences Between Jealousy, Envy, and Rivalry Based on Possession of a Desired Relationship or Commodity

The triangle of Jamal, Tia, and Robert helps If this were the case, Jamal and Robert would be illustrate the differences between jealousy and envy. experiencing rivalry. As this example shows, jeal- On the basis of the descriptions above, would you ousy, envy, and rivalry sometimes coexist within the characterize Jamal as jealous or envious? It seems same set of relationships. The remainder of this sec- clear that Jamal is experiencing jealousy because tion will focus specifically on how people experi- he is worried that he might lose Tia to Robert. ence and express romantic jealousy. However, Jamal might also be experiencing envy because he wishes to possess some of the things Experiencing Romantic Jealousy Robert has, such as a successful career. Assuming that Robert is still in love with Tia, he might be envi- When people perceive a third-party threat to their ous of Jamal’s relationship with her. Now, pretend romantic relationships, they are likely to experience that Tia is not currently in a relationship with either a number of thoughts and emotions. On the cognitive man and that they both want to date her exclusively. side, jealous individuals typically make appraisals 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 289

Hurting the Ones We Love • 289

regarding the source and severity of the threat. On & Andersen, 1998a, 1998b; Sharpsteen, 1991). the emotional side, jealous individuals tend to expe- People are jealous because they fear losing their rela- rience a cluster of jealousy-related emotions. tionship, and they are often angry at their partner for betraying them. Sometimes, jealous individuals are Jealous Thoughts. White and Mullen (1989) described also angry at the rival, particularly if the rival is some- primary and secondary cognitive appraisals that tend one they know; at other times, they feel irritated or to occur as jealous feelings develop. Primary annoyed but not really angry (Guerrero, Trost, & appraisals involve general evaluations about the Yoshimura, 2005). existence and quality of a rival relationship, includ- Beyond fear and anger, jealousy is often ing how much of a threat the third party is. For exam- marked by other aversive emotions such as sadness, ple, Jamal might ask himself questions such as “Has guilt, hurt, and envy (Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; Tia been seeing Robert behind my back?” and White & Mullen, 1989). Sadness occurs near the “Could Tia love Robert more than me?” Secondary end of some jealousy episodes when people are feel- appraisals involve more specific evaluations of the ing gloomy and lonely because a breakup seems jealousy situation, including possible causes and out- inevitable or has just occurred (Sharpsteen, 1991). comes. White and Mullen described four types of Sometimes, jealous individuals feel guilty because secondary appraisals that people use to gather infor- they wrongly accused their partners of misdeeds, as mation and interpret the situation. First, jealous peo- Jamal might feel if he discovers he mistakenly sus- ple assess motives (“Why did Tia have lunch with pected Tia of any improprieties. At other times, Robert?”). Second, they compare themselves with people feel guilty because they think that their the rival (“Robert is more successful than I am, but own negative qualities caused the partner to become I’m more intelligent and caring”). Third, they evalu- interested in someone else. For example, Jamal ate their alternatives (“If Tia dumps me for Robert, might think that if he had paid more attention to Tia, who would I want to date? Would I rather be on my she might not have become attracted to someone own than date someone who has been unfaithful to else. Envy can be part of the jealousy experience, me?”). These questions would help prepare Jamal, or especially when the rival has positive qualities that anyone else dealing with jealousy and/or infidelity, the jealous person does not possess. for a possible breakup or reconciliation. Finally, jeal- Sometimes, jealousy leads to positive emotions, ous people assess their potential loss (“How devas- such as increased , love, and appreciation tating would it be to lose Tia?”). (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b; Guerrero et al., According to White and Mullen, jealous indi- 2005). Think about how you might feel if you saw viduals like Jamal make appraisals so that they can someone flirting with your romantic partner. The fact plan coping strategies and assess outcomes. For that someone else sees your partner as attractive example, if Jamal decides that Tia could be attracted might make you feel more passionate and loving to Robert because of his success, he might compen- toward her or him (Pines, 1992; White & Mullen, sate by putting more effort into his own career. If Tia 1989). Recent research shows that people sometimes responded favorably to Jamal’s intensified career intentionally induce jealousy to achieve two goals: to pursuits, Jamal would likely continue those behav- make their partner value the relationship more and to iors. But if Jamal’s behavior change does not have get revenge (Fleischmann et al., 2005). Pines (1992) the desired effect (perhaps Tia complains that Jamal also argued that jealousy can lead partners to appre- is so focused on his career that he is ignoring her), ciate their partners more, become more committed he is likely to try a different strategy. to the relationship, and work harder to maintain the relationship. Other researchers have argued that jeal- Jealous Emotions. In addition to making cognitive ousy is closely related to love, because people would appraisals, jealous individuals usually experience not get jealous if they did not care about their part- combinations of emotions. The emotions most central ners (Ciabattari, 1988; Salovey &Rodin, 1985). But to jealousy are probably fear and anger (see Guerrero inducing jealousy is a dangerous strategy because 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 290

290 • CHAPTER 13

jealousy often leads to relationship dissatisfaction & Eloy, 1992; Salovey & Rodin, 1989). However, and sometimes even violence (Guerrero & Andersen, jealousy is experienced in many relationships that 1998a). remain satisfying. The trick seems to be to manage jealousy in a productive way, such that the jealous individual shows care and concern without seeming Communicative Responses to Jealousy overly fearful, aggressive, or possessive. Just as jealousy can involve a wide range of Among the many communicative responses to thoughts and emotions, so too, can jealousy jealousy listed in Box 13.2, only three appear to be be expressed in many different ways. Guerrero and associated with relational satisfaction: integrative her colleagues have described 14 communicative communication, negative affect expression, and responses to jealousy, which are summarized in Box compensatory restoration. All the other responses 13.2 (Guerrero, 1998; Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b; usually make the problem worse, although some Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, studies have shown that manipulation attempts such 1995). The most commonly reported responses are as counterjealousy induction can be effective in cer- negative affect expression, integrative communica- tain circumstances (Buss, 1988a; Fleischmann et al., tion, and distributive communication. 2005). Integrative communication involves talking Research suggests that people use various com- about jealousy in a constructive manner, often by municative responses to jealousy based on their goals disclosing feelings and renegotiating relational rules and emotions (Bryson, 1977; Guerrero & Afifi, 1998, and boundaries. Rusbult and Buunk (1993) sug- 1999; Guerrero et al., 2005). When people want to gested that this type of communication is critical maintain their relationships and feel annoyance rather for maintaining relationships after jealousy is felt. than anger, they report using integrative communica- Similarly, Afifi and Reichert (1996) found a positive tion and compensatory restoration. People who are association between integrative communication and fearful of losing their relationships also tend to report relational satisfaction when jealousy occurs. compensatory restoration. In contrast, people who are Negative affect expression can also be an effec- more concerned with maintaining their self-esteem tive way to communicate about jealousy, but only if it report denying their jealous feelings. When people is used in conjunction with integrative communica- are motivated to reduce uncertainty about their rela- tion. Andersen et al. (1995) found that jealous individ- tionship, they report using integrative communica- uals reported the most relational satisfaction when tion, surveillance, and rival contacts, all of which they used both integrative communication and nega- represent ways of seeking information. A number of tive affect expression. Integrative communication retaliation tactics have also been reported, including alone was not as effective as this combination, and manipulation attempts (such as counterjealousy and negative affect expression could actually reduce rela- guilt induction), distributive communication, and tionship satisfaction when used alone or with other active distancing (see Box 13.2). People tend to use strategies, such as distributive communication or these responses when they feel jealous anger and active distancing. Andersen and his colleagues con- want revenge against their partners. cluded that people who engage in constructive com- munication about jealousy while expressing their emotions openly and honestly probably come across as Jealousy and Relational Satisfaction sincerely hurt yet rational and in control. Furthermore, the honest expression of negative may cause Although jealousy can be a sign of love and attach- the partner to feel empathy for the jealous individual, ment, it can be both a symptom and a cause of rela- which could lead to positive outcomes. tional distress. In fact, research has shown that jealous In some cases, compensatory restoration may thoughts and feelings are generally associated with also be associated with relational satisfaction. relational dissatisfaction (Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, Individuals who try to improve themselves and their & Spitzberg, 1995; Buunk & Bringle, 1987; Guerrero relationships may become more desirable to their 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 291

Hurting the Ones We Love • 291

BOX 13.2 Highlights

Communicative Responses to Jealousy Behavior Definition and Examples Negative affect Nonverbal expressions of jealousy-related affect that the partner can see expression (examples: appearing hurt or anxious, crying) Integrative Direct, nonaggressive communication about jealousy with the partner communication (examples: disclosing feelings and trying to reach an understanding) Distributive Direct, aggressive communication about jealousy with the partner communication (examples: arguing, being sarcastic or rude) Active distancing Indirect, aggressive communication about jealousy with the partner (examples: giving the silent treatment, withdrawing affection and sex) Avoidance/denial Indirect, nonaggressive communication that focuses on avoiding the jealousy-invoking issue, situation, or partner (examples: decreasing contact, denying feelings) Violent Threats or actual physical violence against the partner (examples: communication threatening to harm the partner, hitting) Signs of Public relationship displays so that people know the partner is “taken” (examples: possession kissing the partner in front of rivals, telling rivals you have a relationship) Derogating Negative comments about potential rivals to the partner and to others competitors (example: telling the partner about the rival’s bad traits) Relationship Threats to terminate or de-escalate the primary relationship or to be unfaithful threats (example: threatening to break up if the partner continues to see the rival) Surveillance Behavioral strategies designed to find out about the rival relationship (examples: checking the partner’s cell phone or e-mail, spying on the partner) Compensatory Behavior aimed at improving the primary relationship and/or oneself restoration (examples: trying to look more physically attractive, giving the partner gifts or extra attention) Manipulation Moves to induce negative feelings in the partner (examples: flirting with others, attempts inducing counterjealousy, making the partner feel guilty) Rival contacts Direct communication with the rival about the jealousy situation or rival relationship (example: telling the rival the partner is already in a relationship) Violent behavior Violence toward objects, either in private or in the presence of others toward objects (examples: slamming doors, throwing the partner’s possessions out of the house)

SOURCE: Adapted from Guerrero and Andersen (1998b); examples from actual accounts by jealous individuals, as reported in Guerrero et al.’s (1995) qualitative data. 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 292

292 • CHAPTER 13

partners. Indeed, Buss (1988a) reported that strategies distrust (O’Hair & Cody, 1994). Deception violates such as demonstrating love and caring for one’s part- both relational and conversational rules and is often ner were highly effective in keeping couples together considered to be a negative violation of expectan- after jealousy had occurred. However, it is important cies (Aune, Ching, & Levine, 1996). Research sug- to recognize that too much compensatory restoration gests that most people expect friends and loved can make a person seem desperate and too eager to ones, as well as strangers, to be truthful most of the please, which can have detrimental effects on the time. In fact, McCornack (1992) argued that expect- relationship (Guerrero, 1998). ing others to be truthful is a basic feature of conver- sations (see also Grice, 1989). If people do not Sex Differences in Jealous expect that most conversations are truthful, talking to others would simply be too difficult and unpro- Emotions and Communication ductive. Think about this for a moment: If you were Research findings on sex differences in jealous always suspicious and had to question the veracity emotions are mixed, but some studies suggest that of every statement you heard, it would be virtually women experience more hurt, sadness, anxiety, and impossible to get to know people. confusion than men, perhaps because they On a given day, however, it is highly likely that themselves for the situation more often (Becker et you or someone you are talking to will engage in al., 2004; Bryson, 1976). In contrast, men have been some form of deception. In one study, people reported found to deny jealous feelings and focus on bolster- lying in about 25% of their daily interactions ing their self-esteem more than women (Buunk, (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). 1982; White, 1981). These differences are small, In another study, people were asked to keep a log of but they suggest that women are somewhat more their conversations. Remarkably, only one third of focused on the relationship, whereas men are more these conversations were completely truthful (Turner, focused on individual concerns. Edgley, & Olmstead, 1975). The other two thirds of Sex differences in communicative responses conversations were characterized by some degree to jealousy are more consistent, although relatively of lying, , or intentional concealment of small. Jealous women report using integrative com- information. During a single interaction, people are munication, expressing negative affect, enhancing more likely to tell to strangers and acquaintances their appearance, and using counterjealousy induction than close relational partners, such as a good friend or more often than do jealous men. In contrast, jealous (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). However, because men more often contact the rival, restrict the partner’s people interact more often with close relational part- access to potential rivals, and give gifts and spend ners, most lies are told in the context of relationships. extra money on the partner than jealous women (Buss, Studies comparing strangers, acquaintances, friends, 1988a; Guerrero & Reiter, 1998). Jealous men also and romantic partners suggest that the most lying engage in dangerous behaviors, such as getting drunk occurs in romantic relationships (DePaulo & Kashy, or engaging in promiscuous sex with others, more 1998; Lippard, 1988). Moreover, romantic partners often than do jealous women (see White & Mullen, appear to “reserve their most serious lies for each 1989). These findings can be partially explained using other” (Cole, 2001, p. 107). an evolutionary perspective, which suggests that men focus on competing for mates and showing resources, Types of Deception whereas women focus on creating social bonds and showcasing their beauty (Buss, 1988a). Lying is only one way in which relational partners deceive each other. Deception includes all com- munications or omissions that serve to distort or DECEPTION omit the truth. Buller and Burgoon (1994) defined deception as intentionally managing verbal and/or Like jealousy, deception is a major relational trans- nonverbal messages, so that a receiver will believe gression that often leads to feelings of betrayal and or understand something in a way that the sender 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 293

Hurting the Ones We Love • 293

knows is false. Note that intentionality is part of this The last two forms of deception are opposites. definition. For example, if you truly believe that the Exaggeration or overstatement involves stretching big basketball game between your college and a the truth a little—often to make oneself look better or rival school starts at 6:00 p.m. when it really starts to spice up a story (O’Hair & Cody, 1994; Turner et at 7:00 p.m., it would not be deception if you told al., 1975). The prototypical example of exaggeration your friend the incorrect time. Instead, this type of involves job interviews, in which people often make misinformation might be termed a mistake. But their skills and experiences sound better than they when people intentionally mislead others or conceal actually are. Understatement or minimization, on or misrepresent the truth, deception has occurred. the other hand, involves downplaying aspects of the Research suggests that there are five primary truth. As with , people often use under- types of deception: lies, equivocations, concealments, statements to make themselves look better. People exaggerations, and understatements. Lies, also called also use understatements when they want to avoid falsifications or fabrications, involve making up getting in trouble or taking too much blame. For information or giving information that is the opposite instance, Tia might have told Jamal that she ran into of (or at least very different from) the truth (Ekman, Robert and they had a casual chat, when actually 1985). For example, if you are single and someone they had lunch together and talked for more than an you find unattractive approaches you at a bar and asks hour about deep topics. if you are married, you might say you are. Another form of deception, equivocation or Motives for Deception evasion (Bavelas, Black, Chovil, & Mullett, 1990; O’Hair & Cody, 1994), involves making an indi- People engage in deception for many reasons. Metts rect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement. The (1989; Metts & Chronis, 1986) described three prototypical example of equivocation involves major motivations for deception in close relation- people’s physical appearance. Suppose your friend ships. First, relational partners have partner-focused asks you how her new hairstyle (which you hate) motives, such as using deception to avoid hurt- looks. Instead of saying, “You look like a French ing the partner, help the partner maintain his or her poodle” (which is what you really think), you self-esteem, avoid worrying the partner, and protect might equivocate by saying, “It’s the latest style.” the partner’s relationship with a third party. For In this case, your answer would be indirect even example, if you say that your best friend’s new though it contains a kernel of truth. That is, you hairstyle looks great when you really think it looks might really believe that your friend’s new hair- awful, your deceptive behavior probably has a style is the latest fashion, even though your state- partner-focused motive. Sometimes, partner- ment is designed to mislead your friend regarding motivated deception is seen as socially polite and your true feelings. relationally beneficial. Indeed, not engaging in Concealment or omission is yet another form deception when you hate your friend’s new hairstyle of deception (Buller & Burgoon, 1994; O’Hair & might violate relational expectations and hurt your Cody, 1994; Turner et al., 1975). The key here is that friend’s feelings. people omit information they know is important or Second, people deceive due to self-focused relevant to a given context. This is what Tia did. She motives, such as wanting to enhance or protect their decided not to tell Jamal about having lunch with self-image, or wanting to shield themselves from Robert, even though she knew he might think the anger, , criticism, or other types of information was relevant to their relationship. At harm. So if a job applicant exaggerates his qualifica- other times, concealment involves engaging in tions during a job interview or a child avoids telling behavior that helps hide relevant information. For her that she failed an exam because she doesn’t example, a teenager might leave her house in the want to be punished, deception is based on self- morning with her backpack and books as if she were focused motives. This type of deception is usually heading off to school, when in actuality she is going perceived as a much more serious transgression than to meet her boyfriend and skip school. partner-focused deception because the deceiver is 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 294

294 • CHAPTER 13

acting for selfish reasons rather than for the good of Jamal might feel betrayed because she didn’t trust the partner or the relationship. him enough to confide in him. Jamal may also ques- Finally, people have relationship-focused motives tion Tia’s motivations and wonder if she didn’t tell for deceiving a partner. Here, the deceiver wants to him because she really does have something to hide. limit relational harm by avoiding conflict, relational trauma, or other unpleasant experiences. For example, Deception Detection Tia might have concealed having lunch with Robert because she thought it would lead to an unnecessary As you read the letter about the who cheated argument or, at the very least, a misunderstanding. on his , you might have wondered how he got Note that in this case, as well as in other cases involving away with deceiving her for so long. You might think relationship-focused motives, partner- and self-focused that there must have been clues that he had had an motivations may also come into play. By not telling affair or that he was concealing something from her. Jamal about her lunch with Robert, Tia might also be In reality, however, it is difficult to detect deception protecting herself from false accusations (a self- in everyday conversations with relational partners focused motive) while protecting Jamal from feeling unless one partner says something that is blatantly hurt and jealous (a partner-focused motive). The key false or that contradicts information the other partner is whether someone is using deception primarily to knows. This is not to say that most people can suc- protect the relationship, rather than only to protect cessfully deceive their partners all the time. Indeed, either oneself or the partner. it is difficult to hide serious relational transgressions Sometimes, relationally motivated deception is such as infidelity over a long period. However, in seen as beneficial within a relationship. At other day-to-day conversations about relatively minor times, however, such deception only complicates issues, deception often occurs without one partner matters. Metts (1994) used the following excerpt suspecting that anything is amiss. from an advice column to illustrate how deception Detecting deception is difficult because there are can make a bad situation even worse: no completely reliable indicators of deception. Although deception is often accompanied by behav- Dear Abby: My husband and I were planning a 40th iors such as speech hesitations and body shifts, these anniversary celebration, but I called it off 3 months behaviors can indicate general anxiety, shyness, or ago when I learned from someone that my husband discomfort in addition to deception (Andersen, 1999; had had an affair with a young woman while he was Burgoon et al., 1996). Also, stereotypic behaviors stationed in Alameda, California, during World War II. such as eye behavior are often controlled during The affair lasted about a year while he was waiting to deception. When people to you, they know to look be shipped out, but never was. When I confronted him with the facts, he admitted it, but said it was “nothing you straight in the eye, which makes eye contact an serious.”...I am devastated. I feel betrayed, knowing unreliable cue for detecting deception (Hocking & I’ve spent the last 37 years living with a liar and a Leathers, 1980). Perhaps the most reliable method for cheat. How can I ever trust him again? The bottom has detecting possible deception is to compare a person’s fallen out of my world. (p. 217) normal, truthful behavior with her or his current behav- ior. If the person’s behavior is noticeably different— In this situation, even if the deception was moti- either more anxious or more controlled—perhaps vated by relational concerns, such as wanting to deception is occurring. There is, however, no fool- avoid conflict and even , it compounded the proof method for detecting deception. problem in the long run. As Metts (1994) observed, People often assume that they are better able to “In this case, the act of infidelity is only the first detect deception by close relational partners than blow; the 37 years of omission is the second, and strangers or acquaintances. Research suggests that probably more devastating, hit” (p. 217). Jamal this is not the case. Although Comadena (1982) might feel the same. Even if Tia had a good motive found that friends and are better at detecting for not telling Jamal about her lunch with Robert, deception than acquaintances, he also found that 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 295

Hurting the Ones We Love • 295

friends are superior to spouses at uncovering decep- bias makes close relational partners overly confident tion, suggesting that the ability to detect deception of the truthfulness of each other’s statements, caus- does not increase as a relationship becomes closer. ing them to miss much of the deception that occurs. Other studies have shown that romantic partners Even in the face of seemingly deceptive informa- have trouble detecting deception, with accuracy tion, relational partners can be influenced by the rates only slightly better than chance (Levine & truth bias (Buller, Strzyzewski, & Comstock, 1991; McCornack, 1992; Stiff, Kim, & Ramesh, 1992). In McCornack & Parks, 1986). one study, people reported that their romantic part- The following example further illustrates the ners accepted about half of their deceptive messages power of the truth bias. One of the authors of this as truthful (Boon & McLeod, 2001). Next, we dis- book helped run an experiment on deception in which cuss the advantages and disadvantages people in a friend who was assigned to be interviewed was close relationships have when it comes to detecting instructed to lie in response to some questions and to deception. tell the truth in response to others. The interviewer, who did not know that the interviewee had been Advantages of Relational Closeness. Because com- instructed to lie on some questions, later rated the paring “normal” behavior with deceptive behavior friend’s answers on a variety of attributes, including is important in the deception detection process, truthfulness. The truth bias was evident in many of close relational partners have an advantage over these interactions. As a case in point, one of the inter- strangers—they have knowledge of the partner’s viewees lied and said “no” when asked if he usually typical communication style. Burgoon and her col- went out of his way to help other people in need. The leagues (1996) called this type of knowledge behav- interviewer looked at him in disbelief and said “Yes, ioral familiarity. Close friends, family, and romantic you do. Just the other day you stopped and helped partners are familiar with one another’s honest those teenagers who were stranded at the side of the behavior; therefore, deviations from this behavior road—you stopped and put the spare tire on their car.” can tip them off that something is amiss. Relational The interviewee paused and then said “Yeah, but I partners also have the advantage of informational hadn’t changed a tire in a while, and I wanted to make familiarity (Burgoon et al., 1996). In other words, sure I could still do it.” Amazingly, when the inter- you know certain information about your relational viewer recorded how truthful he thought his friend’s partner, so your partner cannot lie to you about that answer was, he marked “very truthful.” This shows information. You can tell a that you have how the truth bias works. We expect and look for three children instead of one, but obviously you can- honesty in our friends and loved ones, even if it some- not get way with telling such a lie to family members times means having to reevaluate our initial suspi- or friends. cions of deception. The second reason close relational partners Disadvantages of Relational Closeness. Despite might have trouble detecting deception is that the these advantages, deception is difficult to detect in deceiver may exert behavioral control. In other close relationships for at least two reasons. First, words, people try to control their nervous or guilty people have a truth bias. In other words, people behaviors to appear friendly and truthful. Several expect others to be honest, so they enter conversa- deception researchers have demonstrated that, tions without suspicion and do not look for decep- regardless of whether deceivers are interacting with tive behavior. Truth biases are especially strong friends or strangers, they try to control their behavior within close relationships and with people whom we so that they seem honest (see Ekman & Friesen, like. People who are socially attractive are generally 1969; Zuckerman, DePaulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). seen as less deceptive, and when they are caught However, this may be particularly true for close rela- deceiving, people usually attribute their motives for tional partners, who have more to lose if the decep- deception to more benign causes (Aune et al., 1996). tion is discovered. Buller and Aune (1987) found that McCornack and Parks (1986) argued that the truth when people deceived friends or romantic partners, 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 296

296 • CHAPTER 13

they became friendlier and showed less anxiety as Work in the area of date initiation supports the the interaction progressed than when they deceived idea that people use deception to emphasize their strangers. In comparison with deceiving strangers, positive qualities and minimize their negative quali- people tried harder to look truthful when deceiving ties (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998, 1999). relational partners, in part by “putting on a happy According to research reported in these studies, face” and hiding nervousness. around 46% of men and 36% of women admit that they have lied to initiate a date with someone. In Effects of Deception on Relationships another study on deception in the early stages of dat- ing (Tooke & Camire, 1991), men were more likely Paradoxically, research shows that deception can than women to exaggerate (or lie) about how success- help people develop and maintain relationships, but ful they were and to act more committed and sincere it can also lead to conflict and relationship breakup. than they actually were. Women, in contrast, were Most people believe that honesty is a crucial part of more likely to try to enhance their appearance by close relationships. Yet people can identify situa- engaging in behaviors such as wearing clothing that tions where it is important, even ethical, to deceive made them look thinner and using makeup to exagger- their partner (Boon & McLeod, 2001). For example, ate desirable facial features. People are most likely to if Jamal overhears someone saying something really lie when initiating dates with potential partners negative about Tia, he might decide not to tell her who are very physically attractive (Rowatt et al., because it would hurt her feelings too much. 1999). People deceive prospective partners about Partner-focused such as these are often many issues, including their appearance, personality regarded as acceptable and appropriate, and they can traits, intelligence, income, and past relationships. help maintain positive relationships. With physically attractive partners, people are most Cole (2001) discussed two other ways in which likely to lie in ways that show similarity to the attrac- deception is associated with the development and tive partner (Rowatt et al., 1999). With Internet dating maintenance of relationships. First, deception may on the rise, people may have more opportunities than help couples avoid arguments, thereby promoting ever before to deceive dating prospects on these issues. relational harmony. For example, a mother who is Of course, deceiving a partner about your posi- mediating an argument between her two sons may tive versus negative qualities can backfire. Eventu- try to sound even-handed, even though she thinks ally, they are likely to see you for who you are, which one of the sons is more to blame. Similarly, your may leave them disappointed and disillusioned. So it best friend might understate how hurt she feels is important to remember that deception can have when you receive an honor that she wanted, so you negative consequences for relationships. When peo- won’t feel bad. ple uncover a significant deception, they usually feel Second, deception allows people to downplay a host of negative emotions, including anxiety, anger, their faults and accentuate their virtues, which may and distress (e.g., McCornack & Levine, 1990). help people develop and maintain relationships People who use deception frequently in their rela- (Cole, 2001). Two lines of research support this idea. tionships report lower levels of commitment, inti- Work on the benefit of positive illusions (Murray, macy, and closeness. Similarly, when people Holmes, & Griffin, 1996) suggests that people who perceive their partners as dishonest, they report less hold idealized images of their partners (as well as relational satisfaction and commitment (Cole, 2001). their partner’s perceptions of them) are most satis- Deception is also a leading cause of conflict and rela- fied in their relationships. So if Tia exaggerates by tionship breakup (see Chapters 14 and 15). Finally, telling Jamal “you are ten times more attractive than some deceptions are harmful not only to people’s Robert,” her exaggeration would contribute to his relationships but also to their health. Lucchetti positive illusions and perhaps lead him to feel more (1999) found that one third of sexually active college secure about her having lunch with Robert. students avoided talking about their sexual history 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 297

Hurting the Ones We Love • 297

with their partners, even though many of them knew sleeping with someone else,” and “I decided we can that doing so would help them have safer sex. only be friends” (p. 65). These types of messages, Around 20% of these same college students reported which focus on relationship issues, were even more that they had intentionally misrepresented their hurtful than messages focusing on personality traits. sexual history to their partner. Types of Hurtful Messages HURTFUL MESSAGES Vangelisti identified 10 types of hurtful messages (see Box 13.3) representing different forms of communi- Deception is one form of message that can be hurt- cation. The most common hurtful messages reported ful. Messages that imply a person or relationship is by college students are evaluations, accusations, and unimportant are especially hurtful and constitute a informative statements (Vangelisti, 1994b). Research relational transgression and a violation of expectan- has also examined hurtful messages between parents cies (Vangelisti, 1994b, 2001). People want and and children. In one study, children (aged 7 to 10) and expect relational partners to regard them and their parents were asked to describe a time when a hurtful relationships positively. Messages that convey neg- message had occurred in the context of their parent- ative feelings or rejection are unexpected, leading to child relationship (Mills et al., 2002). Children emotions such as hurt and anger (Vangelisti, 1994b). described situations involving discipline or disregard, Hurtful messages are associated with less satis- whereas described situations involving mis- fying relationships. Specifically, people report more conduct or disregard. Under the category of “disre- distancing and less relational closeness when their gard,” children mentioned issues such as partner frequently uses hurtful messages (Vangelisti, favoritism, teasing, criticism, rebuffs, and statements 1994b; Vangelisti & Young, 2000). Messages perceived showing disrespect. Similarly, mothers wrote about to be intentional are especially hurtful and damaging times they felt criticized, rebuffed, or disrespected. to relationships (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002; Together, these studies demonstrate that feeling Vangelisti, 1994b; Vangelisti & Young, 2000). If you devalued is a central component of hurtful messages think someone said something to purposely hurt your for young children as well as adults. feelings, you are likely to be more upset than if you thought the comment was not intended to hurt you. Messages are also more or less hurtful based on the Responses to Hurtful Messages topic they address and the form of communication they take. One study showed that hurtful messages Research has examined three general ways in are less psychologically painful when they are light- which people respond to hurtful messages: active ened through humor (Young & Bippus, 2001). verbal responses, acquiescent responses, and invul- nerable responses. These responses occur in adult Hurtful Message Topics relationships (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998) and par- ent-child relationships (Mills et al., 2002). Vangelisti (1994b) examined the topics in hurtful Active verbal responses focus on confronting messages. She had college students recall when the partner about her or his hurtful remarks. Some someone said something hurtful to them and then active verbal responses are more positive than write a script about the interaction as they remem- others. For example, questioning the partner and bered it. Most hurtful messages focused on relation- asking for an explanation are forms of active verbal ships (both romantic and nonromantic), personality responses that may help partners understand one traits, and physical appearance. Messages of rela- another. Other active verbal responses, such as sar- tionship devaluation were especially hurtful, such as casm and verbal attacks on the partner, can lead to an being told, “I don’t love you anymore,” “I’ve been escalation of negativity. Active verbal responses are 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 298

298 • CHAPTER 13

BOX 13.3 Highlights

Hurtful Messages Message Type Definition and Examples Evaluation Negative judgments of worth, value, or quality (example: “This relationship has been a waste of my time”) Accusation Charges about a person’s faults or actions (example: “You are a selfish and rude person”) Informative statement Disclosure of unwanted information (example: “I only dated you because I was on the ”) Directive Directions or commands that go against one’s desires or imply negative thoughts or feelings (example: “Don’t call me anymore”) Expressions of desire Statements about one’s preferences or desires (example: “I wish you were more like your brother”) Threat A declaration of intent to inflict punishment under certain conditions (example: “If you see him again I’ll break up with you”) Question An inquiry or interrogation that implies a negative judgment (example: “Aren’t you finished with school yet?”) Joke A witticism or prank that insults the partner (example: “I guess your wife wears the pants in the family and you wear the skirt”) Deception A statement that is untrue or distorts the truth (example: your partner says “Trust me, I didn’t do it” when you know he or she did)

SOURCE: Definitions adapted from Vangelisti (1994b).

the most frequently reported response in both adult and acknowledging the partner’s ability to hurt you. relationships and parent-child relationships (Mills For example, people might cry, apologize (“I’m et al., 2002). People may be especially likely to use sorry I make you feel that way”), or concede (“Fine, active verbal responses when they are in satisfying I won’t see him anymore”). People use acquiescent relationships (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998). Couples responses when they are deeply hurt by something a in satisfying relationships may talk to one another close relational partner said (Vangelisti & Crumley, more, which could help them repair the psychologi- 1998). The quickest way for people to stop emo- cal damage caused by hurtful messages. Couples in tional pain may be to give in and acknowledge their happy relationships may also be better able to with- feelings. Invulnerable responses involve acting stand the use of more negative active verbal unaffected by the hurtful remark. For instance, you responses than those in unhappy relationships. might ignore the hurtful message, laugh it off, Instead of talking about the hurtful message, become quiet, or withdraw. Both acquiescent and people sometimes use acquiescent or invulnerable invulnerable responses may be more likely than responses. Acquiescent responses involve giving in active verbal strategies when people become 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 299

Hurting the Ones We Love • 299

flooded with emotion and have difficulty talking Forgiveness is a state of motivational change about their feelings. that involves inhibiting relationally destructive behavior and instead behaving constructively toward the person who committed the offense (McCullough, THE AFTERMATH OF HURTFUL EVENTS Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). As Freedman and Enright (1996) stated, “There is a decidedly paradox- As we discuss in Chapter 15, issues related to jeal- ical quality to forgiveness as the forgiver gives up the ousy, infidelity, and deception, along with negative resentment, to which he or she has a right, and gives spirals of hurtful messages, often cause relational the gift of compassion, to which the offender has no . Yet many romantic couples and friends sur- right” (p. 983). Fincham (2000) made the key point vive and even thrive after experiencing transgres- that forgiveness is contingent not only on the hurt per- sions. Doing so, however, is a challenging enterprise. son’s change in motivation but also on the offending Fincham (2000) used the metaphor of “kissing por- person’s change in behavior. If a person does not cupines” to describe this challenge: believe that her or his partner will change the hurtful behavior, that person is unlikely to be forgiving. Imagine two porcupines huddled together in the cold People communicate forgiveness in a variety of of an Alaskan winter’s night, each providing life-sus- taining warmth to the other. As they draw ever closer ways. Waldron and Kelley (2005) identified five spe- together the painful prick from the other’s quills leads cific ways in which people show forgiveness follow- them to instinctively withdraw—until the need for ing a partner’s relational transgression. Explicit warmth draws them together again. This “kiss of the forgiveness involves direct communication such as porcupines” is an apt metaphor for the human con- saying “I forgive you.” Nonverbal display involves dition, and it illustrates two fundamental assumptions using touch or facial expressions to show forgive- . . . humans harm each other and humans are social ness. Conditional forgiveness involves offering for- animals. (p. 2) giveness with contingencies. Minimization involves downplaying the importance or seriousness of the As Fincham put it, acceptance of these two transgression. Finally, discussion involves talking assumptions results in the following challenge: about the transgression with the partner. Explicit for- “how to maintain relatedness with fellow humans in giveness is the most common of these strategies the face of being harmed by them” (p. 2). Next, we (Kelley, 1998), as well as the clearest way to let a focus on this dilemma from the perspective of transgressor know that he or she is forgiven and you both the victim and the transgressor. Specifically, want to repair the relationship (Scobie & Scobie, we look at forgiveness and communicative responses 1998). However, when a transgression is serious, from the perspective of the victim and remedial victims are more likely to use conditional forgive- responses from the perspective of the transgressor. ness (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Minimization is most likely when the transgression is not so serious. Victim Responses: Forgiveness So Jamal might be likely to use a minimization and Communication (“Okay, it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal”) if he believes Tia’s lunch with Robert was innocent. If, on Forgiveness plays a critical role in repairing a rela- the other hand, he continues to be suspicious of Tia’s tionship after a transgression occurs (Emmers & motives, he might use conditional forgiveness (“It’s Canary, 1996). Forgiveness is a complicated process okay, as long as you promise not to see him again”). that does not occur immediately; instead, To determine the strategy you used to grant forgive- ness the last time you forgave someone after being the decision to forgive starts a difficult process that involves conquering negative feelings and acting hurt, take the test in Box 13.4. with goodwill toward someone who has done us Prior to forgiving a partner, victims often engage harm. It is this process, set in motion by a decision to in avoidant and retaliatory forms of communication. forgive that makes statements like “I’m trying to for- However, once they forgive their partners, victims report give you” meaningful. (Fincham, 2000, p. 9) engaging in more positive forms of communication, 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 300

300 • CHAPTER 13

 BOX 13.4 Put Yourself to the Test Forgiveness-Granting Strategies Think about the last time you forgave a relational partner (such as a good friend, family member, or romantic partner) after he or she hurt your feelings. Use the following scale to determine which strate- gies you used the most: 0 = Not used at all, 4 = Used moderately, 7 = Used extensively.

Not Used Used Extensively 1. I gave my partner a look that communicated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forgiveness. 2. I told my partner I had forgiven him or her, but 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I really didn’t forgive my partner until later. 3. I joked about it so my partner would know 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 he or she was forgiven. 4. I initiated discussion about the transgression. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I told my partner I forgave her or him. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I gave my partner a hug. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I told my partner not to worry about it. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I discussed the transgression with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The expression on my face said, “I forgive you.” 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I told my partner I would forgive her or him 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 only if things changed. 11. I told my partner it was no big deal. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I touched my partner in a way that communicated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forgiveness. 13. I told my partner I would forgive her or him if the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 transgression never happened again. To obtain your results, average your scores for the following items: (1 + 6 + 9 + 12)/4 = ______(Nonverbal display) (2 + 10 + 13)/3 = ______(Conditional forgiveness) (3 + 7 + 11)/3 = ______(Minimization) (4 + 8)/2 = ______(Discussion) (5) = ______(Explicit forgiveness) Higher scores indicate that you used more of a particular strategy.

SOURCE: Adapted from Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L., Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions, in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742. Copyright © 2005, Sage Publications, Inc. 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 301

Hurting the Ones We Love • 301

such as talking over issues and calmly renegotiating as guilt, remorse, and even fear of losing the partner— relationships rules (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b; the victim might feel bad for the transgressor. As McCullough et al., 1998). In contrast, when people McCullough et al. (1997) put it, empathy can lead to do not forgive their partners, they tend to engage in “an increased caring” for the transgressor that more vengeful communication (such as arguing and “overshadows the salience” of the hurtful action and name-calling), de-escalation (such as breaking up or leads to forgiveness (p. 333). The relationships dating others), and avoidance. A motivational shift between apologies, empathy, forgiveness, and com- toward forgiveness and positive communication is munication are depicted in Figure 13.2. more likely if (1) a sincere apology is offered, (2) the Sometimes, when victims experience empathy seriousness of the transgression does not prohibit for the transgressor, they realize that the best way to forgiveness, and (3) the relationship was of high restore their own peace of mind is through forgive- quality prior to the transgression. Each of these con- ness. Kelley (1998) had people write descriptions of ditions is discussed next. three situations where they forgave someone. In 21% of these descriptions, the reason for forgiving the Apologies and Empathy. Forgiveness is more likely partner was to restore well-being to themselves or when the transgressor sincerely apologizes for her the transgressor. Kelley gave the following excerpt or his actions (Darby & Schlenkler, 1982; Hargrave, from one of the narratives to illustrate this point: “I 1994; McCullough et al., 1997; Weiner, Graham, began to realize that this anger was not only torturing Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). Sincere apologies can lead him, but myself as well. It was eating me up inside the victim to perceive the transgressor as a generally and making me more of an angry person. Why good and thoughtful person despite the hurtful event. should I suffer for what he has done?” (p. 264). In Kelley’s (1998) study, 31% of the accounts indi- cated that people forgave their partners because they The Seriousness of the Transgression. Of course, acted in ways that showed remorse and/or accepted if the transgressor’s offense was especially serious, responsibility, such as apologizing for their actions. empathy might not be forthcoming, and an apology Apologies are most likely to be effective if the might never be accepted (Worthington & Wade, victim feels empathy for the transgressor. It may 1999). Thus, people are less likely to be forgiving seem odd to you that a victim should feel empathy when the transgression is serious (Bennett & when he or she is the one who was hurt. However, if Earwaker, 1994; Girard & Mullet, 1997). In Kelley’s the transgressor expresses negative emotions—such study, 44% of the descriptions indicated that victims

More conciliatory behavior

Apology Empathy Forgiveness

Less avoidance and less retaliatory behavior

Figure 13.2 Model of the Forgiveness Process SOURCE: From McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, C., Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, p. 327. Copyright © 1997, the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission. 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 302

302 • CHAPTER 13

forgave their partners after reframing the situation, relationships (Menzies-Toman, & Lydon, 2005; so that the transgression seemed less severe. For Young, 2004). example, they came to understand why the transgres- sor had behaved in a certain way or realized that the Consequences of Forgiveness. Finally, it is important transgressor had not intended to hurt them. to note that the consequences of forgiveness are not The seriousness of a transgression is also always positive. Although research has shown that related to how much a behavior violates relationship partners who forgive each other are more likely to expectations. For example, hurtful events vary in stay together and have happier relationships, this is the extent to which you consider them unacceptable. not always the case. Kelley (1998) analyzed respon- When people consider a hurtful event to be a highly dents who described relational consequences when negative violation of their expectations, they are less they wrote about forgiving someone. Around 28% of likely to forgive their partner and less likely to the people indicated that their relationship had engage in positive forms of communication (Bachman, returned to “normal” after forgiveness was granted. 2002; Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Recall the sit- Around 36% reported that their relationship had dete- uation between Jamal and Tia. Jamal might be upset riorated, and around 32% reported that their relation- that Tia concealed information from him, but he is ship had strengthened. Relationships are more likely unlikely to regard this transgression as one of the to deteriorate if the transgression is serious and the worst things Tia could do. Therefore, he would be victim used conditional forgiveness. Relationships more likely to forgive Tia for her deception. On the are more likely to strengthen if the victim used other hand, if she really was having an affair with explicit forgiveness (saying “I forgive you”) and non- Robert, Jamal would be much more likely to see that verbal displays of forgiveness (showing affection to as a highly negative violation of a relationship rule, the partner). These findings suggest that forgiveness and as a consequence, he would be much less likely can help heal a relationship, but it cannot always save to forgive her. it. Of course, in some cases, it may be better not to save the relationship. For instance, people who for- Relationship and Partner Characteristics. People give too readily might stay in abusive relationships are also more likely to forgive their partners and (Katz, Street, & Arias, 1995). engage in positive communication when they are in high-quality relationships with rewarding partners. The Transgressor: Remedial Strategies In Kelley’s study, 35% of the accounts indicated that forgiveness was granted because people wanted to Thus far, we have looked at repair from the victim’s repair their relationship. Love was a motivation perspective by focusing on communication related to behind forgiveness in another 15% of the accounts. forgiveness. But what if you are the transgressor: People are also likely to evaluate transgressions as Can you do something to save your relationship? less serious, forgive their partners, and engage in The answer is far from simple; you cannot erase your more positive communication following transgres- offense with the wave of a magic wand, and your sions by socially attractive and highly rewarding relationship might never again be the same even if partners (Aune et al., 1996; Bachman, 2002; Bachman your partner forgives you. However, research on dis- & Guerrero, 2006a). Similarly, people are more covered deception (Aune, Metts, & Hubbard, 1998), likely to report using positive communication sexual infidelity (Mongeau, Hale, & Alles, 1994), following relational transgressions when their rela- social predicaments (Cupach, 1994), and forgiveness tionships are highly committed and emotionally (Kelley, 1998) suggests that people use various involved (Guerrero & Bachman, in press; Menzies- remedial strategies when they have committed a Toman & Lydon, 2005; Roloff et al., 2001). People transgression. Remedial strategies are attempts to in committed, satisfying relationships also tend to correct problems, restore one’s positive face, and/or evaluate their partner’s transgressions as less seri- repair the relationship. Some of the most common ous than do those in less satisfying, less committed remedial strategies are discussed next. 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 303

Hurting the Ones We Love • 303

Apologies/Concessions. Apologizing and admitting mean anything to her. The mutual friend who told guilt is one of the most obvious and frequently used Jamal she saw Tia and Robert having lunch together remedial strategies. As noted earlier, apologies can may also offer a justification by saying, “I didn’t increase empathy while showing that the transgressor know you hadn’t told Jamal” or “He probably would is willing to take responsibility for her or his actions. have found out eventually anyway.” In fact, in Mongeau et al.’s (1994) study on responses to infidelity, concessions emerged as the most effec- Refusals. With excuses and justifications, the tive relational repair strategy. However, if an apology transgressor admits some responsibility for her or his and accompanying confession are offered after some- actions. However, with refusals, transgressors argue one is accused of a transgression, the apology is not that they should not be held accountable for their as effective as it would have been if offered before behavior or that a transgression never occurred. Some accusations were made. Of course, many people do scholars believe refusals are a special type of excuse, not want to apologize and admit guilt if their partner one that is good enough that the transgressor feels does not know about the transgression (Mongeau & that a relational rule has not been broken. The popu- Schulz, 1997). But if they wait until the partner lar television show Friends provides a great example accuses them (as would be the case if Tia apolo- of refusal. Ross and Rachel have been dating for gizes), their apology might be seen as the result of some time when they get into an argument and agree being caught rather than a free admission of guilt. to “take a break.” That night, Ross has sex with Apologies can vary from a simple statement, such as another woman. When Rachel finds out about Ross’s “I’m sorry,” to more elaborate forms of apology that one-night stand, she is very upset. Ross denies he has include expressing guilt and remorse, derogating done anything wrong because they were “on a break.” oneself, promising to make up for the bad behavior, Ross refuses to take any blame because he does not and promising never to engage in the transgression see his behavior as a transgression. This example again (Cupach, 1994; Schlenker & Darby, 1981). illustrates the complexity of relational transgressions: When people have committed serious transgressions, What is perceived as a transgression by one party elaborate apologies are more successful than simple might not necessarily be perceived as a transgression ones (Darby & Schlenker, 1982, 1989). by the other. Not surprisingly, Mongeau et al. (1994) found refusals to be an ineffective remedial strategy; Excuses/Justifications. When transgressors try to refusals are likely to aggravate the situation rather explain why they engaged in an untoward act, they than repair the relationship. are using excuses or justifications to account for their behavior. When transgressors use excuses, they try Appeasement/Positivity. Different types of appease- to minimize responsibility for their negative behav- ment behaviors have appeared in the literature on ior by focusing on their inability to control their own remedial strategies. For instance, people who seek actions or by shifting the blame to others (Aune et forgiveness often use ingratiation strategies, such as al., 1998; Cupach, 1994; Mongeau & Schulz, 1997). promising to make up for what they did (Kelley, For example, Tia might offer an excuse by saying “I 1998). When people are caught deceiving their part- didn’t know I was going to run into Robert; it just ners, they sometimes use soothing strategies that are happened.” Tia could also blame Robert by saying, designed to appease the target. Specifically, Aune and “He insisted that we have lunch, and I was afraid of his colleagues (1998) found that people used reme- hurting his feelings.” When transgressors use justifi- dial strategies such as complimenting the partner, try- cations, they try to minimize the negative implica- ing to be more attentive to the partner, spending more tions of the transgression by denying their behavior time with the partner, saying “I love you” more often, was wrong or that the transgression was severe and buying the partner gifts and flowers. With all (Aune et al., 1998; Cupach, 1994; Mongeau & these strategies, the transgressor seeks to “make up” Schulz, 1997). Tia offers a justification when she for the hurtful behavior by being particularly nice says that having lunch with Robert didn’t really and helpful. Tia uses an indirect appeasement strategy 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 304

304 • CHAPTER 13

when she says “I told him [Robert] that I love you and might also discuss the future of their relationship and we are engaged.” She might also show Jamal more the type of they want to have. affection to convince him that he is the one she loves.

Avoidance/Evasion. This strategy, which has also SUMMARY AND APPLICATION been called “silence,” involves efforts to avoid dis- cussing the transgression. Transgressors who use this In a perfect world, people would never hurt one strategy often report that talking about the problem another. But the world is full of imperfect people only makes it worse and it is better to let the trans- leading imperfect lives. Coping with relational trans- gression fade into the background of the relationship gressions and hurt feelings is a difficult challenge and be minimized (Aune et al., 1998). Transgressors that many relational partners face. Sometimes, the using this strategy might also refuse to give an expla- damage from infidelity, deception, or other trans- nation for their behaviors. If avoidance/evasion is gressions is too great, and the relationship ends. At used after an apology and forgiveness has been other times, such as Fincham’s kissing porcupines, granted, it may be effective. But if avoidance/eva- people decide to draw back together despite the pain, sion is the primary strategy used, the problem might hoping that they will not be “pricked” again. be left unresolved and could resurface in the future. So what advice can communication researchers Because relational transgressions often lead to rela- give to people like Jamal, who are hurt because their tional change, which sometimes includes the altering partners engaged in relational transgressions? (At a of rules and boundaries, avoidance/evasion may not minimum, Tia conceals the fact that she had lunch be a particularly effective strategy in the long run. with Robert from Jamal. More seriously, she could Indeed, Mongeau et al. (1994) found that avoidance be hiding an affair.) When coping with transgres- (or silence) was an ineffective strategy for repairing sions, it is important for partners to weigh the sever- relationships after infidelity had occurred. ity of the offense against how much they value the relationship. When a transgression destroys trust in Relationship Talk. This strategy involves talking a relationship, the relationship may not recover. about the transgression within the larger context However, many transgressions can be repaired by of the relationship. Aune et al. (1998) discussed renegotiating the rules and boundaries of the rela- two specific types of relationship talk. The first, tionship or by offering apologies and explanations which they called relationship invocation, involves for one’s actions. For example, open discussion expressing attitudes or beliefs about the relationship might reaffirm to Jamal that Tia is completely com- or using the qualities of the relationship as a backdrop mitted to him. Jamal may also learn that she con- for interpreting the transgression. For example, trans- cealed her lunch with Robert to protect him from gressors might say, “Our relationship is strong hurt feelings. For her part, Tia might learn not to con- enough to survive this,” or “I love you too much to ceal such information from Jamal in the future. She lose you over something like this.” In Tia’s case, she might also apologize for not telling Jamal about her might tell Jamal that their relationship is much better lunch with Robert, and she might use appeasement than Robert and hers ever was. The second type strategies and relationship invocation to show Jamal of relationship talk, metatalk (Aune et al., 1998), how much he and their relationship mean to her. involves explicitly discussing the transgression’s If Jamal continues to feel jealous, he should use effect on the relationship. For instance, after conced- integrative communication and negative affect ing that she was wrong not to tell him about her lunch expression rather than destructive responses such as with Robert, Tia might say that she wants Jamal to distributive communication and violent behavior. He trust her. This might lead Tia and Jamal into a discus- should also appraise the situation to determine the sion about rules of honesty in their relationship. They level of threat that Robert actually poses. Perhaps 13-Gurrero-45243.qxd 3/28/2007 7:49 PM Page 305

Hurting the Ones We Love • 305

he is overreacting and should trust Tia rather than DISCUSSION QUESTIONS continuing to be suspicious. Or, perhaps, he has real reason to be jealous. In either case, it is important for 1. If your long-time relational partner were people to remember that romantic jealousy can stem unfaithful, do you think you would leave your part- from a real or imagined (or sometimes exaggerated) ner or try to work things out? If you think that “it relationship between a loved person and a rival. depends,” what does it depend on? Do you think If Jamal decides to forgive Tia for deceiving him, men and women are socialized to react differently to research suggests that he tell her explicitly, “I forgive sexual infidelity? Is there still a “sexual double stan- you.” If he regards her transgression as serious, he dard” when it comes to infidelity? might add that it is important that she is honest with him when similar situations arise in the future. If the 2. Think about the last time you or someone relationship is to be repaired, Jamal needs to move you know was jealous. Which of the communicative from feeling a need to retaliate against or avoid Tia, responses to jealousy did you or the person you to using positive, conciliatory forms of communica- know use? Did these responses make the situation tion. A transgression can be a bump in the relationship better or worse? road or a detour sign; it depends on the seriousness 3. Under what circumstances, if any, do you of the offense, the strategies used to cope with the think it is okay to deceive a friend or relational part- problem, and the willingness or unwillingness of the ner? When would you feel betrayed if your friend or victim to forgive the transgressor. partner deceived you?