Open Rachel Mclaren Dissertation.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School The College of the Liberal Arts INTEGRATING THE RELATIONAL TURBULENCE MODEL AND RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION TO EXPLAIN REACTIONS TO HURTFUL MESSAGES IN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS A Dissertation in Communication Arts and Sciences by Rachel M. McLaren © 2008 Rachel M. McLaren Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2008 The dissertation of Rachel M. McLaren was reviewed and approved* by the following: Denise Haunani Solomon Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Chair of Committee Dissertation Advisor James P. Dillard Head and Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Jon F. Nussbaum Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Michael Wenger Associate Professor of Psychology *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT The aim of this dissertation was to explain why people have varied reactions to relational events. I addressed this issue by integrating relational communication into the relational turbulence model and developing specific predictions about the associations among relational turbulence, dominance, disaffiliation, and reactions to hurtful events. Specifically, I hypothesized that relational turbulence would be positively associated with perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation in a hurtful interaction with a romantic partner (H1). I also predicted that perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation would result in more intense reactions to hurt, as indexed by intensity of hurt, negative emotions, and perceptions of intentionality (H2). In an effort to bring a dyadic approach to these predictions, I posited that the associations specified in H1 and H2 remain significant after controlling for the perpetrator’s perceptions of the victim’s reactions to hurt (H3). I also considered the effects of relational turbulence on conversations that partners have about a past hurtful message. In a fourth hypothesis, I predicted that relational turbulence is positively associated with people’s perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation in a conversation about a past hurtful event (H4). To the extent that partners are experiencing turbulence, they might have difficulty drawing similar relational inferences. Consequently, I also predicted that relational turbulence increases partner’s discrepancies in perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation in a conversation about past hurtful events (H5). In turn, I hypothesized that discrepancies in partners’ perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation decrease their mutual understanding and increase their perceptions of the difficulty of the conversation (H6). In other words, misaligned iv relational inferences obstruct people’s ability to achieve mutual understanding and increase feelings of difficulty during a conversation focused on resolving a past hurtful event I conducted three studies to test my predictions. Although the findings for the associations among relational turbulence, dominance, and disaffiliation were inconsistent across the three studies, the results provided initial support for the integration of relational communication and the relational turbulence model. Results showed that relational turbulence positively influences perceptions of dominance, with regard to either a hurtful interaction or a conversation focused on resolving a past hurt. Furthermore, perceptions of dominance positively predicted perceptions of disaffiliation, which influenced people’s reactions to hurt, as indexed by intensity of hurt, negative emotions, and perceived intentionality. Finally, results showed that discrepancies in perceptions of dominance and disaffiliation between partners negatively influenced their ability to achieve mutual understanding in a conversation about a past hurtful event. This dissertation provides a theoretical contribution to the relational turbulence model by integrating relational communication. Furthermore, it demonstrates the relational inferences that influence hurt, as well as illustrates how relational judgments influence people’s ability to discuss a past hurtful event. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 The Relational Turbulence Model ........................................................................ 4 Relational Uncertainty and Reactivity ................................................... 4 Partner Interference and Reactivity ........................................................ 6 Explicating Relational Turbulence ......................................................... 7 Thinking Relationally About Relational Turbulence ........................................... 10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 13 Explicating Uncertainty ........................................................................................ 13 Explicating Interdependence ................................................................................ 18 Traditional Conceptions: Behavioral Interdependence ................................. 19 Thibaut and Kelley’s Interdependence Theory ...................................... 20 Rusbult’s Investment Model .................................................................. 22 Berscheid’s Emotions-In-Relationship Model ....................................... 25 Beyond Behavior: Cognitive Interdependence .............................................. 27 The Self-Expansion Model ..................................................................... 27 Self in Relationship Model ..................................................................... 29 Interdependence and Relational Inferences ................................................... 30 Summary ............................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 3 Relational Communication .......................................................................... 33 Perspectives on Relational Communication ......................................................... 33 Bateson and the Palo Alto Group ........................................................... 34 Relational Coding Schemes ................................................................... 35 Relational Communication Data Reduction Studies .............................. 38 Relational Topoi ..................................................................................... 41 Relational Schemas ................................................................................ 42 Relational Models .................................................................................. 43 Relational Framing Theory .................................................................... 45 Linking the Relational Turbulence Model to Relational Communication ........... 50 The Content of Relational Judgments .................................................... 51 Discrepancies in Relational Inferences .................................................. 54 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 56 vi Chapter 4 Study 1......................................................................................................... 57 Method .................................................................................................................. 58 Participants ............................................................................................. 59 Procedures .............................................................................................. 59 Measures ................................................................................................. 63 Results ................................................................................................................... 67 Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................. 67 Substantive Analyses .............................................................................. 69 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 72 Implications ............................................................................................ 73 Limitations ............................................................................................. 75 Chapter 5 Study 2......................................................................................................... 83 Method .................................................................................................................. 84 Participants ............................................................................................. 84 Procedures .............................................................................................. 84 Measures ................................................................................................. 86 Results ..................................................................................................................