BROODING OVER HURTFUL MESSAGES—EFFECT OF RELATIONAL FRAMES

ON CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

BY

JINGDA ZHOU

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Communication

August 2016

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Approved By:

Jennifer S. Priem, PhD, Advisor

Michael Hazen, PhD, Chair

J. Robert Nations, DMin

ii

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this project would not be possible without a number of people

who support and encourage me along the way. I am deeply thankful to those who see me

through my two years at Wake, from the beginning of autumn in 2014 to the end of

summer in 2016.

To my parents: thank you for supporting my decision of pursuing further

education overseas, and showing your care and love whenever I seek your support.

To my committee: Dr. Jennifer Priem, Dr. Michael Hazen, and Dr. Bob Nations—

thank you for guiding and inspiring me in the process. To my advisor Jen Priem: thank

you for your encouragement and invaluable suggestions on every section of this project.

Without your knowledge and expertise on this subject, I would not be able to complete

the work. To Mike Hazen, who not only inspired me to learn and explore as a researcher,

but also backed me up when I doubt myself. I am deeply grateful for your friendliness

and thoughtful support. To Bob Nations: I am very lucky to have you in the committee.

Thank you for your willing support in every single request I made during the project, and

for introducing me to your class and the counseling department.

And to those who accompany me from beginning to end—friends, faculty, and

colleagues. To Charlie, Rachael, Coco, Shuo and Lei, who were there for me and whose

friendships are deeply appreciated. To Song, Qiang, Vicky, and Jeff Lerner, who

encouraged me to face challenges and make peace with myself. And to Dr. Giles, Dr.

Louden, and Dr. Mitra: thank you for your kindness and gracious help.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER TWO: SURVEY OF LITERATURE .............................................................. 3

Explicating Brooding, Hurt, and Message Ambiguity.................................................... 3

Relational Frames and Hurt experiences ........................................................................ 5

Brooding and Relational Outcomes .............................................................................. 13

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 15

Participants .................................................................................................................... 15

Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 15

Measures ....................................................................................................................... 16

Intensity of hurt ......................................................................................................... 16

Brooding ................................................................................................................... 16

Relationship satisfaction ........................................................................................... 16

Distancing ................................................................................................................. 17

Relational frames ...................................................................................................... 17

Message ambiguity.................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 19

Preliminary Analyses .................................................................................................... 19

Hypothesis Testing...................................................................................................... 222

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 31

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 31

Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................... 31

Practical Implications.................................................................................................... 35

Limitations and Directions for Future Research ........................................................... 36

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 38

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 39

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 53

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................... 57

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX F.................................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX G ................................................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX H ................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX I .................................................................................................................... 62

CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................... 63

iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table I: Participants descriptive data............................................................................... 19

Table II: Correlations Among Study Variables ................................................................ 21

Table III: Mean Differences between Relationship Types for Intensity of Hurt and

Brooding ........................................................................................................................... 22

Table IV: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting

Intensity of Hurt ................................................................................................................ 27

Table V: Conditional effect of affiliation on intensity of hurt at values of involvement.

Summary of Andrew Haye’s MODPROBE of Interaction between Affiliation and

Involvement on Intensity of Hurt....................................................................................... 27

Figure 1: Conditional effect of affiliation on intensity of hurt at four different levels of

involvement. ...................................................................................................................... 28

v

ABSTRACT

Effect of a hurtful interaction can linger on a relationship after its initial

occurrence. Extant research shows that ruminative thoughts about hurt elicit bitter

feelings and intensify unfavorable relational outcomes. Relying itself on Relational

Framing Theory (RTF), the current study emphasizes the relational nature of hurt

experiences. According to RFT, individuals interpret a message using either dominance-

submissiveness or affiliation-disaffiliation frame, and involvement is seen as a unipolar

factor that emphasizes perception of either dominance or affiliation. The current study

examines the relationship between hurt feelings, brooding, message ambiguity associated

with perceived dominance, affiliation, and involvement. Besides, the current research

forwards hypotheses concerning brooding and relational outcomes. Results suggest that

intensity of hurt and message ambiguity positively predict brooding, which support H1a

and H1b. Moreover, perception of offender’s affiliation and involvement reduces

intensity of hurt. However, the effect of perceived dominance on hurt and brooding is not

significant. In relation to message ambiguity and hurt, the study discovers that ambiguous

hurtful messages are perceived as less hurtful than direct ones. Findings also suggest

dating partners are more vulnerable to hurt and brood more than close friends. In

addition, hurtful interactions that occur further in the past are associated with less

relationship satisfaction and more relational distancing. Directions for further research on

hurt and relational frame are discussed.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Hurt is a social emotion that is elicited when people feel emotionally injured

(Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, 2005), or when a relational partner

communicates relationship devaluation (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans,

1998a). Hurtful message may take the form of rejection (Fitness, 2001), relational

transgression (Feeney, 2005), or expectation violation (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006).

Hurtful experiences have a detrimental effect on relationships, resulting in relational

distancing (Vangelisti & Young, 2000), partner dissatisfaction and relational distrust

(Leary et al., 1998a;Vangelisti, 1994). It can also have negative effects on individual

partners, causing lower self-esteem (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002). Because hurt feelings

are consequential and common in the context of intimate relationships, the subjective

experience of hurt merits further research (Priem, McLaren, & Solomon, 2010).

Although some hurtful episodes are resolved quickly (Feeney, 2005), the effects of

hurtful events can linger on relations and individuals (Feeney, 2004; Leary et al., 1998a;

McLaren & Solomon, 2008, 2010). As Miller and Roloff (2014) point out, individuals

tend to brood over a hurtful interaction after it occurs. Brooding is a counterproductive

psychological process that individuals commonly engage in when they recall a hurtful

interaction, and it usually elicits hostile and angry emotions (Kross, Ayduk, & Mischel,

2005). People ruminate over a hurtful message in order to understand its meaning for

their relationships, but this re-experience of negative emotions is likely to affect victims’

relationship with the offender, modeling victims’ understanding of the offender’s

motivations and behaviors towards them (Miller & Roloff, 2014), and thus has a residual

influence on their further interactions with the relationship partner.

2

Current research has yet to examine the factors that influence the extent to which

hurtful messages are brooded over and the impact of brooding. Accordingly, the goal of

this study is to identify mechanisms that lead to negative rumination (brooding) after

hurtful messages occur in personal relationships. People’s response to hurt raises a

valuable question to communication scholars (McLaren, Solomon, & Priem, 2012).

Researchers agreed that hurt is relational in nature (Feeney, 2005), and that appraisal of

the transgressor’s behavior is central to experience of hurt (Leary et al., 1998a; Vangelisti

& Young, 2000). Therefore, relational framing theory provides a valuable lens to

examine reaction to hurtful messages in a way that explains the process by which people

make sense of interpersonal message. The theory contends that individuals interpret

relational message through either dominance-submissive frame, or affiliation-

disaffiliation frame. Choice of relational frames will then draw people’s attention to

particular cues and decide the meaning which people attach to ambiguous messages

(Dillard & Solomon, 2005a; McLaren, Dillard, Tusing, & Solomon, 2014). Therefore, the

current research will investigate the influence of the two relational frames on experience

of hurt, and furthermore, how the frames will affect on-going relationships.

3

CHAPTER TWO: SURVEY OF LITERATURE

Explicating Brooding, Hurt, and Message Ambiguity

The process of repetitive intrusive thoughts about negative emotions or life

situations is defined as rumination (Siegle, Steinhauer, Carter, Ramel, & Thase, 2003;

Wade, Vogel, Liao, & Goldman, 2008). Some researchers conceptualize rumination as

goal-oriented thoughts elicited by situations where a goal is not obtained, or goes beyond

expectation. It includes thoughts of the past, present, or future until the individual attains

a goal, disengages from the goal, or is distracted from it (Martin & Tesser, 1996).

Previous research has distinguished rumination from related terms by deciding

whether the intrusive thoughts are adaptive or maladaptive. Martin and Tesser (1996), for

example, propose that rumination is ultimately adaptive because it helps reduce perceived

discrepancies. However, Nolen-Hoeksema (1996) claims that rumination is maladaptive,

because it does not entail effort to resolve a problem, but focuses on negative emotions

and problems. Consequently, two distinct factors emerge from the umbrella term of

rumination. The first is reflection which occurs when an individual actively seeks

solutions to cognitive problems; while the second, brooding, denotes dwelling on the

negative aspect of a hurtful interaction (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999; Treynor, Gonzalez,

& Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003a). Brooding is a type of maladaptive rumination which is

shown to connect with cognitive and emotional disturbance (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991;

Roberts, Gilboa, & Gotlib, 1998), maladaptive coping (Joormann, Dkane, & Gotlib,

2006) , inability to inhibit irrelevant information and receiving new information

(Whitmer & Banich, 2007), anger (Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998), impaired

concentration (Lyubomirsky, Kasri, & Zehm, 2003), anxiety (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000),

4

and aggressive behavior (Bushman, 2002). In order to dismiss confusion, the current

study will focus exclusively on depressive aspect of rumination, namely brooding, and

examine its detrimental effects on relationships.

Brooding is commonly caused by hurtful messages. After a hurtful message

occurs, victims often feel devalued by the offenders, and perceive their relationships with

the offenders under threat (e.g., Feeney, 2005; Leary & Springer, 2001; Leary et al.,

1998a; Miller & Roloff, 2014). Residual feelings of hurt can linger on relations and

individuals (Feeney, 2004; Leary et al., 1998a; McLaren & Solomon, 2008, 2010),

affecting individuals’ behavior, thoughts, and attitudes in current and future relationships

(Vangelisti, 2009). Because it is a basic human need to maintain social connections

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and people are motivated to make and remain in positive,

stable bonds (Bowlby, 1977), messages that harm or terminate relationships can be seen

as threatening to fundamental human need (Miller & Roloff, 2014). Hurt feelings are

elicited when relational goals were obstructed. The strength of emotion that is evoked

reflects intensity of hurt, which depends on the extent to which people’s goals of being

valued and loved are threatened (McLaren & Solomon, 2008). As a response, people are

driven to brood over hurtful messages and consider further reactions. The more intense

the hurt feelings are, the more threatened an individual perceives his/her relational goals

to be, and the stronger the reaction is enacted. As a result, intensity of hurt feelings will

affect individuals’ tendency to brood. Therefore, the current study suggests:

H1a: Brooding is positively predicted by intensity of hurt.

Empirical evidence also suggests that the link between hurt and brooding is

stronger when a hurtful message is ambiguous (Amin, Foa, & Coles, 1998; McLaren &

5

Pederson, 2014a; Moscovitch & Hofmann, 2007; Oliveira, 2008). Ambiguous messages

allow for multiple interpretations (Eisenberg, 1984) and may elicit more anxiety in

individuals than clearer messages. One possible reason is that uncertainty about

interpersonal relationships can be stressful and thus results in more negative

interpretation. For example, uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst, 2005)

maintains that uncertainty is positively related to anxiety across various cultures

(Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001), and uncertainty is closely correlated with ambiguity

(Einhorn & Hogarth, 1985). Similarly, scholars have found that ambiguity about a

partner’s involvement in a relationship will lead an individual to interpret a relational

message more negatively (Theiss, Knobloch, Checton, & Magsamen-Conrad, 2009), and

feel more stress after a hurtful interaction (Priem & Solomon, 2011). Furthermore,

implicit hurtful messages are found to be associated with negative cognitive reaction. For

instance, Baldwin and Main (2001) suggest that implicit cues connoting rejection will

cause negative self-judgments females with high level of self-consciousness. Because

uncertainty is an unpleasant state that individuals want to avoid (Berger & Calabrese,

1975), people are motivated to reduce the amount of uncertainty they experience. In this

aspect, brooding could be one way that individuals use to alleviate pressure caused by

ambiguity. McLaren and Pederson (2014) also state that because communicators are

likely to have discrepant views of an ambiguous message, misunderstanding is more

likely to occur when a message is ambiguous. Therefore, the current research proposes:

H1b: Brooding is positively predicted by ambiguity of the hurtful message.

Relational Frames and Hurt experiences

Previous research has focused on the content of messages and the effect of the

6

content, but not as much on the relational cues contained in messages. Relational

messages are verbal and nonverbal expressions indicating how communicators regard

each other, view their relationship, and consider themselves within the relationship

(Burgoon & Hale, 1984a). Relational messages are pertinent to hurt experience because

they can convey cues that decrease intimacy or devalue a relationship. Indeed, how

people react to a hurtful message is shaped by the way they interpret the offender’s

behavior, and the reaction is stimulated when an individual thinks the offender’s words

cause him/her harm or injuries (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998). A few studies underline

the importance of relational indication in hurtful messages. For example, Priem and her

colleagues suggest that relational messages, such as affection and informality, are

negatively correlated with intensity of hurt (Priem et al., 2010). However, how relational

messages influence brooding has not yet been examined. In this respect, relational

framing theory provides a context for understanding how relational cues influence

brooding and consequently, affect relationships.

Relational framing theory (RFT) builds on Burgoon and Hale's (1984)

fundamental conceptions of relational communication, which refers to the aspect of

messages that defines a relationship (Priem et al., 2010; Rogers & Farace, 1975).

Relational communication (or a relational message) is distinct from a content message,

which emphasizes on the denotative meaning of an utterance. Burgoon and Hale (1984)

have labeled 12 related but conceptually distinct themes emerging from messages that

contain relational inference, including dominance, equality, involvement, composure,

informality, receptivity, similarity, and affiliation. Among them, dominance, affiliation,

and involvement become particularly pertinent to RFT. According to RFT, people rely on

7

cognitive structures called frames to make sense of messages and interpret relational

messages in a way that consolidates the inferences about their relationship with others

(Dillard, Solomon, & Samp, 1996a). The two fundamental frames are dominance-

submissiveness, which concerns the degree of control, power, or status that one person

has over another, and affiliation-disaffiliation, which captures the extent of liking,

solidarity, esteem, or positivity that one person shows to the other. These two frames help

individuals interpret messages by guiding their attention to certain cues, and shape the

meaning that individuals attach to the message (Dillard & Solomon, 2005b; McLaren et

al., 2014). By referring to one of the two frames, individuals are able to interpret a

message. In particular, RFT views dominance-submissive and affiliation-disaffiliation as

functional schemes that assist people in processing social messages, dismiss ambiguities,

and draw relational inferences (McLaren & Solomon, 2008).

Other than the two mental structures mentioned above, RFT posits involvement as

a third dimension that refers to the degree of coordination, engagement, and immediacy

revealed in the interaction (McLaren & Solomon, 2008). It is a unipolar construct with no

relational content, but can provide inferences about either of the two frames. In other

words, the presence of involvement may intensify the relational judgment of affiliation or

dominance. Since involvement can indicate either dominance or affiliation, it moderates

the relational frame via which it is viewed. Moreover, because messages can convey

either dominance-submissive or affiliation-disaffiliation, RFT proposes the differential

salience hypothesis, which argues that the two frames are in competition with one another,

and that activation of one frame displaces the competing frame (Dillard et al., 1996a).

The process of adopting a frame is unconscious and fast, because people need to decide

8

their response in an interaction quickly.

RFT is especially valuable in the context of hurt, because it takes to heart the

distinction between content and relational messages, and seeks to illustrate the process

through which people decipher hurtful messages that are commonly ambiguous.

Literature shows that hurt is a subjective experience shaped by multiple factors including

relational quality (Priem et al., 2010; Young, 2004), personal characteristics (Maltby et

al., 2008; Miller & Roloff, 2014; Morgan & Banerjee, 2008), and message features

(McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007), and the impact of hurtful messages is highly

dependent on the way they are interpreted. Accordingly, relational frames become

important in understanding the effects of a hurtful message because they assist

individuals in understanding ambiguous messages that would otherwise yield various

interpretations.

Much of previous research on RFT has focused on factors that affect framing,

while relatively fewer have studied outcomes of framing on hurt experiences (McLaren &

Pederson, 2014b). Previous research suggests that mental structures adopted by an

individual will influence the experience of hurt (e.g., Priem et al., 2010). On the one hand,

perceptions of dominance may intensify hurt feelings. For instance, individuals may feel

more hurtful when they view hurtful messages as more dominant (e.g., “He’s trying to

manipulate me”) rather than more submissive (e.g., “He just wanted to impress me with

his ideas”). Because close relationship (i.e., romantic relationship and friendship) is

established and maintained via mutual affection (Cocking & Kennett, 1998; Reis &

Shaver, 1988), messages containing dominance or dislike contradict relationship

expectations (Feeney, 2005). Additionally, because sense of devaluation elicits hurt

9

feelings (Leary et al., 1998a), messages that implicate disliking or exert power may be

perceived as more hurtful (McLaren et al., 2012). Therefore, the current study posits:

H2a: Perceived dominance of hurtful messages is positively related to intensity of

hurt.

Because RFT proposes that involvement can intensify dominance, a higher level

of perceived involvement may render the offender as more dominant in the victim’s eyes.

As a result, the offender’s comments may be perceived as more hurtful. Thus, the current

research predicts that:

H2b: The effect of perceived dominance of hurtful messages on intensity of hurt

is moderated by perceived involvement of the offender.

As has been discussed in the last section, implicit negative cues are likely to elicit

negative interpretations because the ability to understand one another is limited when

individuals interpret a message unfavorably (McLaren & Pederson, 2014b; Sillars, 2011).

Previous research demonstrates that relational meaning people inferred from a message

can vary profoundly despite message content is essentially the same (Watzlawick,

Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). As a result, higher level of ambiguity may intensify the link

between dominance and hurt because people feel more uncertain about the relational

meaning and may thus more likely to amplify negative cues. Therefore, the current study

predicts:

H2c: The effect of perceived dominance on hurtful messages on intensity of hurt

is moderated by the ambiguity of the hurtful message.

As has been discussed in the last section, people are inclined to brood over a

hurtful interaction after its initial occurrence, and the tendency to brood is affected by

10

intensity of hurt. Previous research reveals connection between brooding and a number of

stress-related emotional disturbance (Kelly, Matheson, Ravindran, Merali, & Anisman,

2007). Because dominant messages are generally perceived as less polite and more face-

threatening (Dillard, Wilson, Tusing, & Kinney, 1997; McLaren et al., 2014), it is

reasonable to infer that they cause more psychological disturbance and thus elicit more

brooding. Therefore, the current study posits that perceived dominance strengthens the

tendency to brood:

H3a: Perceived dominance of hurtful messages positively predicts brooding.

In addition, because RFT claims that perceived involvement of the offender will

increase dominance when the mental frame is activated, the current study predicts:

H3b: The effect of perceived dominance of hurtful messages on brooding is

moderated by perceived involvement of the offender.

Furthermore, because ambiguity denotes uncertainty about present and past

experiences (Carson, Madhok, & Wu, 2006), and that individuals are predisposed to

reduce uncertainty by depressive rumination (Yook, Kim, Suh, & Lee, 2010), an

ambiguous message is likely to cause more brooding. In line with this proposition,

Mathews and MacLeod (1994) suggest that individuals focus on negative meaning to a

disproportionate level when the information is ambiguous. Taken together, the current

study proposes that ambiguity will intensify the relationship between perceived

dominance and brooding:

H3c: The effect of perceived dominance of hurtful messages on brooding is

moderated by the ambiguity of the hurtful message.

On the other hand, perception of affiliation will buffer hurt feelings. For instance,

11

experiences of hurt are more tolerable when people attach the message with affiliation

(e.g., “She is trying to help”) rather than disaffiliation (e.g., “This just showed how much

she disliked me”). Since affiliation contains positive assessment of the relationship which

associates with attraction and liking, it decreases intensity of hurt (Priem et al., 2010).

Similarly, couples who demonstrate greater affection are buffered from adverse relational

impact of conflict (Caughlin & Huston, 2002), because affection between relationship

partners will inspire generally positive views of each other which promote more positive

appraisals of the hurt experience (Miller, Caughlin, & Huston, 2003). In addition,

literature reports that relational affection is linked with active verbal responses, which

reduce the degree of perceived hurt and relational impact of hurtful messages (Vangelisti

& Crumley, 1998). Taken together, the results indicate that activation of an affiliation

frame attenuates the negative impact of a hurtful message. Accordingly, the current

research proposes:

H4a: Perceived affiliation of hurtful messages is negatively related to intensity of

hurt.

Additionally, because RFT claims that involvement can be a sign of affiliation,

the transgressor who is perceived more involved in a hurtful episode may appear more

affective to the victim if his/her comment is regarded as affectionate. Accordingly, their

comments may seem less hurtful to the victim. Thus, the current research predicts:

H4b: The effect of perceived affiliation of hurtful messages on intensity of hurt is

moderated by perceived involvement of the offender.

Extant research shows a positive link between ambiguity and cognitive bias

(Mathews & MacLeod, 1994). According to Eysenck and his colleagues, anxious and

12

depressed individuals tend to impose disproportionate negative interpretation on an

ambiguous message (Eysenck, Mogg, May, Richards, & Mathews, 1991), thus it is

reasonable to infer that message ambiguity will inhibit individuals’ ability to recognize

affectionate and other positive signs. Thus the present study posits:

H4c: The effect of perceived affiliation on hurtful messages on intensity of hurt is

moderated by the ambiguity of the hurtful message.

Correspondingly, the current study expects similar effects of affiliation,

involvement, and ambiguity on brooding. Because perceived affiliation is found to

promote pair bonds (Floyd, 2006) and enhance relationship satisfaction (Miller et al.,

2003), individuals may regard relationship transgressions as less severe and resultantly

brood less over the a hurtful interaction when an offender appears more affectionate

(Horan, 2012). Therefore, the current study predicts:

H5a: Perceived affiliation of hurtful messages negatively predicts brooding.

RFT also suggests that involvement will highlight perception of affiliation.

Accordingly, higher level of involvement will underline the relationship between

affiliation and brooding. Therefore:

H5b: The effect of perceived affiliation of hurtful messages on brooding is

moderated by perceived involvement of the offender.

As has been argued above, ambiguity is associated with interpretive bias and

ambiguous messages are found to hamper individuals’ ability to process positive signs

(Eysenck et al., 1991). Therefore, the current study posits that message ambiguity will

undermine the relationship between affiliation and brooding:

H5c: The effect of perceived affiliation on hurtful messages on brooding is

13

moderated by the ambiguity of the hurtful message.

Brooding and Relational Outcomes

Previous research reveals various adverse outcomes of brooding on relationships.

Although some effects are trivial and hardly harm a relationship, others may pose

lingering threats to both personal and relational well-being (Feeney, 2004). Because

brooding elicits strong negative emotions that in turn activate cognitive structures which

focus on interpersonal harm, it is likely to have an injurious impact on relationships

(McCullough et al., 2007). In fact, when individuals brood over a hurtful message, they

experience similar affect as they felt in the initial hurtful interaction, and those emotions

further spread to other episodes within the network, which subsequently affect the way

victims interact with transgressors.

Extant literature implies that there may be a relationship between brooding and

relational distancing. Researchers who have examined relational outcomes of various

communication patterns reveal that couples who are more willing to express their

emotions after a conflict episode perceived a higher relational satisfaction than those who

tend to remain angry and keep negative thoughts to themselves (Guerrero, 1994).

Additionally, brooding is shown to incur undesirable behavioral reactions against

relational partners which aggravate an otherwise close relationship. For example,

McCullough and his colleagues find a positive correlation between brooding and

motivation to revenge and avoid the offender in their longitudinal study (McCullough et

al., 2007). Similarly, Liu and Roloff (2015) report that negative rumination causes

emotional exhaustion via stonewalling and silent treatment. Besides, brooding may

correlate with relational distancing via hurt feelings. For example, Vangelisti and Young

14

(2000) claim that intensity of hurt is linked to relational distancing, and this relationship

is intensified by three factors, namely perception of intentionality, ongoing pattern that

occurs frequently in a relationship, and feelings of being disregarded by the other.

Because brooding is found to intensify feelings of hurt, and intensity of hurt is positively

associated with relational distancing, the current research hypothesizes that:

H6: Brooding leads to relational distancing.

Apart from relational distance, brooding is shown to be negatively associated with

relational satisfaction. Previous research shows that depressive rumination contributes to

negative affect and relationship problems. For example, brooding is found to be related

with depression and lack of forgiveness (Ciesla & Roberts, 2007; Watkins, 2008;

Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2007). It is also associated with higher interpersonal

distress (Lam, Schuck, Smith, Farmer, & Checkley, 2003), and lower perceived social

support (Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 1999). Indeed, in a longitudinal research conducted

by Pearson and her colleagues (Pearson, Watkins, Kuyken, & Mullan, 2010), after

controlling for baseline relationship satisfaction, baseline brooding is identified as a

significant predictor of diminished relationship satisfaction three months later. The

scholars also claim that brooding increases relationship difficulties, especially in

individuals who are vulnerable to depression. Similarly, Kuehner and Buerger (2005)

reveal a negative correlation between depressive rumination and relationship satisfaction.

Accordingly, the current study predicts that:

H7: Brooding is negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction.

15

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Participants

A total of 110 respondents were recruited from a private university in

southeastern United States. Most of the respondents were college students. All

participants were required to have had a dating/marital relationship or close friendship of

no less than three month duration in order to ensure they were in serious relationships.

The reported length of time since occurrence of the hurtful interaction ranged from 1

week to 12 years.

Procedures

Participants were given a link to online survey, and provided consent to

participate. Subsequently, they were instructed to recall an event in which a relationship

partner said or did something hurtful to them. The prompt read: “For the next set of

questions, we would like you to think about a time when someone said something that

made you feel devalued or suggested that your relationship was not important. For

example, people might make a joke that made you feel put down or may make a

statement that shows they feel differently about your relationship than you do. Please

think about a specific conversation in which a relationship partner (a dating partner,

spouse, or close friend) said things that made you feel bad about yourself or your

relationship. As you answer the next set of questions, please think only about that specific

conversation.” Participants were asked to describe the hurtful message in as much detail

as possible. For example, they were asked to write the initials of the offender and their

relationship to them, and indicate the exact words when possible. In addition, participants

were asked to indicate how long it has been since its occurrence. More specifically, they

16

were prompted to answer the following open-ended questions: What led up to the

situation? What exactly did the partner said or did that was hurtful?

Measures

Intensity of hurt. The measurement was adopted from McLaren and Pederson’s

scales of hurt intensity (2014). Participants were asked to indicate the intensity of the hurt

experienced on three 7- point Likert-type items, which were: How hurt did you feel

overall? (1 = not at all hurtful to 7 = extremely hurtful); To what extent did it cause you

emotional pain? (1 = no emotional pain to 7 = intense emotional pain); and How hurtful

was the interaction? (1 = not at all hurtful to 7 = extremely hurtful). The scale was

reliable (α = .86). On average, participants’ scores on this measure were high (M= 5.20,

SD = 3.761)

Brooding. Participants were asked the frequency of repetitive thoughts about their

partner’s behavior on a five-point (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely) Likert-type scale

including four items. The scale is adopted from ruminative response scale (Treynor,

Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003b), including items such as: I often think “what am I

doing to deserve this?; I often think “Why do I always react this way?”; Think about a

recent situation, wishing it had gone better; I often think “Why can’t I handle things

better?” The scale was reliable (α = .80), and participants’ scores were moderate on this

measure (M = 4.31, SD = 5.99).

Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was measured a five-item

scale adopted from the relevant component of the questionnaire assessing Investment

Model constructs (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Responses ranged from 1 (very

untrue of me) to 7 (very true of me). Items included, “I feel satisfied with our

17

relationship”; “My relationship is much better than others’ relationships”; “My

relationship is close to ideal”; “Our relationship makes me feel very happy”; and “”.Our

relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy”. The average score of

participants on this measure was moderate (M = 3.35, SD = 8.63). The scale was highly

reliable (α = .93).

Distancing. Tendency to distance from the relationship partner was measured on

five 7-point semantic differential items. The scale was adopted from Vangelisti and

Young (2000), and used by McLaren and Solomon (2008). Specifically, participants rated

on seven-point scales the degree to which the hurtful interaction made their relationship

more distant or close, relaxed or tense, more friendly or hostile, more distant or intimate,

and more open or closed. Two items were reversely coded so that a higher score would

indicate greater relational distancing. The average score of participants on this measure

was moderate (M = 5.16, SD = 6.09). The scale demonstrated reliability (α = .87).

Relational frames. The measure of relational frames was composed of three

subscales, namely, dominance, affiliation, and involvement. There were 20 items in total,

and all were measured on 7-point Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = no dominance and 7 =

extremely dominance, 1 = no affection and 7 = extreme affection, 1 = no engagement and

7 = extreme engagement). Participants rated on each item to indicate their perceived

dominance, affiliation, and involvement of the partner. Eight items measured dominance

and affiliation separately, four items measured engagement. Several items were reversely

coded before the scales were computed. Four items were removed from dominance scale

to achieve reliability (M = 3.35, SD = 4.95, α = .72). Another item was dropped from

18

involvement scale for sake of reliability (M = 3.80, SD = 3.82, α = .73). Affiliation scale

was also reliable (M = 3.33, SD = 7.67, α = .79).

Message ambiguity. Instead of measuring message ambiguity directly, the current

study assessed the extremity of relational message, because the more extreme a relational

judgments are, the less ambiguous the message is. Questions was adapted from Blum-

Kulka and Olshtain's (1986) measurement of direct and indirect message strategies.

Participants used a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly

agree) to rate the degree to which the hurtful message was explicit or implicit. The five

statements were "The message was stated in a direct way.” "The meaning of the message

was clearly stated.” “There were a number of ways in which the message could have been

interpreted.” “The message was stated as a joke or hinted at, rather than expressly stated.”

“The message was ambiguous.” Items were averaged to create a composite measure in

which items representing explicitness were recoded so that higher values indicated

greater ambiguity. The scale achieved reliability after one item was dropped (α = .75). On

average, participants’ scores were moderate on this measure (M = 3.28, SD = 5.63).

19

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

I ran exploratory analyses of sample demographics in order to better understand the

participants and the hurtful incident. First, I compared frequencies of respondents who

identified the relationship type they had with the offender during a hurtful interaction. A

total of 63 respondents reported the relationship type they had with the transgressor as

close friends (57%), followed by 43 dating partners (39%), and 3 married couples (2%).

The majority (N = 69, 63%) of the participants indicated that the hurtful interaction

occurred within six months. Median number was 4 months, the minimum being 0,

referring to “less than a month”, and the maximum was 12 years (see Table I).

Table I: Participants descriptive data

n Valid Percent

Type of Relationship

Dating partners 43 39

Married couples 3 3

Close friends 63 57

Not reported 1 1

Length of Time Since Hurt Occurred

Less than 1 month ago 23 23

1-3 months ago 26 26

4-6 months ago 14 14

7-9 months ago 3 3

10-12 months ago 15 15

13-24 months ago 15 15

25-36 months ago 2 2

More than 3 years ago 3 3

total 101 100

20

Next, bivariate correlations were run on all study variables to examine which, if

any, variables were related. Due to limited space, only selected significant variables will

be reported here, a comprehensive correlations result is seen in Error! Not a valid

bookmark self-reference.. Firstly, intensity of hurt and brooding were significantly

positively correlated. Moreover, both variables were significantly associated with

relationship type, indicating that dating partners were likely to experience more intense

hurt and brood more after a hurtful interaction than close friends. Furthermore, both

intensity of hurt and brooding were positively related to perceived dominance.

Unlike dominance, which positively correlated with intensity of hurt and

brooding, affiliation was found to have significant associations with outcome variables,

namely, relationship satisfaction and relational distancing: Affiliation was positively

related to relationship satisfaction, and negatively related to relational distancing. Similar

associations were also found with involvement, which was positively associated with

relationship satisfaction, and negatively associated with relational distancing.

Additionally, affiliation and involvement were positively correlated. Relationship

satisfaction and relational distancing were significantly negative related to one another,

and both had significant relationship with affiliation, involvement, message ambiguity,

and length of time (how long has it been since the hurtful interaction occurred). In

addition, distancing was significantly positively predicted by intensity of hurt.

Another noteworthy variable was message ambiguity. Contrary to what I had

expected, ambiguity did not heighten intensity of hurt, nor brooding. Instead, it was

significantly negatively correlated with intensity of hurt. Moreover, ambiguity is

significantly negatively associated with relational distancing, but positively associated

21

with relationship satisfaction. These results denoted that rather than intensifying hurtful

feelings, an ambiguous message in fact made victim of a hurtful interaction feel less hurt,

and buffered relationship damage that was caused by the interaction.

Ta

ble

II:

Co

rrel

ati

on

s A

mon

g S

tud

y V

ari

ab

les

V

1

V2

V

3

V4

V

5

V6

V

7

V8

V

9

V10

V1

: in

tensi

ty o

f

hu

rt

---

V2

: b

rood

ing

.41*

*

---

V3

: d

om

inan

ce

.21

*

.26*

*

---

V4

: af

fili

atio

n

-.1

6

-.0

0

-.05

---

V5

: in

volv

emen

t -.

04

.04

.0

2

.52**

---

V6

: am

big

uit

y

-.27

**

.0

7

-.13

.11

-.02

---

V7

: d

ista

nci

ng

.19

*

-.0

6

-.10

-.50**

-.

30**

-.

19*

---

V8

: sa

tisf

acti

on

-.0

6

.03

-.

02

.42**

.27**

.27**

-.68**

--

-

V9

: ty

pe

of

rela

tion

ship

-.

22

*

-.23

*

-.11

-.00

.06

-.12

-.02

-.12

---

V1

0:

length

of

tim

e .1

7

.08

-.

04

-.24*

-.30**

-.

18

.21*

-.19*

-.04

--

-

No

te.

*

p <

.05

, ** p

< .

01

22

Finally, preliminary analyses revealed that relationship type and length of time

since the occurrence of the hurtful encounter have significant associations with key

dependent variables. First, relationship type was negatively correlated with intensity of

hurt and brooding, as was mentioned above. An analysis of variance (ANOVA)

compared dating partners with married couples and close friends on intensity of hurt and

brooding (Table III). Results revealed that dating partners scored significantly higher on

both variables than close friends. Secondly, length of time was positively related to

relational distancing, and negatively associated with relationship satisfaction.

Additionally, length of time had negative associations with perceived affiliation and

perceived involvement. Correlation matrix suggested that earlier hurtful interactions were

associated with more severe damage to relationship than more recent ones. These

correlations showed that relationship type and length of time should be retained as

covariates in subsequent analyses.

Table III: Mean Differences between Relationship Types for Intensity of Hurt and Brooding

Dating partners(a) Married couples(b) Close Friends(c)

F Sig M SD M SD M SD

Intensity of hurt 3.26 .04 5.53*ac 1.25 5.88 1.01 4.95*ac 1.22

Brooding 3.03 .05 4.76*ac 1.38 4.33 1.66 4.05*ac 1.47

Note. * LSD shows significant differences between types of relationships at the .05 level.

Hypothesis Testing

H1 hypothesized that brooding is positively predicted by (a) intensity of hurt, and

(b) ambiguity of the message. A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to assess

the relationships. In order to control the effects of relationship type and length of time on

the dependent variable, these two factors were entered on the first step. The model was

23

significant (R = .24, R2 = .05, F(2,105) = 3.28, p < .05), and relationship type

significantly predict intensity of hurt (β = -.35, p < .05), indicating that dating partners

tended to brood more over a hurtful event than married couples and close friends. Next,

intensity of hurt and ambiguity were entered on the second step, rendering a significant

model, with R = .49, R2 = .24, ΔR = .18, F(4,103) = 8.29, p < .001. More specifically,

both intensity of hurt (β = .45, p < .001) and ambiguity (β = .22, p < .05) positively

predicted brooding. Results suggested that individuals who felt more intensely hurt by

their partners were likely to brood more, and that more ambiguous message was related

to more brooding. Therefore, H1a and H1b were supported.

Prior to testing H2, H3, H4, H5, four variables were created to test moderation

effects proposed by H2bc, H3bc, H4bc, and H5bc. The variables were computed by

multiplying four pairs of predictors, namely, dominance and involvement, dominance and

ambiguity, affiliation and involvement, and affiliation and ambiguity. Regression tests

were then performed to assess each group of hypotheses.

H2a hypothesizes that perceived dominance of hurtful messages is positively

related to intensity of hurt, a relationship that is moderated by perceived involvement of

the offender (H2b), and ambiguity of the hurtful message (H2c). Per the logic of

relational framing theory, the perception of an offender’s involvement was hypothesized

to intensify the effect of dominance on intensity of hurt, because high level of

involvement indicates partner’s seriousness. In addition, because an ambiguous message

allows for multiple interpretations, it is prone to misunderstanding. Thus, a higher level

of ambiguity of the message was hypothesized to strengthen the relationship between

dominance and intensity of hurt. A hierarchical multiple regression test was performed in

24

order to assess relationship between dominance, intensity of hurt and moderators

including involvement and ambiguity. Because bivariate correlation matrix indicated that

relationship type and length of time were significantly correlated with relational frames,

intensity of hurt, and brooding, they were entered into the model as control variables on

the first step. The model was significant, with R = .24, R2 = .07, F(2,104) = 4.22, p < .05.

Specifically, relationship type was negatively related to intensity of hurt (β = -.21, p

<.05), indicating that people are likely to experience greater intensity of hurt from their

romantic partners than close friends. Next, dominance, involvement and ambiguity were

entered on the second step. This model was significant, too (R = .42, R2 = .17, ΔR2 = .10,

F(5,101) = 4.33, p = .001), with ambiguity (β = -.25, p < .01) and relationship type (β = -

.22, p < .05) negatively predicting intensity of hurt. Contrary to the expectation, the more

ambiguous the message is, the less hurtful an individual perceives. Additionally,

dominance did not significantly predicted intensity of hurt after controlling relationship

type and length of time. Therefore, H2a was not supported. On the third step, interaction

variables of dominance and involvement, and dominance and ambiguity were added. The

model was significant overall (R = .44, R2 = .19, ΔR2 = .01, F(7,99) = 3.44, p < .01 ), but

neither main effects nor interactions were significant. Dominance was not a significant

predictor of intensity of hurt, and ambiguity and involvement did not significantly

moderate the relationship between dominance and intensity of hurt. Therefore, H2b and

H2c were not supported.

H3a proposed that dominance positively predicts brooding, and that the

relationship between dominance and brooding is moderated by involvement (H3b) and

ambiguity (H3c). A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test these

25

hypotheses. Control variables were entered on the first step, yielding a significant model

(R = .23, R2 = .05, F(2,104) = 3.12, p < .05). Relationship type emerged as a significant

predictor (β = -.22, p < .05), indicating that participants were more likely to brood when

the hurtful message was delivered by a romantic partners than close friends. Next,

dominance, involvement, and ambiguity were entered on the second step, and the model

remained significant (R = .39, R2 = .15, ΔR2 = .09, F(5,101) = 3.72, p < .01). Dominance

emerged as sole significant predictor of brooding (β = .30, p = .001). The results

indicated that after taking relationship type and length of time into consideration, the

more dominant a victim perceived the message to be, the more likely he/she is to brood,

which supported H3a. Next, product of dominance and involvement and product of

dominance and ambiguity were added to the model on the third step, which was

significant as well (R = .41, R2= .17, ΔR2 = .01, F(7,99) = 2.93, p < .01). However, none

of the individual predictors was significant in this model. Dominance was no longer

significant after the two interaction variables were added. Therefore, H3a was partially

supported, and H3b, H3c were not supported.

H4a predicted that affiliation is negatively related to intensity of hurt, and this

relationship is moderated by level of involvement (H4b) and ambiguity of the message

(H4c). A hierarchical multiple regression was used to test these hypotheses. Control

variables were entered at the first step, and the model was significant (R = .27, R2 = .07,

F(2,103) = 4.20, p < .05), with relationship type (β = -.21, p < .05) negatively predicting

intensity of hurt. The results suggested that dating partners experienced more intense

feelings than close friends after a hurtful interaction. Next, affiliation, involvement, and

ambiguity were entered on the second step. This model was significant, with R = .41, R2

26

= .17, ΔR = .01, F(5,100) = 4.15, p < .01. In addition to relationship type (β = -.261, p <

.01), ambiguity emerged as a significant predictor, β = -.27, p < .01, indicating that the

more ambiguous a message appears, the less hurtful its receiver felt. However, this

relationship no longer existed after interaction variables were added to the model on the

third step. The model remained significant, with R = .47, R2 = .22, ΔR = .04, F(7,98) =

4.01, p = .001. Relationship type (β = -.23, p < .05), affiliation (β = -.93, p < .05),

involvement (β = -.59, p < .05), and interaction between affiliation and involvement (β =

1.17, p < .05) were all significant. The result indicated that the more affiliative a receiver

perceived a message to be, the less hurtful he/she felt, which supported H4a. There was

also a main effect of involvement on intensity of hurt: the more involved the offender

appeared, the less hurt the victim felt. Significant interaction between affiliation and

involvement on intensity of hurt also supported the H4b (Table IV), which claims that

involvement moderated the relationship between affiliation and intensity of hurt. In order

to better understand how involvement moderated the relationship, an Andrew Haye’s

MODPROBE test was used, where the dependent variable was intensity of hurt, the focal

factor was affiliation, and moderating variable was involvement (see Error! Reference

source not found.). Results showed the interaction effect was driven by low levels of

involvement with marginal significance (p = .06). To be specific, at low levels of

involvement affiliation was negatively related to intensity of hurt, but affiliation and

intensity of hurt are unrelated at moderate and high levels of involvement.

27

Table IV: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Intensity of Hurt

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B β B β B β

Relationship type -.28 -.21* -.34 -.26** -.30 -.23*

Length of time .01 .16 .00 .09 .00 .03

Affiliation -.19 -.14 -1.24 -.93*

Involvement .06 .06 -.60 -.59*

Ambiguity -.25 -.27** -.38 -.41

Affiliation x Involvement .22 1.17*

Affiliation x ambiguity .04 .22

R2 .07 .17 .22

F 4.20* 4.15** 4.01**

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table V: Summary of Andrew Haye’s MODPROBE of Interaction between Affiliation and Involvement on Intensity of

Hurt

Value of

involvement

Coefficient

of affiliation

SE

t

p

2.60 -.65 .34 -1.88 .06

3.84 -.37 .30 -1.19 .23

5.09 -.08 .31 -.27 .78

Note. Focal predictor variable: perceived affiliation; Moderator variable: perceived involvement

Because none of the coefficients had a significant p value, results of this test

called for a closer scrutiny. In order to better understand the effect of affiliation at various

values of involvement, I split involvement into subgroups by quartiles (0 = lowest, 1 =

moderately low, 2 = moderately high, 3 = highest), and plotted out the effect of affiliation

on intensity of hurt at each of the four levels of involvement (Figure 1). The graph

demonstrated that affiliation was negatively related to intensity of hurt when perceived

involvement was low (involvement = 0 or 1). However, at higher levels of involvement

28

(involvement = 2 or 3), affiliation showed a negative correlation with intensity of hurt.

The interaction plot suggested a contradictory effect of affiliation on the dependent

variable at different levels of involvement. Take Andrew Haye’s MODPROBE test and

the plot together, one may infer that both affiliation and involvement decrease intensity of

hurt independently; there is also a conditional interaction effect between affiliation and

involvement: affiliation reduced hurt feelings only on condition that the offender

appeared less involved in the episode. Therefore, H4a was supported, H4b was partially

supported, and H4c was not supported.

Figure 1: Conditional effect of affiliation on intensity of hurt at four different levels of involvement.

29

H5a hypothesized that affiliation was negatively related to brooding, and this

relationship was moderated by involvement (H5b) and ambiguity (H5c). A hierarchical

multiple regression was performed to assess these hypotheses. Control variables were

entered into the first block, generating a significant model (R = .24, R2 = .06, F(2,103) =

3.28, p < .05). Similar to previous tests, relationship type was a significant predictor in

this model (β = -.37, p < .05). However, the model was no longer significant after

affiliation, involvement, ambiguity were added (R = .26, R2 = .06, ΔR = .00, F(5,100) =

1.47, p = .20.). The third model was not significant either, R = .33, R2 = .11, ΔR2 = .04,

F(2,105) = 2.67, p = .09. Overall, H5a, H5b, and H5c were not supported.

H6 claimed that brooding lead to relational distancing. A hierarchical multiple

regression test was used to assess the relationship. Relationship type and length of time

were controlled on the first step. The model was marginally significant, with R = .22, R2

= .04, F(2,105) = 2.67, p = .07. Length of time positively predicted distancing (β = .21, p

< .05), suggesting that people who described a hurtful incident further in the past also

reported greater distancing. Brooding was entered into the second block, and the model

was not significant, R = .23, R2 = .05, ΔR = .40, F(3,104) = 2.01, p = .11. Length of time

was the only significant predictor in this model (β = .22, p < .05). The result suggested

that partners tended to drift apart after hurt occurred; and unhealed wound damaged the

relationship more severely as time went by. Because brooding did not significantly

predict relational distancing after controlling length of time and relationship type, H6 was

not supported.

To test H7, which posited that brooding was negatively related to relationship

satisfaction, a hierarchical multiple regression test was performed. Control variables were

30

entered into the first block, and the model was narrowly significant (R = .23, R2 = .05,

F(2,105) = 3.02, p = .05). Length of time (β = -.19, p < .05) was a significant predictor on

this step. Brooding was added into the model on the second step, and this model was not

significant (R = .23, R2 = .05, ΔR = .00, F(3,104) = 2.04, p = .83). Despite the fact that the

model was not significant overall, length of time (β = -.19, p < .05) remained a significant

predictor of the outcome variable. The results indicated that partners are likely to feel less

satisfied about their relationship if a hurtful interaction happened longer time ago.

Because brooding did not have a significant effect on relationship satisfaction over and

above length of time, H7 was not supported.

31

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

The goal of the current study was to better understand how a hurtful interaction

might influence an ongoing relationship, and how interpretation of hurt can shape the

hurtful experience and relational outcomes. As such, participants of this study were asked

to reflect on a hurtful interaction inflicted by a relationship partner (i.e., dating partner,

spouse, or close friend), and respond to scales measuring their intensity of hurt, tendency

to brood, ambiguity of the message, perceived dominance, affiliation, and involvement of

the offender, and relational outcomes concerning that specific interaction. Self-reported

data was analyzed to examine correlations among those variables. In general, results

revealed a positive association between brooding and intensity of hurt, and negative

relationship between affectionate mental frame and intensity of hurt. In the following

section, I review the theoretical and practical implications of the findings and make

suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Implications

The results expand the study of hurtful experiences in two major ways. First of

all, I examine relationships between intensity of hurt, ambiguity, and brooding. As

expected, individuals who reported greater intensity of hurt and higher level of message

ambiguity brood more. These findings are consistent with previous research (Nolen-

Hoeksema, 1991), which claims that by reinforcing one another, ruminative thoughts and

negative affect form a focusing unpleasant circle. According to Nolen-Hoeksema,

negative mood interferes with information processing by leading individuals to

emphasize on unfavorable hints when reflecting on the event and thus make more

32

negative evaluations and attributions of self and the situation, which in turn intensifies

depressed mood. Likewise, bad feelings resulting from hurt enhance negative self-

focusing thoughts. Resultantly, the biased brooding process which focuses on negative

hints strengthens hurt feelings.

In addition to providing insight to the relationship between brooding, intensity of

hurt and ambiguity, the study also examined Relational Framing Theory (Dillard,

Solomon, & Samp, 1996b) in the context of hurt. Overall, the findings emphasized effect

of affiliation over dominance on hurt feelings. Although bivariate correlations revealed

significant associations between dominance and brooding and intensity of hurt, these

associations no longer existed after a) type of relationship was controlled and, b)

interaction variables were introduced into the regression models. In comparison,

perceived affiliation more effectively predicted intensity of hurt than dominance. Main

effect of affiliation on intensity of hurt and interaction between affiliation and

involvement on hurt were both significant. It was notable that even during a hurtful

interaction, individuals were still aware of affiliation and attentiveness shown by the

offender, and that display of affiliation could reduce hurt feelings. The strong association

between affection and intensity of hurt was consistent with prior research (McLaren et

al., 2012; Priem, McLaren, & Solomon, 2009), which suggests that perceptions of

affiliation negatively correlate with hurt feelings.

The study also highlighted the need for a more critical examination of

involvement’s role in hurtful interactions. Being the third component of RFT,

involvement is typically considered a unipolar variable that underlines perception of

either dominance or affiliation, and thus may either intensify or mitigate hurt feelings.

33

Findings of the current study emphasized buffering effect of involvement, discovering

that higher level of the offender’s engagement reduced hurt feelings, rather than

intensifying the negative dimension. Indeed, the results revealed positive correlations

between involvement and affiliation as well as relationship satisfaction. In addition,

involvement was also negatively correlated with relational distancing. One explanation

concerns intrinsic distinction between the nature of hurt and involvement. On the one

hand, hurt is characterized by disassociation, including ignoring the partner, excluding

the partner in one’s activities, and other implicit rejections (Feeney, 2004; Leary,

Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998b). On the other hand, involvement conveys the

opposite cues to ignorance and exclusion by expressing attention and interest (Cappella,

1983; Priem et al., 2009). Thus it is possible that participants of the study perceived

engaged offenders as taking them seriously instead of being nonchalant and withdrawing

from a conversation. As a result, involvement cushions unfavorable effects of a hurtful

interaction by making the offender appear less indifferent.

Another variable of reasonable magnitude is ambiguity. The present study

proposed that ambiguity positively predicts brooding and intensity of hurt. Indeed, the

results of the study confirmed the positive relationship between ambiguity brooding,

indicating that the more ambiguous a message was, the more it caused individuals to

brood. However, the proposed positive relationship between ambiguity and hurt was

nonsignificant. Contrary to the hypothesis, a negative association was discovered

between the two variables—the more ambiguous a message was, the less hurtful a victim

felt. Furthermore, bivariate correlations demonstrated that ambiguity actually buffered

relational damage caused by a hurtful interaction. Higher level of ambiguity was related

34

to greater relationship satisfaction and less relational distancing. Taken together, one may

infer that while an ambiguous message is related to more brooding, it may diminish hurt

feelings and cushion the damaging effect of a hurtful episode on relationship. A possible

explanation concerned context of the message (i.e., neutral/positive vs. hurtful episode).

Generally speaking, because an ambiguous message may elicit multiple interpretations, it

can be processed either positively or negatively. Consider, for instance, if a neutral or

positive comment is uttered in an ambivalent manner, it may be more likely to elicit

doubt and misinterpretations compared to a less ambiguous utterance which shows

clearer positive regard. However, when it comes to a negative comment which is

potentially hurtful, ambiguity may allow for less negative interpretations because an

ambiguous message, again, may contain hints that save the message from appearing

completely harsh. In other words, ambiguous hurtful messages may be seen as less

negative or aggressive than clearer-stated ones.

Additionally, I suggest humor as another reason of ambiguity’s buffering effect

on hurt and relational outcomes. Because humor is ambiguous (Carrell, 1997), it can be

used as a mask for hurt intentions (Zajdman, 1995). It is possible that when a hostile

comment is humorously packaged, it is perceived as more ambiguous and less hurtful. To

conclude, the study demonstrated that in the context of hurt, ambiguous utterances elicit

less hurt feelings and lessen impact of hurt on relationship outcomes.

Finally, the present study identified the necessity of better operationalization of

relational frame. The original measurement adopted in the study consisted of 20 items,

including three subscales for dominance, affiliation, and involvement. The original scale

35

used to measure dominance was not reliable (α = .58) before four items were dropped.

The unreliable scale merited further development, and I offered the following reflection.

There were eight items to measure perceived dominance in total, and the scale

was constructed in a way that each item opposed its immediate previous one. For

example, the first four items were “no dominance-extreme dominance”, “no submission-

extreme submission”, “no persuasion-extreme persuasion”, and “no concession-extreme

concession” in sequence. Therefore, the scale gave an impression that items jumped to

and fro. Indeed, results revealed that some participants gave same ratings to consecutive

items whose semantic means were opposite to one another. For better understanding of

the problem, I halved the scale and grouped odd numbered items to one scale, and even

numbered items to another. Bivariate comparison demonstrated a mildly negative

correlation between the two groups. I solved this problem by dropping all even numbered

items and keeping only odd numbered ones, which increased the reliability to α = .72.

This hurdle was possibly due to sequence of items, because participants might not notice

that each item was acronym of its predecessor, especially when all items appeared

simultaneous in one webpage. Besides, a clearer and briefer wording might make it easier

for participants who did not had a lot of time for a survey. For example, the first two

items (“no dominance-extreme submission” and “no submission-extreme submission”)

might be replaced by a single semantic differential item “dominance-submission”.

Further research can use this information to develop more reliable scales for relational

frames.

Practical Implications

36

The current study also shed light on importance of two factors that had

appreciable impact on hurt experiences. The first influencer was relationship type, which

underlines how things may differ for dating partners versus close friends. An exploratory

ANOVA pointed out that participants who were hurt by their dating partners generally

scored higher in both brooding and intensity of hurt than those who were hurt by a close

friend. The finding showed that dating partners were more vulnerable to intense hurt

feelings and negative rumination after hurt occurred. One possible interpretation of this

distinction is that romantic love was characterized by higher expectations of attachment

(Hazan & Shaver, 1987), intimacy (Feiring, 1996; Sternberg, 2004), and trust (Rempel,

Ross, & Holmes, 2001), thus individuals might find it especially unacceptable once these

expectations are broken. Another interpretation is that because dating partners (vs.

friends) involve more frequently in activities that demonstrate higher levels of

interdependences, such as sharing tasks (Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993), they

are more sensitive to lack of assurance of interdependence, and consequently, brood more

over the incidents that made them uneasy.

Additionally, the current study identified length of time as significant influencer

of relationship outcomes including relational distancing and relationship satisfaction, as

well as perception of affiliation and involvement. Specifically, people felt less satisfied

about their relationship, and distanced more from their partner as time went by. Besides,

perception of the offender’s affection and involvement during the episode decreased as

time passed. In a nut, relational damages caused by a hurtful interaction were likely to

accumulate over time if the wound was left unattended.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

37

Upon closing, I should acknowledge limitations of the current study. The first

concern is the sample’s generalizability. Participants were recruited from a private

university, and the majority of them were college students, hence the results are not

generalizable to a wider population. Secondly, because of limited demographic

information, the current research cannot answer whether gender, race, and age had any

impact on test results, which may be of interest to future research. Third, due to

limitations of the sample, very little information has been revealed about married couples.

Although the current study identified noticeable difference between dating partners and

close friends, more is yet to be explored about married couples.

Moreover, the current study differentiates brooding from other more constructive

forms of rumination reflection, emphasizing that brooding is harmful to relationships.

Due to the hypothetical positive correlation between hurt and brooding, as well as hurt’s

detrimental influence on relationship, the present study assumed a corresponding

injurious effect of brooding on relationship outcomes. Although brooding closely

correlated with intensity of hurt, it predicts neither of the two outcome variables (i.e.,

relational distancing and relationship satisfaction), as did hurt. Subtle distinctions

between brooding and intensity of hurt calls for further investigation, and future research

may explore the role of brooding in relationship outcomes.

Finally, although the study has discovered several correlations between variables,

it should be noted that those were not causal relationships, especially when it comes to

intensity of hurt and brooding. There is no evidence showing whether it is intense hurt

feelings that aggravate brooding, or the other way around. To be more specific, one can

claim that a person tends to brood more because he/she feels intense hurt, or that negative

38

repetitive thoughts make an unfavorable incident seem more hurtful. Similar

considerations hold for ambiguity and brooding. For example, does ambiguity cause

brooding, or does excessive brooding hamper individual’s ability to understand the

original message, thus making it more impenetrable? In order to answer these questions,

future researchers may use experiment or longitudinal study to explore the highly

subjective experience of hurt and track changes of thoughts and perceptions of a hurtful

interaction.

Conclusion

The results of the study identified the significance of affiliative mental frame on

hurt experiences, as well as intertwined associations among hurt, brooding, and relational

outcomes. Although all of the three components of RFT do not predict intensity of hurt,

the study emphasized the buffering effect of affiliation and involvement, as well as their

interaction on hurt feelings. As surmised, message ambiguity and intensity of hurt

positively predict brooding. The study also specified relationship type and length of time

as two noteworthy factors that shape a hurt experience. Within the limitations of the

current study, the findings reinforced the constructive role of affectionate cues in the

context of hurtful interaction, and clarified the distinction between dating couples and

close friends in hurtful experience.

39

REFERENCES

Amin, N., Foa, E. B., & Coles, M. E. (1998). Negative interpretation bias in social

phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(10), 945–957.

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00060-6

Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, Apology, and Communicative

Responses to Hurtful Events. Communication Reports, 19(1), 45–56.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08934210600586357

Baldwin, M. W., & Main, K. J. (2001). Social Anxiety and the Cued Activation of

Relational Knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12),

1637–1647. http://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012712007

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497–529. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and

Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication.

Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2958.1975.tb00258.x

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too Many Words: Length of Utterance and

Pragmatic Failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 165–179.

http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006069

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: I. Aetiology and

psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. The British Journal of

Psychiatry, 130, 201–210. http://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.130.3.201

40

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984a). The Fundamental Topoi of Relational

Communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 193–214.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984b). The fundamental topoi of relational

communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 193–214.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390195

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis,

Rumination, Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289002

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis

of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives,

friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 5–14.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08824099309359913

Cappella, J. N. (1983). Conversational Involvement: Approaching and Avoiding Others.

In J. M. (ed. . Wiemann & R. P. (ed. . Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal Interaction

(Vols. 1–288 pp., pp. 113–148). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor: International

Journal of Humor Research, 10(2), 173–185.

http://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1997.10.2.173

Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance:

The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting.

Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058–1077.

http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798187

41

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2002). A contextual analysis of the association between

demand/withdraw and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 95–119.

http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00007

Ciesla, J. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2007). Rumination, negative cognition, and their

interactive effects on depressed mood. Emotion, 7(3), 555–565.

http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.555

Cocking, D., & Kennett, J. (1998). Friendship and the Self. Ethics, 108(3), 502–527.

Dillard, J. P., & Solomon, D. H. (2005a). Measuring the Relevance of Relational Frames:

A Relational Framing Theory Perspective. In V. Manusov & V. (Ed) Manusov

(Eds.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words. (pp. 325–

334). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dillard, J. P., & Solomon, D. H. (2005b). Measuring the Relevance of Relational Frames:

A Relational Framing Theory Perspective. In V. Manusov & V. (Ed) Manusov

(Eds.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words. (pp. 325–

334). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996a). Framing Social Reality The

Relevance of Relational Judgments. Communication Research, 23(6), 703–723.

http://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023006004

Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996b). Framing Social Reality The

Relevance of Relational Judgments. Communication Research, 23(6), 703–723.

http://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023006004

42

Dillard, J. P., Wilson, S. R., Tusing, K. J., & Kinney, T. A. (1997). Politeness Judgments

in Personal Relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(3),

297–325. http://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970163003

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic

inference. Psychological Review, 92(4), 433–461. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.92.4.433

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.

Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197

Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A. (1991). Bias in

interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 100(2), 144–150. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

843X.100.2.144

Feeney, B. C. (2004). A Secure Base: Responsive Support of Goal Strivings and

Exploration in Adult Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87(5), 631–648. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631

Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of

attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12(2),

253–271. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00114.x

Feiring, C. (1996). Concept of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research

on Adolescence, 6(2), 181–200.

43

Fitness, J. (2001). Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: An interpersonal script

approach. In M. R. Leary & M. R. (Ed) Leary (Eds.), Interpersonal rejection. (pp.

73–103). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Floyd, K. (2006). Human Affection Exchange: XII. Affectionate Communication is

Associated with Diurnal Variation in Salivary Free Cortisol. Western Journal of

Communication, 70(1), 47–63. http://doi.org/10.1080/10570310500506649

Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory of

Effective Communication: Making the Mesh of the Net Finer. In W. B.

Gudykunst & W. B. (Ed) Gudykunst (Eds.), Theorizing about intercultural

communication. (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncertainty, and perceived

effectiveness of communication across relationships and cultures. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(1), 55–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-

1767(00)00042-0

Guerrero, L. K. (1994). “I’m so mad I could scream:” The effects of anger expression on

relational satisfaction and communication competence. Southern Communication

Journal, 59(2), 125–141. http://doi.org/10.1080/10417949409372931

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Horan, S. M. (2012). Affection Exchange Theory and Perceptions of Relational

Transgressions. Western Journal of Communication, 76(2), 109–126.

http://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.651548

44

Joormann, J., Dkane, M., & Gotlib, I. H. (2006). Adaptive and Maladaptive Components

of Rumination? Diagnostic Specificity and Relation to Depressive Biases.

Behavior Therapy, 37(3), 269–280. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.01.002

Kelly, O., Matheson, K., Ravindran, A., Merali, Z., & Anisman, H. (2007). Ruminative

coping among patients with dysthymia before and after pharmacotherapy.

Depression and Anxiety, 24(4), 233–243. http://doi.org/10.1002/da.20236

Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When Asking “Why” Does Not Hurt:

Distinguishing Rumination From Reflective Processing of Negative Emotions.

Psychological Science, 16(9), 709–715. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2005.01600.x

Kuehner, C., & Buerger, C. (2005). Determinants of subjective quality of life in

depressed patients: The role of self-esteem, response styles, and social support.

Journal of Affective Disorders, 86(2–3), 205–213.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2005.01.014

Lam, D., Schuck, N., Smith, N., Farmer, A., & Checkley, S. (2003). Response style,

interpersonal difficulties and social functioning in major depressive disorder.

Journal of Affective Disorders, 75(3), 279–283. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-

0327(02)00058-7

Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. A. (2001). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In

Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–175).

Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998a). The causes,

phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and

45

Social Psychology, 74(5), 1225–1237. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.74.5.1225

Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998b). The causes,

phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74(5), 1225–1237. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.74.5.1225

Liu, E., & Roloff, M. E. (2015). Exhausting Silence: Emotional Costs of Withholding

Complaints. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(1), 25–40.

http://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12043

Lyubomirsky, S., Kasri, F., & Zehm, K. (2003). Dysphoric Rumination Impairs

Concentration on Academic Tasks. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 309–

330. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023918517378

Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., Kon, T. W. H., Colley, A., & Linley, P. A. (2008).

Personality predictors of levels of forgiveness two and a half years after the

transgression. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1088–1094.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.008

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Striving and Feeling: Interactions Among Goals,

Affect, and Self-regulation. Psychology Press.

Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1994). Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional

disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 25.

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and

forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92(3), 490–505. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.490

46

McLaren, R. M., Dillard, J. P., Tusing, K. J., & Solomon, D. H. (2014). Relational

Framing Theory: Utterance Form and Relational Context as Antecedents of Frame

Salience. Communication Quarterly, 62(5), 518–535.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.949387

McLaren, R. M., & Pederson, J. R. (2014a). Relational communication and

understanding in conversations about hurtful events between parents and

adolescents. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 145–166.

http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12072

McLaren, R. M., & Pederson, J. R. (2014b). Relational Communication and

Understanding in Conversations About Hurtful Events Between Parents and

Adolescents. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 145–166.

http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12072

McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Appraisals and Distancing Responses to

Hurtful Messages. Communication Research, 35(3), 339–357.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208315961

McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2010). Appraisal and Distancing Responses to

Hurtful Messages II: A Diary Study of Dating Partners and Friends.

Communication Research Reports, 27(3), 193–206.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2010.496325

McLaren, R. M., Solomon, D. H., & Priem, J. S. (2012). The effect of relationship

characteristics and relational communication on experiences of hurt from

romantic partners. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 950–971.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01678.x

47

Miller, C. W., & Roloff, M. E. (2014). When Hurt Continues: Taking Conflict Personally

Leads to Rumination, Residual Hurt and Negative Motivations Toward Someone

Who Hurt Us. Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 193–213.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.890118

Miller, P. J. E., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2003). Trait Expressiveness and Marital

Satisfaction: The Role of Idealization Processes. Journal of Marriage and Family,

65(4), 978–995. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00978.x

Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and Parent Perceptions of

Hurtful Messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 731–754.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502196001

Morgan, J., & Banerjee, R. (2008). Post-event processing and autobiographical memory

in social anxiety: The influence of negative feedback and rumination. Journal of

Anxiety Disorders, 22(7), 1190–1204.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.01.001

Moscovitch, D. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2007). When ambiguity hurts: Social standards

moderate self-appraisals in generalized social phobia. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 45(5), 1039–1052. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.07.008

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of

depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(4), 569–582.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.569

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1996). Chewing the cud and other ruminations. In R. S. J. Wyer &

R. S. J. (Ed) Wyer (Eds.), Ruminative thoughts. (pp. 135–144). Hillsdale, NJ,

England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

48

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed

anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 504–511.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G. (1999). “Thanks for sharing that”: Ruminators and

their social support networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

77(4), 801–814. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.801

Oliveira, C. M. (2008). Perceptions of the aversiveness teasing as a function of perceived

identity confrontation, aggression, ambiguity and humor, and the perception of

intent to cause harm. ProQuest Information & Learning, US.

Pearson, K. A., Watkins, E. R., Kuyken, W., & Mullan, E. G. (2010). The psychosocial

context of depressive rumination: Ruminative brooding predicts diminished

relationship satisfaction in individuals with a history of past major depression.

British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 275–280.

http://doi.org/10.1348/014466509X480553

Priem, J. S., McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2009). Relational Messages,

Perceptions of Hurt, and Biological Stress Reactions to a Disconfirming

Interaction. Communication Research. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351470

Priem, J. S., McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2010). Relational messages,

perceptions of hurt, and biological stress reactions to a disconfirming interaction.

Communication Research, 37(1), 48–72.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351470

49

Priem, J. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2011). Relational uncertainty and cortisol responses to

hurtful and supportive messages from a dating partner. Personal Relationships,

18(2), 198–223. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01353.x

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F.

Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, B. M. Montgomery, S. (Ed) Duck, … B. M. (Ed)

Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and

interventions. (pp. 367–389). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in

close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 57–64.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.57

Roberts, J. E., Gilboa, E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Ruminative Response Style and

Vulnerability to Episodes of Dysphoria: Gender, Neuroticism, and Episode

Duration. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(4), 401–423.

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018713313894

Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of Relational Communication in Dyads:

New Measurement Procedures. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 222–239.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00270.x

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale:

Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and

investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

50

Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Regulating responses to anger: Effects of

rumination and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(3), 790–803. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.790

Siegle, G. J., Steinhauer, S. R., Carter, C. S., Ramel, W., & Thase, M. E. (2003). Do the

Seconds Turn Into Hours? Relationships between Sustained Pupil Dilation in

Response to Emotional Information and Self-Reported Rumination. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 27(3), 365–382. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023974602357

Sillars, A. (2011). Motivated misunderstanding in family conflict discussions. In J. L.

Smith, W. Ickes, J. A. Hall, S. D. Hodges, J. L. (Ed) Smith, W. (Ed) Ickes, … S.

D. (Ed) Hodges (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when and

when not to understand others. (pp. 193–213). Hauppauge, NY, US: Nova

Science Publishers.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). A Triangular Theory of Love. In H. T. Reis, C. E. Rusbult, H. T.

(Ed) Reis, & C. E. (Ed) Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships: Key readings. (pp.

213–227). Philadelphia, PA, US: Taylor & Francis.

Theiss, J. A., Knobloch, L. K., Checton, M. G., & Magsamen-Conrad, K. (2009).

Relationship characteristics associated with the experience of hurt in romantic

relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication

Research, 35(4), 588–615. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01364.x

Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor

model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.76.2.284

51

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003a). Rumination Reconsidered: A

Psychometric Analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247–259.

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910315561

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003b). Rumination Reconsidered:

A Psychometric Analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247–259.

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910315561

Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.),

The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53–82). Hillsdale, NJ,

England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Feeling Hurt in Close Relationships. Cambridge University

Press.

Vangelisti, A. L., & Crumley, L. P. (1998). Reactions to messages that hurt: The

influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs, 65(3), 173–196.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376447

Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When Words Hurt: The Effects of Perceived

Intentionality on Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 17(3), 393–424. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500173005

Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Alexander, A. L. (2005).

Why Does It Hurt? The Perceived Causes of Hurt Feelings. Communication

Research, 32(4), 443–477. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205277319

Wade, N. G., Vogel, D. L., Liao, K. Y.-H., & Goldman, D. B. (2008). Measuring state-

specific rumination: Development of the Rumination About an Interpersonal

52

Offense Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 419–426.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.419

Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological

Bulletin, 134(2), 163–206. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human

Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes.

New York: Norton.

Whitmer, A. J., & Banich, M. T. (2007). Inhibition Versus Switching Deficits in

Different Forms of Rumination. Psychological Science, 18(6), 546–553.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01936.x

Yook, K., Kim, K.-H., Suh, S. Y., & Lee, K. S. (2010). Intolerance of uncertainty, worry,

and rumination in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(6), 623–628.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.003

Young, S. L. (2004). Factors that Influence Recipients’ Appraisals of Hurtful

Communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 291–303.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504042833

Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). Rumination: Bridging a gap between

forgivingness, vengefulness, and psychological health. Personality and Individual

Differences, 42(8), 1573–1584. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.032

Zajdman, A. (1995). Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy. Journal of

Pragmatics, 23(3), 325–339. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00038-G

53

APPENDIX A

Participant Email

Dear Students,

You are asked to participate in a study being conducted by researchers and students from

Wake Forest University Reynolda campus. The study aims to understand the influence of

hurtful interactions on close relationships (friendships/romantic relationships) within

which hurt occurs (IRB# IRB00022351).

The study will ask you to participate in an online survey, which consists of 13 questions

in total and will take approximately 4-6 minutes. The survey will ask you to reflect on

an event when you felt hurt by a relationship partner, and subsequently, identify the

descriptions that capture your feelings. Close relationship is pivotal to individuals, and

your response will help us better understand how unfavorable interactions between

partners will shape a relationship. Your answers will be anonymous and kept

confidential. The aggregated results of the survey will be analyzed using SPSS statistical

analysis software. Please read the consent form following the link for your convenience.

Follow this link to the Survey: {web link to Qualtrics survey}

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

{SurveyURL}

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

{web link to unsubscribe}

54

APPENDIX B

Participant Informed Consent

STUDY TITLE: EFFECT OF RELATIONAL FRAMES ON CLOSE

RELATIONSHIPS

You are invited to take part in the research study called effect of relational frames on

close relationships conducted by researchers and student at Wake Forest University

Reynolda campus. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have

before agreeing to take part in the study.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of a hurtful experience on the

relationship within which hurt occurs. Because people tend to interpret hurt interactions

differently, impact of the interaction on relationship may vary. Therefore, the current

study aims to examine how perceptions of a hurtful event will affect the quality of a close

relationship. By answering the following questions, you will help us understand how

some key factors may shape the experience of hurt.

In this study we would like to ask you to reflect on a situation where your relationship

partner said or did something that hurt your feelings. Your responses will be collected

online via Qualtrics. There are 13 questions in total, including both open and close-ended

questions. The first few questions will ask you to describe the event that you felt hurt by a

close friend or intimate partner; other questions will ask you to choose the description

that captures your feelings. It may take 5-6 minutes to complete the survey.

Potential Risks and Benefits We do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study. However, you may find

some of the questions asking about your recalled interaction sensitive. If any question

triggers an emotional response, you can skip it, or seek help from the University

Counseling Center at 118 Reynolda Hall during 8:30am-5:00pm Monday-Friday

for scheduled and emergency walk-in appointments.

We do not expect you to benefit directly from taking the survey, but we hope your

involvement might help you understand your thoughts of the experience. Close

relationship is pivotal to individuals, and we want to learn more about how interactions

between partners will shape the relationship.

Confidentiality

While we can't guarantee total confidentiality, the researchers will take the following

precautions to protect your anonymous data: the records of this study will be kept private,

and we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you in any

sort of report we make. The aggregated results of the survey will be downloaded to a

computer to which only the researchers of this study will have access. Only researchers

who have permission from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), a group of people at

55

Wake Forest University who make sure that research is appropriate, will be able to know

survey report. We will erase your answers when we do not need them anymore.

Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary, and you are

free to withdraw at any time. If you wish to withdraw from the study, please notify Dr.

Priem in writing, or by closing the browser. There are no penalties for refusing to

participate or withdrawing.

If you have questions: If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact Dr. Jennifer Priem at (336)

758-5405. You may also contact the IRB at irb@wfu.edu or 758-5888 for about your

rights as a participant.

I agree

I disagree

56

APPENDIX C

Participant Descriptive Information

For the next set of questions, we would like you to think about a time when someone said

something that made you feel devalued or suggested that your relationship was not

important. For example, people might make a joke that made you feel put down or may

make a statement that shows they feel differently about your relationship than you do.

For this survey, please think about a specific conversation in which a relationship

partner (dating/marital member, close friend) said things that made you feel bad about

yourself or your relationship. As you answer the next set of questions, please think only

about that specific conversation.

1. Write the initials of the person who hurt you in that conversation.

2. What was/is his/her relationship to you?

3. How long (months) has it been since the interaction occurred? (please enter "0" if

less than one month)

4. What exactly did the partner said or did that was hurtful? Please be as specific as

possible.

57

APPENDIX D

Intensity of Hurt Scale

During and following the conversation, how hurt did you feel overall?

From 1 = not at all hurtful to 7 = extremely hurtful

To what extent did the conversation cause you emotional pain?

1 = no emotional pain to 7 = intense emotional pain

How hurtful was the interaction?

From 1 = not at all hurtful to 7 = extremely hurtful

58

APPENDIX E

Brooding Scale

After the interaction, I often think...

“What am I doing to deserve this?

“Why do I always react this way?”

about a recent situation, wishing it had gone better

“Why can’t I handle things better?”

Note. Unless otherwise noted, response categories ranged from 1 = very untrue of me to 7

= very true of me

59

APPENDIX F

Relationship Satisfaction Scale

Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements

about your relationship with this person CURRENTLY.

I feel satisfied with our relationship.

My relationship is much better than others’ relationships

My relationship is close to ideal

Our relationship makes me feel very happy

Our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy

Note. Unless otherwise noted, response categories ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7

= strongly agree

60

APPENDIX G

Relational Distancing (Semantic Differential Scale)

Please rate the degree to which the hurtful interaction made your relationship:

From 1 = distant to 7 close*

From 1 = relaxed to 7 = tense

From 1 = friendly to 7 = hostile

From 1= distant to 7 = intimate*

From 1 = open to 7 = closed

Note. * Reversely coded items

61

APPENDIX H

Message Ambiguity Scale

Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statements about

the way in which the person stated the hurtful message.

The message was stated in a direct way.*

The meaning of the message was clearly stated.*

There were a number of ways in which the message could have been interpreted.

The message was stated as a joke or hinted at, rather than expressly stated.

The message was ambiguous.

Note. Unless otherwise noted, response categories ranged from 1 = strongly

disagree to 7 = strongly agree;

* Reversely coded items

62

APPENDIX I

Relational Frame Scale

How do you rate your partner's words/ action during the hurtful interaction?

No Dominance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Dominance

No Submission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Submission*

No Persuasion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Persuasion

No Concession 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Concession*

No Influence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Influence

No Compliance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Compliance*

No Controlling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Controlling

No Yielding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Yielding*

No Affiliation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Affection

No Disaffection 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Disaffection*

No Liking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Liking

No Disliking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Disliking*

No Attraction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Attraction

No Aversion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Aversion*

No Positive regard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Positive regard

No Negative regard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Negative regard*

No Engagement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Engagement

No Withdrawal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Withdrawal*

No Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Interest

No Disinterest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extreme Disinterest*

Note. * Reversely coded items

63

CURRICULUM VITAE

3860 Huntingreen Lane, Unit E Winston-Salem, NC27106 (336)391-9952 zhouj14@wfu.edu

EDUCATION

Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, North Carolina August 2016

Master of Arts in Communication

Shanghai International Studies University Shanghai, China June 2014

Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, minor in French

Seminar on Media and Public Relations Columbia University, New York City,

New York February 2013

Completed intensive training courses including public relations, integrated marketing communication,

etc.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Intern, Marketing

Analytics Mullen Lowe U.S., Winstion-Salem, NC January-April 2016

• Analyze performance of digital campaigns by Google Analytics, Tableau, Twitter Analytics,

Facebook Insights, etc.

• Perform data pulls on excel and and optimize campaigns for CSX, Ulta Beauty, Hanes Brands,

and Youfit Health Clubs

• Create visual presentations of findings to clients

Research Assistant Wake Forest University Student Wellbeing Project, Winston-

Salem, NC

January-May

2015

• Created and specified key items for student wellbeing research, including confidence,

conscientiousness, perseverance, etc.

• Created master interview guide, performed cognitive interviews, and edited interview questions of

tested items

• Generated literature review on self-report validity from psychology, sociology and health

databases and encoded findings

Intern, Assistant

Editor

News Update, China Central Television (CCTV news),

Beijing, China

July-September

2013

• Ensured effective collaboration between editors, directors, and anchors by updating all parties on

working process

• Documented live-cross signals sent by correspondents from Washington, West Asia, Europe and

Africa, and managed files

• Printed and proofread scripts, checked anchor's prompter for error, entered advertising video

Intern, Assistant

Director News & General Channel, Shanghai Media Group April-June 2013

• Gathered background information and wrote program plans for a weekly parental-children

relationship TV program

• Planned weekly topics, prepared materials; welcomed and coordinated with guests who attended

the program

• Edited video clips and participated in post-production

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Study Team

Member

Building a Culture of Health through Youth Soccer,

Winston-Salem, NC

September-December

2015

• Conducted interviews with soccer players at Twin City Youth Soccer Club about their health

concerns and family relations

64

• Collected data and reflected on findings about young athletes, i.e., body image, family eating

behaviors, time constraint.

• Wrote an individual proposal based on my interviews and literature research

Researcher &

Writer

National Undergraduates' Innovation Project, Shanghai,

China

October 2012-June

2013

• Conducted research for Image of China in American Newspapers at Shanghai Library and school

database

• Collected and categorized all news pictures of China appearing in New York Times from

2012.01.01-2012.06.30

• Analyzed data and wrote final report, titled The Image--New York Times' Representation of

China

Team Leader Media Design and Management, Shanghai, China September-December

2012

• Proposed framework of media design project for Popcorn Social Networking Services, designed

logo

• Identified target audience for the networking service, evaluated its market value and potential

competitors

• Ensured smooth collaboration among team members and managed process of the project

Co-Founder,

Designer All Walks of Love, Shanghai, China

September 2010-

December 2011

• Initiated campaigns to sell post-cards, coordinated with online suppliers to purchase materials

• Designed brand logo and made campaign posters for off-line events

• Promoted brand by generating campaign feeds on social media, including Weibo (Chinese twitter)

and Renren

EXTRACURRICULAR EXPERIENCE

• Student

Interviewer Shanghai International Studies University

2013.07-

2013.08

• PR Secretary School of Journalism, Shanghai International Studies

University

2010.09-

2011.12

• Event

Coordinator

College Theater Gala & VJ Contest, Shanghai Intl. Studies

University

2010.09-

2011.06

AWARDS AND HONORS

• Tuition Stipend Wake Forest Office of Personal and Career

Development January-May 2015

• Partial scholarship Wake Forest communication department 2014-2016

• Tuition waiver

(15%) Advanced Seminar on Media and Public Relations

January-February

2013

• Scholarship Shanghai International Studies University 2011-2013

SPECIAL SKILLS

• Computer Proficient in SPSS, Google Analytics, Curalate, MS Word, Excel,

• Foreign Language Bilingual in Chinese and English, plus entry level French

• Logo design Skillful in designing logo and posters