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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]
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
Top Related