Repairing Hurtful Messages in Marital Relationships

Abstract

The effects of hurtful messages and accompanying repair strategies in interpersonal relationships have been noted individually; however, research has not investigated the relation of these two constructs in tandem. This study uses an attributional framework to examine use and the effectiveness of repair strategies with varying hurtful messages. Responses from 237 married adults indicated the justification repair strategy was used most often. The repair strategy of silence was perceived as the least effective. Informative messages were perceived as the most hurtful. Sources' intent and relational satisfaction were not significantly related to specific hurtful messages or subsequent repair strategies.

Keywords:

• Hurtful Messages
• Relational Satisfaction
• Repair Strategies

Notes

Note. 1 = apology; 2 = excuse; 3 = justification; 4 = offset harm; 5 = silence; 6 = nonverbal reaction; 7 = change subject; 8 = denial; 9 = other.

An accusation refers to accusing someone of fault or blame. An evaluation is a description of value or worth. A directive statement involves an order or command. An advising message calls for a course of action. An expression of desire message refers to a statement of preference. An informative statement involves disclosing information. A question is an inquiry or interrogation. A threat reveals the intention to inflict punishment. A joke refers to a prank or witticism. A lie is a deceptive speech act (Vangelisti, 1994).

The apology strategy is marked by accepting blame and expressing regret for the regrettable message. The excuse strategy offers a reason for why the message was delivered, such as being tired or stressed. The justification strategy is marked by attempts to explain and defend the reason behind the message. The silence strategy includes any attempt to minimize communication about the regrettable message. The offset harm strategy is marked by comments that attempt to downplay the severity of the message, such as saying, “just kidding.” The nonverbal reaction strategy is marked by nonverbal behaviors that express regret for the message, including covering one's mouth or shutting one's eyes. The change subject strategy includes any topic shift that moves the conversation away from the regrettable message. Finally, the deny the offense strategy is marked by attempts to reverse the potential damage with compliments and praise (Dindia & Baxter, 1987).

The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the repair strategies following an expressing desire hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(5, 121) = 1.56, p > .05; main effect for intent, F(1, 121) = 0.01, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 121) = 0.06, p > .05. Results of the ANOVA on the repair strategies following an informing hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 68) = 1.23, p > .05; main effect for intent, F(1, 68) = 0.94, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 68) = 1.09, p > .05. The ANOVA on repair strategies for a questioning hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 108) = 1.70, p > .05; or main effect for intent, F(1, 108) = 1.9, p > .05. However, there was a significant main effect for perceived effectiveness, F(6, 108) = 2.44, p < .05.

Results of the ANOVA on repair strategies following a threatening hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(5, 83) = 0.73, p > .05; main effect for intent, F(1, 83) = 0.05, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 83) = 1.07, p > .05. Results of the ANOVA on repair following a joking hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 119) = 0.50, p > .05; main effect for intent, F(1, 119) = 0.06, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 119) = 1.13, p > .05. The ANOVA on repair following a lying hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(3, 53) = 0.19, p > .05; main effect for intent, F(1, 53) = 0.11, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 53) = 0.88, p > .05. An ANOVA on the repair strategies following an accusatory hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 108) = 1.90, p > .05; or main effect of intent, F(1, 108) = .00, p > .05. However, there was a significant effect for perceived effectiveness, F(6, 108) = 2.45, p < .05.

Results of an ANOVA on repair following an evaluative hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 60) = 0.81, p > .05; or main effect of perceived effectiveness in the repair strategy, F(6, 60) = 1.41, p > .05; but the main effect of intention in delivering the hurtful message was significant, F(2, 60) = 3.15, p < .05. An ANOVA on repair following a directive hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(6, 134) = 1.22, p > .05; main effects for intent, F(1, 134) = 0.91, p > .05; or effectiveness, F(6, 134) = 1.47, p > .05. Finally, the ANOVA on repair strategies following an advise hurtful message revealed no interaction effect, F(4, 66) = 1.32, p > .05; or main effect for intent, F(1, 66) = 0.18, p > .05. However, there was a significant main effect for the perceived effectiveness of that repair strategy, F(6, 66) = 2.48, p < .05.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katie Neary Dunleavy

Katie Neary Dunleavy (PhD, West Virginia University, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Communication Department at La Salle University.

Alan K. Goodboy

Alan K. Goodboy (PhD, West Virginia University, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Communication Studies and Theatre Art Department at Bloomsburg University.

Melanie Booth-Butterfield

Melanie Booth-Butterfield (PhD, University of Missouri–Columbia, 1985) is a Professor in the Communication Studies Department at West Virginia University.

Robert J. Sidelinger

Robert J. Sidelinger (EdD, West Virginia University, 2008) is an assistant professor at Oakland University.

Sara Banfield

Sara Banfield (MA, West Virginia University, 2003) is an instructor in the Communication and Languages Department at Raritan Valley Community College.