Journal of Social and Personal Relationships http://spr.sagepub.

com/

Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation

Laura K. Guerrero and Guy F. Bachman Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2010 27: 801 DOI: 10.1177/0265407510373258 The online version of this article can be found at: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International Association for Relationship Research

Additional services and information for Journal of Social and Personal Relationships can be found at: Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/6/801.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 17, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships: An expectancyinvestment explanation

Laura K. Guerrero
Arizona State University, USA

Guy F. Bachman
California State University, Long Beach, USA

ABSTRACT

In the present study we examined how expectancy violations theory (EVT) and the investment model (IM) work together to predict forgiveness and forgiving communication. Participants completed questionnaires before and following a relational transgression. Victims reported more forgiveness if they previously rated their relationship as high in quality, made greater relational investments, and perceived the transgression as less negative. Motivation to retaliate was associated with less investment and the perception that the partner had inicted hurt intentionally. Distinct proles of EVT and IM variables were related to each form of forgiving communication nonverbal displays, explicit forgiveness, conditional forgiveness, discussion, and minimization suggesting that an expectancy investment theoretical framework is useful in predicting reactions to transgressions
KEY WORDS:

communication expectancy violation theory forgiveness forgiving communication hurt investment model relational transgression

Note. All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Laura K. Guerrero, The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 852871205, USA [e-mail: laura.guerrero@asu.edu]. Sandra Metts was the Action Editor on this article. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 27(6): 801823. DOI: 10.1177/0265407510373258
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

802

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Forgiveness plays a critical role in maintaining and repairing relationships (A, Falato, & Weiner, 2001; Fincham & Beach, 2002). As Kelley and Waldron (2005) noted, recovery from hurtful transgressions is a task faced eventually in nearly all long-term romantic partnerships (p. 339). Forgiveness is a multi-faceted process that includes thoughts, emotions, and communicative behaviors, and has implications for the future health of relationships (Metts & Cupach, 2007). Indeed, how victims forgive may be just as important as whether they grant forgiveness (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Although work on forgiveness has ourished recently, scholars still know little about why people forgive relational partners following hurtful events (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002) and even less about why people choose to communicate forgiveness in particular ways (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). The present study explicates and tests an integrative theoretical framework for predicting forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating relationships. This framework combines elements from expectancy violations theory (EVT) and the investment model (IM) with two other key variables: perceived partner intent (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002; Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti & Young, 2000) and uncertainty (A & Metts, 1998; Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Such an approach answers McCullough et al.s (1998) call for studying both offense-related and relational determinants of interpersonal forgiveness. This short-term longitudinal study investigates how variables from EVT and the IM combine to predict (i) forgiveness, (ii) motivation to retaliate, and (iii) ve types of forgiving communication (Kelley & Waldron, 2005). These associations are tested within dating relationships wherein respondents experienced at least one of three relational transgressions (i.e., sexual indelity, dating or irting, or deception) during a 12-week period. Forgiveness and forgiving communication Although no consensus has emerged, common themes have surfaced as to how to dene forgiveness. For example, Waldron and Kelley (2008) dene forgiveness as:
a relational process whereby harmful conduct is acknowledged by one or both partners; the harmed partner extends undeserved mercy to the perceived transgressor; one or both partners experience a transformation from negative to positive psychological states, and the meaning of the relationship is renegotiated, with the possibility of reconciliation (p. 19).

This denition highlights three critical components of forgiveness. First, a transgression or hurtful event must occur and be acknowledged by one or both partners (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Second, forgiveness entails the decision to extend mercy. Third, forgiveness involves emotional transformation. Essential to this transformation is that the victim no longer feels compelled to seek revenge or restitution (Boon & Sulsky, 1997; Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Some researchers contend that this transformation includes a shift toward conciliatory courses of action (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997, p. 322). As Waldron and Kelleys (2008) denition suggests,

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

803

however, forgiveness does not always involve reconciliation; it is possible to forgive someone without reconciliation, or to reconcile without forgiving. The key is that the victim (and perhaps the errant partner) is able to let go of hostile feelings and renegotiate the relationship, regardless of whether reconciliation occurs. This renegotiation process involves communication. Forgiveness can involve accepting, excusing, or minimizing the errant behavior, or it can involve rejecting and holding the partner responsible (Witvleit, Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001). Sometimes forgiveness is conditional (i.e., dependent on future behavior) and other times it is unconditional (Kelley, 1998; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). How forgiveness is communicated reects the nature of that forgiveness and helps dene (un)acceptable future behavior. Thus, forgiving communication is a critical part of the forgiveness process that deserves scholarly attention. Waldron and Kelley (2005) identied ve forms of forgiving communication: nonverbal displays (e.g., hugs or warm facial expressions), conditional forgiveness (e.g., granting forgiveness under certain terms), minimization (e.g., telling the partner not to worry about it), discussion (e.g., talking about the transgression), and explicit forgiveness (e.g., saying I forgive you). Forgiving communication is associated with relational outcomes. For example, conditional forgiveness is linked with relationship deterioration, whereas nonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness are connected to relationship recovery (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). These forms of forgiving communication may also reect peoples broader goals for renegotiation. For instance, nonverbal displays might be used to avoid confrontation, indicate that a transgression was not serious, or communicate empathy to an errant partner who feels guilty (Kelley, 1998). Conditional forgiveness may be a way to postpone decision making, restore ones pride, and reserve the right to retract forgiveness; minimizing approaches may limit peoples emotional investments; discussion may reect a desire to have detailed conversation about the transgression; and explicit forgiveness may help provide closure for both parties (Waldron & Kelley, 2005, 2008). To achieve a comprehensive understanding of forgiveness, scholars should study it as a multifaceted process. Forgiveness involves deciding to grant mercy, undergoing an emotional transformation to let go of revenge and retribution, and (sometimes) reconciling with the partner, all of which can be communicated in various ways. To better understand these components, this study tests an expectancyinvestment explanation of forgiveness and forgiving communication. Expectancy violations theory Forgiveness typically follows transgressions or hurtful events that constitute expectancy violations (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Scholars have conceptualized relational transgressions (Ayres, 1979; Metts, 1994), hurtful events (Feeney, 2005), hurtful messages (Vangelisti, 1994) and betrayals (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Finkel, & Wildschut, 2002) as acts that implicitly or explicitly violate relational expectations, rules, or norms. In dating relationships,

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

804

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

transgressions include committing sexual indelity, betraying condences, dating or irting with a third party, deceiving the partner about an important issue, forgetting a special occasion (Metts, 1994), and rejection or disassociation (Feeney, 2004, 2005; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). Such actions represent personal or relational devaluation (Leary et al., 1998; Vangelisti & Young, 2000) and violate expectations that partners should be loyal and caring. People try to make sense of expectancy violations by evaluating the violation and the person who committed it. In EVT, violation valence and reward value predict how people respond to expectancy violations (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Violation valence refers to how positively or negatively an act is evaluated in comparison to the expectancy. A highly negative expectancy violation falls far short of the expectation; a highly positive violation greatly exceeds the expectation (Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995). Although hurtful events are typically negative expectancy violations, the degree of negative valence varies across acts and relationships (Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989). Negative expectancy violations typically generate reciprocal negative communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1988), presumably including less forgiveness and forgiving communication. Similar to the concept of rewards in interdependence theories such as Rusbults (1980) IM, in EVT, reward value represents the level of benets a person is perceived to provide, including status, prestige, physical attractiveness, social attractiveness, affection, help with tasks, and material resources (Floyd, Ramiriez, & Burgoon, 2008). In EVT, highly rewarding people have more leeway to violate expectations (Le Poire & Burgoon, 1996). When highly rewarding people commit negative expectancy violations, partners may compensate by engaging in positive behavior to try and restore interactions to their previous state (Burgoon et al., 1995). Thus, EVT suggests that highly rewarding partners are likely to receive forgiveness and positive forms of forgiving communication, such as nonverbal displays. EVT also implicates uncertainty as an important variable related to hurtful events and transgressions. Events such as deception, indelity, and increased affection often produce uncertainty (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985) and have been described as expectancy violations that range from very negative to very positive (A & Metts, 1998). A and Metts operationalized uncertainty as a persons ability to predict, explain, and understand the partners behavior (see Berger & Calabrese, 1975), which is what Knobloch and Solomon (2005) refer to as partner uncertainty. Partner uncertainty and valence operate as independent constructs, thus, to obtain a full understanding of uncertainty-producing events both variables should be studied (A & Metts, 1998). Transgressions such as indelity and deception increase uncertainty and reect negative valence. When unexpected or hurtful events produce uncertainty, they generate relationship damage (A & Metts, 1998), negative communication, and/or breakup (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). Although not an explicit part of EVT, attributions about partner intent also t an expectancy violations framework (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). People respond more negatively to hurtful events when they feel their

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

805

partner intentionally hurt them (Feeney, 2004; Mills et al., 2002; Vangelisti & Young, 2000). If negative behaviors are viewed as intentional, the perpetrator is likely considered responsible, and evaluated more harshly than if the act is seen as unintentional (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987; Weiner, 1995). Boon and Sulsky (1997) reported that partner intent was a stronger predictor of blame and unwillingness to forgive than severity of offense or relationship status. The investment model Except for partner reward value, EVT variables focus on how individuals interpret hurtful events. Some have argued, however, that forgiveness is best understood within interpersonal relations (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2002; Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Consistent with this notion, Rusbults (1980, 1983) IM provides a relationship-oriented theoretical lens for examining forgiveness and forgiving communication. The IM stems from social exchange and interdependence theories (e.g., Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) and revolves around four main variables. Commitment refers to how much a person feels attached to the partner and desires to remain in the relationship. Satisfaction is the extent to which a relationship meets expectations and provides more rewards than costs (e.g., Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). Thus, the partners reward value and costs associated with hurtful events are represented in the IM. Quality of alternatives refers to the degree to which one has positive options outside of the relationship, such as dating another person or being alone (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). Finally, investment refers to resources that become attached to a relationship and would decline in value or be lost if the relationship were to end (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994, p. 119), including time, shared possessions, effort, affection, and joint social networks. The IM posits that high satisfaction, low-quality alternatives, and high investment predict commitment (Rusbult, 1983). Within the IM, commitment and satisfaction are predictors of a persons constructive or destructive communication when coping with betrayal or relational dissatisfaction (Rusbult, 1983; Guerrero & Bachman, 2008). When people experience relational betrayal, the rst instinct is to retaliate, however, after time a pro-relationship transformation can take place such that the hurtful event is reframed in the context of a committed and otherwise satisfying relationship. Following this transformation, the hurt partner can forgive, release retaliatory impulses, and communicate constructively (Finkel et al., 2002; Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). Participants in three studies (Finkel et al., 2002) reported a higher likelihood of forgiveness when primed to think about their relational commitment, even when transgression severity was considered. Initial reactions were also more negative than delayed reactions, suggesting a pro-relationship transformation. Roloff, Soule, and Carey (2001) also showed that commitment (i.e., emotional involvement) associates with constructive communication following transgressions. Kachadourian, Fincham, and Davila (2004) found a positive correlation between relational satisfaction and the general tendency to forgive ones partner.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

806

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Although Finkel et al. (2002) made a compelling case for the role of commitment in forgiveness, they did not consider other IM variables. Satisfaction and commitment both tend to generate positive responses to dissatisfying incidents in romantic relationships (e.g., Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983; Rusbult, Zembrodt, & Gunn, 1982). McCullough et al. (1998) found that relationship quality (a composite of commitment and satisfaction) correlated positively with forgiveness, and Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, and Lipkus (1991) demonstrated that satisfaction and low-quality alternatives predict constructive communication following dissatisfying events, even after controlling for commitment. Thus, it is critical to examine how commitment, satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment combine to predict forgiveness and forgiving communication. An expectancyinvestment explanation Together, EVT and the IM provide an integrative framework for examining how offense-related and relationship variables associate with forgiveness following relational transgressions. Three offense-related variables from EVT are relevant to forgiveness: negative valence, uncertainty, and partner intent. Partner reward value also likely frames reactions to transgressions by providing a starting point for evaluating the transgressor in light of their costly behavior. The IM adds relationship variables, including investment and quality of alternatives. Offense-related variables. Serious relational transgressions are characterized by negative valence, uncertainty, and perceived partner intent. Transgression severity is inversely related to forgiveness (e.g., Bennett & Earwaker, 1994; Kelley & Waldron, 2005). People often report re-evaluating hurtful events as less serious before granting forgiveness (Kelley, 1998). In line with EVT, when victims evaluate transgressions as especially negative, they should be less likely to use positive forms of forgiving communication (such as nonverbal displays or explicit communication) and more likely to engage in reciprocal patterns of negative communication (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). If victims provide forgiveness for a serious offense, they are likely to do so conditionally (Waldron & Kelley, 2005), and if the relationship is to continue, discussion may be necessary. Relationship-related variables. Research on hurtful events (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a) and forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998) has combined scales measuring relational satisfaction and commitment to assess overall relationship quality. In the present study, a principal components analysis showed that three variables came together to assess overall relationship quality: partner reward value, satisfaction, and commitment. Reward value is a key EVT construct, while commitment and satisfaction are part of the IM. A high-quality relationship likely offsets some costs generated by hurtful events and encourages relationship-constructive motivations. Thus, relationship quality is likely related to forgiveness and constructive forms of forgiving communication (e.g., nonverbal displays). Indeed, Bachman and

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

807

Guerrero (2006a) found that people with rewarding partners reported engaging in more prosocial communication after a hurtful event. Investment and alternatives are also likely to be associated with forgiveness and forgiving communication. Substantial investments may discourage revenge because doing so endangers valued resources. Instead, highly invested partners may consider it in their best interests to let go of hostile feelings, especially if the transgression is unimportant and their alternatives are poor quality. The IM suggests that having poor alternatives and being highly invested leads victims to attempt relationship maintenance, and, thus, engage in conciliatory, forgiving communication. Moreover, invested partners with low-quality alternatives are in no position to dictate a solution, so conditional forgiveness is unlikely. Overall, principles from EVT suggest that when transgressions are rated as especially costly, a reciprocity effect occurs such that victims are less likely to grant forgiveness, more likely be motivated to retaliate, and less likely to use conciliatory forms of forgiveness (e.g., nonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness). The IM suggests being in a high-quality, invested relationship with low-quality alternatives promotes more forgiveness, less motivation to retaliate, and more conciliatory communication. The following hypotheses test these reciprocity-type effects:
H1: Forgiveness is inversely associated with the offense-related variables (negative valence, uncertainty, and partner intent) and positively associated with the relationship variables (relationship quality, investments, and low-quality alternatives). H2: The motivation to retaliate is positively associated with the offenserelated variables and inversely associated with the relationship variables. H3: Nonverbal forgiveness displays are inversely associated with the offense-related variables and positively associated with the relationship variables. H4: Explicit forgiveness is inversely associated with the offense-related variables and positively associated with the relationship variables.

The reality of transgressions is often more complex than these predictions suggest as high-cost transgressions sometimes occur in previously rewarding relationships. In this case, forgiveness may only occur following extended discussion and/or if conditions are met. People are likely to use discussion to provide closure or relationship renegotiation (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Victims may be most likely to use conditional forgiveness when the relationship was previously satisfying, and, therefore, worth repairing, but only if they are assured that the transgression will not occur again. This reasoning leads to the next two hypotheses:
H5: Conditional forgiveness is positively associated with the offense-related variables and the relationship variables. H6: Discussion as forgiving communication is positively associated with the offense-related variables and the relationship variables.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

808

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Finally, minimization is only likely in certain circumstances. First, minimization is unlikely if victims evaluate the transgression as costly. Second, minimization may be likely when victims feel dependent on their relationship (i.e., low-quality alternatives and/or high investments). The association between relationship quality and minimization is less clear. On the one hand, minimization may be more likely in happy, committed relationships because partners are willing to let go of certain issues for the good of the relationship. On the other hand, satised partners may be more likely to acknowledge wrongdoing, take responsibility for their actions, and renegotiate the relationship. The transgressions cost may interact with relationship quality, such that people in high-quality relationships are more likely to minimize mild transgressions, but less likely to do so if the transgression is severe. As such, the following hypothesis and research question are advanced:
H7: Minimization as a form of forgiving communication is inversely associated with the offense-related variables and positively associated with investment and low-quality alternatives. R1: Does relational quality associate with minimization and/or interact with negative valence to predict minimization?

Method Participants and procedures In exchange for extra credit, undergraduate students from communication classes at a large Southwestern US university were invited to participate in a two-phase study if they were currently involved in a serious dating relationship. Phase One involved completing the relationship-related measures and was conducted early in a 16-week semester. Participants downloaded a questionnaire, completed it, and returned it to the primary investigator. Participants included a number (two digits from their home phone number and the last two digits of their social security number) so Phase One data could be matched with Phase Two data. Phase Two involved offense- and forgiveness-related variables and was conducted near the end of the same semester. Participants were instructed to download the target questionnaire if they had experienced sexual indelity, deception, or dating or irting with a third party in the dating relationship they described in Phase One. To obtain a sufcient sample of respondents completing Phase Two measures, procedures were repeated across three semesters, with 1,109 individuals completing Phase One measures and 221 participants (98 men, 123 women; average age 22.1 years, range 1949) providing usable Phase Two data. Average dating relationship length at Phase One was 10.2 months (range 2 months to 5 years). Participants described themselves as 73.8% White, 6.3% Mexican-American/Hispanic, 5.5% Asian American, 2.5%%, African-American, and 11.7% other. Reliabilities and correlations between all Phase One and Phase Two measures are presented in Table 1.
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

TABLE 1 Reliabilities and correlations among variables

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

1. Relationship quality 2. Investment 3. Low-quality alternatives 4. Negative valence 5. Partner uncertainty 6. Perceived intent 7. Degree of forgiveness 8. Motivation to retaliate 9. Nonverbal displays 10. Explicit forgiveness 11. Conditional forgiveness 12. Discussion 13. Minimization .91 .47*** .34*** .40*** .27*** .34*** .37*** .16* .17* .42*** .85 .08 .12 .03 .10 .09 .26*** <.01 .21** .87 .21** .87 .25*** .25*** .83 .15* .48*** .01 .09 .52*** .10 .10 .13 .29*** .11 .33*** .06 .28*** .32*** .03 .79 .56*** .32*** .45*** .51***

.97 .33*** .86 .29*** .21** .84 .16* .11 .18* .03 .15* .10 .31*** .05 .06 .31*** .13 .16* .22** .17* .19** .30*** .19* .30*** .32*** .14* .31*** .34*** .21** .16* .21** .25*** .34*** .29*** .06 .24**

.91 .37*** .42*** .49*

.86 .33*** .22***

.89 .43***

.90

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Note. Reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha statistic) are shown in bold on the diagonal. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tailed.

809

810

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Phase One measurement A principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation was conducted to determine the factor structure for items used in the scales measuring reward value, satisfaction, commitment, investment, and quality of alternatives. Three components emerged (contact author for details). Items from the reward value, satisfaction, and commitment scales loaded on the rst component. Items for quality of alternatives and investment loaded on the second and third components, respectively. Therefore, three relationshiprelated variables were constructed: overall relationship quality, investment, and quality of alternatives. Relationship quality Relationship quality was assessed by 19 items (M= 5.13, SD= 1.04). Seven items from Sprecher (2000) assessed partner reward value using seven-point items (1 = not at all, 7 = very; e.g., How rewarding is your partner in comforting and being supportive of you?). Seven items from Rusbult, Martz, and Agnews (1998) Investment Model Scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) measured commitment (e.g., I want our relationship to last for a very long time) and ve items measured relationship satisfaction (e.g., Our relationship makes me very happy). For satisfaction, participants completed facet items (specic relationships characteristics) before completing these ve global items (more general feelings and attitudes) although only the global items were retained to measure satisfaction (Rusbult et al., 1998). Investment and quality of alternatives. After answering a series of facet questions, participants completed seven-point (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly) global items of quality of alternatives (ve items, M = 4.22, SD = 1.39; e.g., If I werent dating my partner, I would do ne I would nd another appealing person to date) and investment (ve items, M = 5.12, SD = 1.22; e.g., I have put a great deal into our relationship that I would lose if the relationship were to end). Quality of alternatives items were coded so that higher numbers indicated low-quality alternatives. Therefore, all relationship variables were coded so that high scores indicated a desire to stay in their relationship. Phase Two measurement Phase Two measures focused on the type of transgression, forgiveness toward the partner, motivation to retaliate, and the type of forgiving communication (if any) used. A principal component analysis of negative valence, uncertainty, and partner intent items supported their use as separate scales. Similarly, conrmatory factor analysis (details are available from the authors upon request) demonstrated that the ve types of forgiving communication were separate but related constructs. Type of transgression. Respondents indicated which transgression had occurred: (i) the partner was sexually unfaithful [n = 63; 30 women, 33 men],

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

811

(ii) the partner was attracted to, dated, or irted with a third party [n = 84; 50 women, 34 men], or (iii) the partner deceived the participant about something important [n = 74; 44 women, 30 men]. If more than one transgression occurred, participants indicated the most serious transgression. Respondents reported how long ago they learned of the transgression (M = 5.9 weeks, range = 112 weeks). Offense-related variables. The three offense-related variables were all measured with Likert-type scales (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree) reported by Bachman and Guerrero (2006a). The hurtful incidents negative valence was assessed with four items (e.g., This is one of the worst things my partner could have done or said to me; M = 5.28, SD = 1.63). Partner uncertainty was measured with ve items (e.g., Following this event, I felt that I knew my partner a lot less than I thought; M = 4.49, SD = 1.70). Finally, perceived partner intent was comprised of 3 items (e.g., My partner meant to hurt me; M = 3.62, SD = 1.58). Forgiveness. Measurement of forgiveness included both the decision to forgive and the motivation to retaliate, both using Likert-type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Degree of forgiveness was measured with three items, two of which were used by Bachman and Guerrero (2006b) (M = 4.22, SD = 1.83; e.g., I have forgiven my partner for hurting me). Motivation to retaliate was measured using the revenge-seeking subscale of McCullough et al.s (1998) Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM) scale. This subscale includes ve items (M = 2.63, SD = 1.64; e.g., I wanted to get even). Forgiving communication. The ve forms of forgiving communication were measured using Waldron and Kelleys (2005) scales for assessing nonverbal displays of forgiveness (M = 2.72, SD = 2.01, four items; e.g., I gave my partner a look that communicated forgiveness); conditional forgiveness (M = 2.63, SD = 1.91; three items; e.g., I told my partner I would forgive her or him but only if things changed); and minimization (M = 2.34, SD = 1.84; three items; e.g., I told my partner it was no big deal). To measure discussion, we utilized the two items reported by Waldron and Kelley (e.g., I discussed the transgression with my partner) along with a new item (I talked to my partner about what happened, M = 3.09, SD = 2.02). Finally, we added two items (I said I forgive you or something similar, I was direct in telling my partner I forgave her or him) to Waldron and Kelleys (2005) single item measure of explicit forgiveness (I told my partner I forgave her or him, M = 3.06, SD = 2.01). Participants were asked to think about how they communicated forgiveness, if at all, before completing items. All items used the following scale: 0 = not used at all; 4 = used moderately; and 7 = used extensively.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

812

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Results The hypotheses and RQ1 were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. Before conducting regression analyses, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) determined whether forgiveness and forgiving communication differed across transgression types. Signicant differences emerged for motivation to retaliate, F(2,218) = 5.33, p < .01, 2 = .06; conditional forgiveness, F(2,218) = 3.21, p < .05, 2 = .03; and explicit forgiveness, F(2,218) = 3.61, p < .05, 2 = .04 (see Table 2). In addition, t-tests demonstrated that there were no signicant sex differences on any of the seven forgiveness-related measures.
TABLE 2 Means and (standard deviations) for forgiveness and forgiving communication
Sexual indelity Motivation to retaliate Conditional forgiveness Explicit forgiveness 3.01 (1.81)a 3.41 (1.84)a 2.47 (2.11)a Dating/irting 2.70 (1.60)ab 2.78 (2.01)bb 3.15 (2.15)bb Deception 2.13 (1.57)b 2.72 (1.78)b 3.46 (2.08)b

Note.Tukey-B range tests ( p < .05) showed that means marked by different superscripts in each row were signicantly different from each other.

Overall degree of forgiveness To test H1, relationship-related variables were entered into Step 1 of a hierarchical regression. This block of variables signicantly predicted forgiveness, F(3,217) = 7.31, p < .001, R = .30, adj. R2 = .08. Adding offense-related variables into Step 2 improved the model signicantly, F(6,214) = 10.45, p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2 = .21, Fchange = 11.96, p < .001. H1 received partial support. As predicted, participants reported granting greater levels of forgiveness when they perceived the transgression as less negative, had made considerable relationship investments, and had low-quality alternatives (see Table 3). Motivation to retaliate H2 was tested using a similar hierarchical regression, except that transgression type was entered into Step 1, F(1,219) = 10.39, p < .001, R = .21, adj. R2 = .04. The relationship variables entered into Step 2 signicantly improved the model, F(4,216) = 5.77, p < .001, R = .31, adj. R2 = .08, Fchange = 4.08, p < .01, as did the offense-related variables entered into Step 3, F(7,213) = 5.33, p < .001, R = .40, adj. R2 = .13, Fchange = 7.68, p < .001. H2 received partial support as people reported a stronger motivation to retaliate when they had made fewer relational investments (as reported in Phase One) and perceived that their partner hurt them intentionally (see Table 3).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

813

TABLE 3 Regression analysis results for the nal models predicting degree of forgiveness and motivation to retaliate
Degree of forgiveness Predictor variables Transgression type Relationship quality Low-quality alternatives Investment Negative valence Uncertainty Perceived intent .21 .06 .15 .40 .05 .01 t 2.82*** .85 2.35* 5.36*** .78 .19 Motivation to retaliate .20 .03 .11 .16 .02 .02 .17 t 2.92** .40 1.49 1.99* .26 .29 2.09*

Note. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05, two-tailed.

Forgiving communication To test the hypotheses and research question about forgiving communication, the overall degree of forgiveness was entered into Step 1 of each regression model. If the form of forgiving communication differed as a function of transgression type, then it was also entered into Step 1, followed by relationship variables into Step 2, and offense-related variables into Step 3. Nonverbal displays. For H3, forgiveness was a strong predictor of nonverbal displays in Step 1, F(1,219) = 83.64, p < .001, R = .52, adj. R2 = .27. Relationship variables improved the model signicantly, F(4,216) = 5.77, p < .001, R = .57, adj. R2 = .31, Fchange = 5.41, p < .001, as did offense-related variables, F(7,213) = 18.88, p < .001, R = .62, adj. R2 = .33, Fchange = 3.43, p < .05. H2 was partially supported, as participants reported more nonverbal forgiveness displays when they previously had low-quality alternatives and the event was not valenced very negatively (see Table 4). Explicit forgiveness. For H4, both forgiveness and transgression type were entered into Step 1. To match ANOVA results, contrast codes for transgression type were +2 for sexual indelity and 1 for the other two transgression types. The rst block was signicant, F(2,218) = 58.70, p < .001, R = .58, adj. R2 = .32. Relationship variables made a signicant contribution in Step 2, F(5,215) = 27.93, p < .001, R = .62, adj. R2 = .38, Fchange = 5.50, p = .001, as did offense-related variables added in Step 3, F(8,212) = 19.48, p < .001, R = .65, adj. R2 = .40, Fchange = 2.63, p < .05. Partial support was obtained for H4, with people reporting more explicit forgiveness when they previously rated their relationship as high in quality, their alternatives as low, and when the hurtful event was not valenced very negatively (see Table 4). Conditional forgiveness. For H5, transgression type (codes of +2 for indelity and 1 for the other two types) was entered along with degree of

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

814

TABLE 4 Regression analysis results for the nal models predicting forms of forgiving communication
Explicit forgiveness Discussion t 3.84*** 3.77*** .44 2.45* .74 .85 .21 .26 .27 .03 .16 .06 .06 .01 t 2.15* 8.13*** 2.18* 2.76** .87 2.13* 1.04 .86 .15 .02 .15 .21 .20 .16 .32 .16 2.10* .19 1.88+ 2.75** 2.75* 1.74+ 4.33*** 1.89+ t .12 .49 .15 .17 .05 .16 .06 .05 Conditional forgiveness Minimization .21 .22 .16 .10 .35 .02 .02 t 3.01* 2.47* 2.18* 1.48 4.37*** .26 .23

Nonverbal displays

Predictor variables

Transgression type Degree of forgiveness Relationship quality Low-quality alternatives Investment Negative valence Uncertainty Perceived intent

.42 .24 .16 .09 .16 .03 .03

6.69*** .81 2.48** 1.47 2.01* .50 .48

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, two-tailed; +p < .05, one-tailed.

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

815

forgiveness in Step 1, F(2,218) = 3.23, p < .05, R = .17, adj. R2 = .02. Adding the relationship variables in Step 2 improved the model, F(5,215) = 3.96, p < .01, R = .29, adj. R2 = .05, Fchange = 4.43, p < .01, as did adding the offenserelated variables in Step 3, F(8,212) = 5.56, p < .001, R = .42, adj. R2 = .14, Fchange = 7.62, p < .001. Fully supporting H5, all relationship- and offenserelated variables were positively associated with conditional forgiveness (see Table 4). Specically, people reported more conditional forgiveness when they had previously viewed their relationship positively (high quality, high investments, and low alternatives) and they rated the transgression as costly (negatively valenced, intentional, and especially uncertainty producing). Discussion-based forgiveness. For H6, forgiveness was entered into Step 1, F(1,219) = 27.22, p < .001, R = .33, adj. R2 = .11; relationship-related variables were entered into Step 2, F(4,216) = 14.91, p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2 = .20, Fchange = 9.72, p < .001; and offense-related variables into Step 3, F(7,213)= 8.56, p < .001, R = .47, adj. R2= .20, Fchange = .003, p > .05. Offenserelated variables did not improve the model. Partial support for H6 emerged with people reporting more discussion-based forgiveness when they had previously reported making considerable investments into a high-quality relationship (see Table 4). Minimization. A preliminary test of H7 and R1 included a relationship quality by negative valence interaction term. It was dropped from the model, however, because it was nonsignificant. The final hierarchical model for H7 and R1 showed that forgiveness was a signicant predictor in Step 1, F(1,219) = 25.37, p < .001, R = .32, adj. R2 = .10. In Step 2, relationshiprelated variables added signicantly to the model, F(4,265) = 8.93, p < .001, R = .38, adj. R2 = .13, Fchange = 3.20, p < .05, as did offense-related variables added in Step 3, F(7,213) = 9.41, p < .001, R = .49, adj. R2 = .21, Fchange = 8.76, p < .001. Partially supporting H7, people recalled using minimization if they had reported poor quality alternatives in Phase One, and if they had not perceived the transgression very negatively in Phase Two. Relevant to R1, people were somewhat less likely to use minimization if they had rated their relationship as high in quality at Phase One (see Table 4). Discussion Results indicate the utility of EVT and IM concepts for studying forgiveness and its communication following hurtful events in dating relationships. The central offense-related concept from Burgoons EVT, negative valence, was the most consistent predictor of forgiveness and forgiving communication. Indeed, perceptions of negative valence were inversely related to the degree of forgiveness, nonverbal displays, explicit forgiveness, and minimization, and positively related to conditional forgiveness. Uncertainty, which is more tangential to EVT, was associated positively with conditional forgiveness. Finally, the perception that the partner intentionally inicted hurt was

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

816

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

positively associated with being motivated to retaliate and to communicate forgiveness with conditions. Because participants completed offense-related measures and forgivenessrelated measures at the same time, one might assume that these associations would be stronger than those between relationship measures and forgiveness-related measures (since the relationship measures were collected about 3 months earlier). In fact, relationship variables signicantly predicted outcomes more times (12 to 8) when compared with offense-related variables. Relationship variables are critically important to understanding forgiveness. Even though people likely re-evaluated their relationships following the hurtful event, how they interpreted the relationship 3 months earlier signicantly predicted reported levels of forgiveness and its communication. Patterns of forgiveness and communication following hurtful events In addition to afrming the importance of both offense- and relationshiprelated variables, both the present and past data provide insight into patterns of communication that may follow hurtful events in dating relationships. These patterns, consistent with EVT and IM principles, center upon the combination of offense- and relationship-related variables (see Figure 1). The conciliatory pattern. This pattern appeared when the hurtful event was not very costly (i.e., less negatively valenced, producing less uncertainty, and/or perceived as less intentional) and the pre-transgression relationship was evaluated positively (i.e., high quality, high investments, and/or lowFIGURE 1 Communication patterns following hurtful events

Offense-related evaluation Mild Severe

Positive Pre-transgression relationship evaluation Mixed or negative

Conciliatory pattern

Conditional pattern

Minimizing pattern

Retaliatory pattern

Note. Positive pre-transgression relationship evaluations are comprised of high relationship quality, high investment, and low-quality alternatives. Mixed pre-transgression relationship evaluations occur when some of these assessments are positive and others are negative (e.g., low relationship quality and low-quality alternatives).

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

817

quality alternatives). In these circumstances, participants reported forgiving their partner and engaging in nonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness. This conciliatory pattern is consistent with the EVT prediction that people will try to restore previous intimacy levels when negative expectancy violations are mild and the partner is highly rewarding. The IM also predicts that forgiveness and accommodation are likely in the context of a previously (or otherwise) satisfying and committed relationship (Finkel et al., 2002; Rusbult et al., 1994). Past research also supports this conciliatory pattern. For example, Bachman and Guerrero (2006a) found that victims were more likely to report constructive communication following hurtful events that were relatively mild and were committed by rewarding partners. The conciliatory pattern also reects reciprocity. When the transgression is mild and the relationship rewarding, victims feel freer to forgive and accommodate partners. Low levels of negative valence may anchor these reciprocal responses since it was the only variable predictive of all conciliatory responses (i.e., forgiveness, nonverbal displays, and explicit forgiveness). Quality of alternatives is also important in this pattern, as participants with poor alternatives reported engaging in more nonverbal displays and explicit forgiveness. This is important because the IM suggests that having poor-quality alternatives keeps people committed to (and, at times, dependent on) their partner, and that people in satisfying relationships often downgrade alternatives as a form of relationship maintenance (Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1994). When victims believe they have quality alternatives, they may opt for them instead of repairing a relationship harmed by a transgression. Thus, having poor-quality alternatives may facilitate conciliation. Similarly, high relationship quality may be an important predictor of the conciliatory pattern. High relationship quality may help compensate for the costs associated with hurtful events, especially if the relationship has afforded the victim with many rewarding experiences in the past. Importantly, the longitudinal nature of this study eliminates explanations centered on recall bias as justifying why victims granted forgiveness. Instead, it seems that having a high-quality relationship can act as a buffer against the damage inicted by a transgression. The retaliatory pattern. Retaliation also reects reciprocity. If a transgression is costly and the relationship previously relatively unrewarding and/or uncommitted, the victim is likely to reciprocate negativity by withholding forgiveness and conciliatory forms of forgiving communication, and instead enacting destructive communication. In the present study, a stronger motivation to retaliate existed when participants were less invested in their relationship and felt that their partner intentionally hurt them. Although the present study only included motivations to retaliate, Bachman and Guerrero (2006a) demonstrated that people are likely to report actually using destructive communication following very hurtful events by unrewarding partners. In the present study, the motivation to retaliate was predicted by three variables: transgression type, investment, and perceived partner intent. Stronger desires to retaliate were reported when partners committed sexual

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

818

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

indelity (the most serious transgression investigated). Sexual indelity is especially negative, extremely hurtful, causes considerable uncertainty, and is difcult to forgive (A & Metts, 1998; Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a, 2006b). Investments were negatively associated with retaliation motivations. People highly invested in relationships are less motivated to seek revenge because doing so would place their relationship, and investments, in jeopardy. Finally, motivation to retaliate increased when the partner was thought to have acted intentionally. Research on hurtful events (Feeney, 2004) and hurtful messages (Vangelisti & Young, 2000) has demonstrated that victims report more relational damage and less relationship satisfaction, respectively, when they perceive that hurt was inicted intentionally. In one study, partner intent was more strongly related to destructive and vengeful communication than were valence or partner reward value (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006a). When the partners are thought to have inicted hurt intentionally, retaliation may seem more justied and victims may be more likely to de-escalate or terminate their relationships, in part because they worry that the partner could repeat such deliberate actions in the future. The conditional pattern. Viewed through an interdependence lens, such as the IM, the conciliatory pattern is likely to occur when rewards are perceived to exceed costs even after considering the transgression. Conversely, the retaliatory pattern occurs when costs are thought to exceed rewards. The conditional pattern, however, may be most likely when rewards and costs are both high and the victim worries that costs might eventually outweigh rewards. In the present study, conditional forgiveness was reported when victims experienced a costly transgression in a relationship that was previously evaluated very positively. Conditional forgiveness was unique as it was predicted by all relationship variables and all offense-related variables. Specically, greater conditional forgiveness was reported when victims previously rated their relationship as high in quality and investments, but had poor-quality alternatives. Victims were also likely to report conditional forgiveness if they rated the transgression as negative (see also Waldron & Kelley, 2005), uncertainty producing, and intentional. According to the IM, people should desire to maintain previously satisfying and committed relationships; however, when a costly event occurs, the immediate tendency is to retaliate rather than repair (Rusbult et al., 1994). EVT principles predict that when people experience a negative expectancy violation, they usually reciprocate by engaging in negative behavior, but they may also compensate if the partner is very rewarding. So how do people deal with conicting motivations to retaliate and repair? The benets accrued from being in a relationship encourage repair, but following a costly transgression, victims might want to retaliate or disengage. Conditional forgiveness, often a temporary or trial forgiveness, can balance these motives. If the partner errs again, forgiveness may be withdrawn. Therefore, while being forgiving, the victim reserves the right to be unforgiving in the future. Conditional forgiveness may also depend upon the
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

819

transgressor making promises or amends. Such promises are likely necessary for the victim to believe that rewards will continue to outweigh costs. Thus, conditional forgiveness may signal that the relationship is near a tipping point. Waldron and Kelley (2005) found that people who forgive with conditions are less likely to see their relationships strengthen or recover. In the present study, conditional forgiveness was the only form of forgiving communication not positively related to forgiveness. It may represent an intermediate position between true forgiveness and forgoing forgiveness altogether. Along these lines, uncertainty was the strongest predictor of conditional forgiveness. Victims who forgive conditionally are likely to be suspicious about the partners future behavior. The minimizing pattern. Based on the accumulated data, the nal pattern is the most tenuous, but nonetheless, is likely related to a unique cluster of relationship- and offense-related variables. Minimization was reported more often when the transgression was rated as low in negative valence, which is not surprising because minimizing involves letting the offending partner know that the transgression is not that big of a deal. Minimization was also associated with having low-quality alternatives. This is consistent with the IM notion that when people have poor-quality alternatives, they are less stringent toward their current relational partner and may even feel trapped in their current relationship (Rusbult, 1983). Thus, they may endure and even trivialize some transgressions because they have no better alternatives. This nding may also relate to the chilling effect (Roloff & Cloven, 1990; Solomon, Knobloch, & Fitzpatrick, 2004), which suggests that people sometimes avoid speaking up about dissatisfying relational events if they fear losing their partner. A complex association emerged between relationship quality and minimization. Although the bivariate correlation between these variables was positive, the association became negative in the regression analysis when the inuence of other variables was controlled. Thus, in situations where people have forgiven their partners for a relatively mild transgression in a relationship characterized by low-quality alternatives, relationship quality is inversely associated with minimization. This association could reect larger communication patterns. People in satisfying, committed, and rewarding relationships may acknowledge wrongdoing and directly discuss problems in a disclosive manner, even when they are relatively minor. Waldron and Kelleys (2008) denition of forgiveness suggests that people need to admit wrongdoing in order to discuss the transgression and re-negotiate the relationship. In some cases, then, minimization may lead to decreased satisfaction if problems remain unresolved. The broader pattern of communication in this case has unhappy couples less likely to directly face and discuss hurtful events. In contrast, in the present study, victims who were invested in high-quality relationships reported discussion as a mode of forgiveness. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions The present studys limitations suggest avenues for future research. First, the present study examined only victims perceptions of communication. Future
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

820

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

research should study forgiveness from the errant partners perspective, and also collect dyadic data to gain further understanding of the complex forgiveness process. Second, other positive or negative events likely occurred between Phase One and Phase Two. For example, some victims experienced more than one hurtful event, whereas others may have experienced a number of positive events that helped counterbalance the costly transgression. The number and type of positive versus negative events may be a critical variable. Third, although there was some diversity, the present studys ndings are limited to mostly white young adult dating couples where at least one partner was attending college. Results may not generalize to other samples (e.g., older, noncollege, married couples). The extent to which ndings generalize to different demographic groups is unknown. If using similar longitudinal designs, it may be productive for scholars to collect baseline data at Phase One, such as a persons general tendency to forgive. It would also be interesting to compare how people think they would communicate forgiveness before the fact with how they report actually communicating forgiveness after the fact. Future research on forgiveness should also further explore the four forgiveness patterns: conciliatory, retaliatory, conditional, and minimizing. Although the present study assessed only motivation to retaliate, future work should include reports of destructive and vengeful communication. Other types of communication may also characterize these patterns. For example, victims may use Rusbult et al.s (1982) neglect strategy, where they passively wait to see whether conditions deteriorate. More work is also needed to identify the conditions imposed in conditional forgiveness. Finally, as the present study focused on variables related to the relationship and the offense, future research should examine how the offending partner communicates about the transgression, as well as how the hurt individual learns of the transgression. For example, forgiveness is facilitated by apologies and concessions (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006b; Boon & Sulsky, 1997) and may be more likely if the partner confesses freely rather than getting caught in the act or confessing after being questioned (A et al., 2001). Examining these variables in addition to the EVT and IM variables explored here may provide a fuller account of forgiveness and forgiving communication.

REFERENCES A, W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of indelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291308. A, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365392. Ayres, J. (1979). Uncertainty and social penetration theory expectations about relationship communication. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 43, 192200. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006a). An expectancy violations analysis of relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943963.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

821

Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006b). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 4556. Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 457465. 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, 99112. Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997). Attributions of blame and forgiveness in romantic relationships: A policy-capturing study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 1944. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 5879. Burgoon, J. K., Newton, D. A., Walther, J. B., & Baesler, E. J. (1989). Nonverbal expectancy violations and conversational involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 97120. Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York, Cambridge University Press. Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go: A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 6287. Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Toward integrative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487508. Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253271. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). Cognitive processes and conict in close relationships: An attribution-efcacy model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 11061118. Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.R. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239251. Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956974. Floyd, K., Ramirez,A., & Burgoon, J. K. (2008). Expectancy violations theory. In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito, & M. L. Hecht (Eds.), The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (3rd ed., pp. 503510). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2008). Communication following relational transgressions in dating relationships: An investment model explanation. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 423. Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 11, 373393. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Kelley, D. (1998). Communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 255271. Kelley, D. L, & Waldron, V. R. (2005). An investigation of forgiveness-seeking communication and relational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 53, 339358. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2005). Relational uncertainty and relational information processing. Communication Research, 32, 349388. Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 12251237. Le Poire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Usefulness of differentiating arousal responses within communication theories: Orienting response or defensive arousal within nonverbal theories of expectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 63, 208230. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr, Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 15861603. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321336.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

822

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(6)

Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 217240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger, and sometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 243274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent perceptions of hurtful messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 723746. Planalp. S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593604. Roloff, M. E., & Cloven, D. H. (1990). The chilling effect in interpersonal relationships: The reluctance to speak ones mind. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Intimates in conict: A communication perspective (pp. 4976). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roloff, M. E., Soule, K. P., & Carey, C. M. (2001). Reasons for remaining in a relationship and responses to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 362385. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172186. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101117. Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Finkel E. J., & Wildschut, T. (2002). The war of the Roses: An interdependence analysis of betrayal and forgiveness. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 251281). New York: Cambridge University Press. 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, 357391. Rusbult, C. E, Olsen, N., Davis, J. L,. & Hannon, P.A. (2001). Commitment and relationships mechanisms. In J.H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp.87113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 5378. Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 274293. Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 12301242. Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Relational power, marital schema, and decisions to withhold complaints: An investigation of the chilling effect of confrontation in marriage. Communication Studies, 55, 146167. Sprecher, S. (2000). Equity and social exchange in dating relationships: Associations with satisfaction, commitment and stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 599616. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 5382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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, 393424.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012

Guerrero & Bachman: Forgiving communication

823

Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723742. Waldron, V. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press. Witvliet, C. V., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12, 117123.

Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at MUDRA INST COMMUNICATIONS on September 5, 2012