Darker Side of Relationships

03 Kowalski (to) 9/7/03 12:23 pm Page 471
Lying, cheating, complaining, and

other aversive interpersonal
behaviors: A narrative
examination of the darker side of
relationships
Robin M. Kowalski
Clemson University
Sherri Walker, Rachel Wilkinson, Adam Queen, & Brian

Sharpe
Western Carolina University
ABSTRACT
People do a lot of mean and nasty things to one another.
Collectively, these behaviors are referred to as aversive inter-
personal behaviors. To examine the structural elements of
different aversive interpersonal behaviors and individual
differences in perceptions of those behaviors, 96 male and
149 female students each wrote a victim narrative and a
perpetrator narrative about one of seven aversive behaviors:
betrayal, lying, improprieties, teasing, complaining, arro-
gance, and dependency. Significant victim/perpetrator differ-
ences were obtained, but, importantly, they were influenced
by the particular aversive behavior being examined. Relative
to perpetrators, victims perceived betrayal, lying, teasing, and
arrogance more negatively. Victims and perpetrators did not
differ in their evaluations of complaining and dependency. In
addition, differences among victims and among perpetrators
were obtained such that victims evaluated the behaviors of
betrayal, lying, and arrogance as more aversive than the other
behaviors. Perpetrators reported feeling more guilt when they
had perpetrated a betrayal than when they had complained or
engaged in excessive reassurance-seeking. Implications of
these differences for relationships are discussed.
KEY WORDS: aversiveness narratives relationships
The authors would like to thank Tom Britt and Mark Leary for their helpful comments on an
earlier version of this article. All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Robin M. Kowalski, Department of Psychology, Brackett Hall, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634, USA [e-mail: rkowals@clemson.edu]. Sandra Metts was the Action Editor
on this article.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright 2003 SAGE Publications
(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 20(4): 471490. [02654075 (200308) 20:4; 034146]
472 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)
People do a lot of mean and nasty things to one another. They criticize, nag,
betray, lie, disappoint, ostracize, embarrass, and tease, to name just a few.
Collectively, we refer to these types of behaviors as aversive interpersonal
behaviors (Kowalski, 1997a, 2001a). Although people also perpetrate other
types of aversive behaviors, such as emotional and physical abuse, in this
article we use the phrase aversive interpersonal behaviors to refer to those
more mundane behaviors to which people are exposed on a more regular
and frequent basis (Kowalski, 2001a).
With few exceptions, these mundane types of aversive behavior occur
most frequently within the context of intimate relationships, such as those
with family, friends, and romantic partners. Ironically, the relationships that
people initially seek out so eagerly become the source of much of their life
stress. Indeed, conflicts with others are ranked as one of the most signifi-
cant daily stressors that people encounter (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, &
Schilling, 1989), and peoples interpersonal difficulties are one of the main
reasons they seek therapy (Horowitz, 1986; Rook, 1998).
The prevalence of aversive interpersonal behaviors is illustrated with
data showing that On any given day, 44% of us are likely to be annoyed
by a close relational partner. . . . On average, young adults encounter 8.7
aggravating hassles in their romantic relationships each week . . . and every
seven days most young adults will be distressed by different encounters with
a lovers (a) criticism, (b) stubbornness, (c) selfishness, and (d) lack of
conscientiousness, at least once . . . (Miller, 1997, p. 15).
In spite of the prevalence of aversive behaviors, only in the last decade
has systematic research attention been devoted to them (see Cupach &
Spitzberg, 1994; Kowalski, 1997a, 2001b; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998). Even
then, when researchers have examined aversive interpersonal behaviors,
their approach has tended to be piecemeal, focusing on a specific aversive
behavior (e.g., teasing) without examining how that behavior compares in
aversiveness to other relational transgressions. Thus, one purpose of the
present study was to examine the structural features of different aversive
episodes and their consequences for individuals and their relationships with
others.
However, not surprisingly, peoples perceptions of the aversiveness of
behaviors vary. For example, two people who are teased may have very
different reactions to being teased, with one viewing the teasing as good-
natured and funny and the other reacting to the tease with tears and hurt
feelings. Similarly, whereas some people are seemingly so habituated to
their partners breaches of propriety that they seem not to notice, others
are deeply offended when their partner continually burps in public (Miller,
2001).
Nowhere are variations in peoples reactions to others aversive inter-
personal behaviors more apparent than when discussing victims and perpe-
trators perceptions of aversiveness. Relative to victims, perpetrators
diminish the negative impact of their behavior, view the behaviors more
innocuously, perceive the behavior as rationally motivated, and see the
consequences of their behavior as more circumscribed (Baumeister, 1997;
Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 473
Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Besag, 1989; Jones, Moore, Schrat-
ter, & Negel, 2001; Kowalski, 2000; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, &
Evans, 1998). Given the consistency with which victims and perpetrators
appear to differ in their perceptions of aversive interpersonal behaviors, a
second purpose of the present study was to compare the perceptions of
victims and perpetrators across seven types of aversive behaviors. Do
victims and perpetrators reliably differ in their perceptions of aversiveness
(e.g., how negative an aversive behavior is, how annoying the aversive
behavior is, and how hurtful an aversive behavior is) regardless of the
specific behavior being examined or do victims form more negative percep-
tions than perpetrators of only certain behaviors?
We hypothesize that the different perceptions of victims and perpetrators
will depend on the specific aversive behavior being examined, with some
aversive behaviors leading to wide discrepancies in the perceptions of
victims and perpetrators. Other behaviors, however, are expected to show
few differences in the evaluations of victims and perpetrators. Three
reasons account for this hypothesis. First, although all the behaviors inves-
tigated in this study share certain features in common that qualify them as
aversive interpersonal behaviors (see Kowalski, 1997b, 2001a, for a more
complete discussion of variables that influence perceived aversiveness),
some of the behaviors are more direct (i.e., directed at the victim) than
others. For example, betrayals, lies, and teases are behaviors that are
directed at the victim. In other words, perpetrators betray victims, lie to
victims, and tease victims. In contrast, other behaviors, such as complain-
ing or breaches of propriety, may be more indirect. The perpetrator may
complain to the victim, not about anything that the victim has done, but
about something that someone else has done. Breaches of propriety may
be enacted in the presence of another person, but not directed toward or
necessarily meant to offend that person. Clearly, the directness with which
a behavior is perpetrated against a victim will influence the victims percep-
tion of just how aversive a behavior is and how damaging the consequences
of that behavior are to the individual and to his or her relationship with the
perpetrator. More direct behaviors will produce more negative evaluations
of the behaviors by victims than indirect behaviors. Relatedly, perpetrators
would be expected to feel more guilt and to believe that the victim was
more hurt by direct than indirect behaviors. Being overly dependent on the
victim, for example, may make the perpetrator feel bad, but presumably not
to the same degree that teasing the victim in a malicious way does.
Second, aversive behaviors differ in the degree to which they are
perceived by victims as indicative of relational devaluation and, thus, the
degree to which they precipitate hurt feelings. Relational devaluation refers
to the degree to which people feel that others do not value them as much
as they once did or as much as desired (Leary et al., 1998). Most people
would perceive betrayal, lying, and teasing as indicative of relational deval-
uation. In other words, people betray us, lie to us, and maliciously tease us
when they no longer value their relationship with us as much as they once
did (Leary et al., 1998). In response to such behaviors, people feel hurt.
Similarly, arrogance conveys that the perpetrator views himself or herself

as better than the victim, thereby conveying relational devaluation to the
victim. However, people complaining to us about their miserable job or
someone constantly seeking our reassurance is not necessarily indicative of
relational devaluation and, therefore, has fewer negative implications for
the self or the self in relation to others. Indeed, in spite of their aversive-
ness, such behaviors may actually reflect favorable relational evaluations to
the degree that the perpetrator puts his or her trust in us. Importantly,
perpetrators may not perceive that their behaviors indicate either relational
devaluation or favorable relational evaluation, accounting for some of the
extreme differences in evaluations of behavior by victims and perpetrators
that have been found in research.
Third, victims evaluate behaviors that they perceive to be intentionally
malicious more negatively than perpetrators, even if the victims are misper-
ceiving the perpetrators intentions (Goffman, 1967). Some behaviors are
more likely to be perceived as intentionally malicious than others. For
example, betrayals, lies, and teases would be more likely to be viewed as
malicious compared to dependency and complaining. However, even a
single behavior may be evaluated very differently as a function of the
perceived intent motivating the behavior. For example, Vangelisti and
Young (2000) found that people evaluated a message as having more of a
distancing effect on their relationship with another when that other said
something that was perceived to be intentionally hurtful as opposed to
unintentionally hurtful.
Thus, because betrayal, lying, and teasing are more likely than complain-
ing, arrogance, breaches of propriety, and dependency to be perceived as
direct, as indicative of relational devaluation (i.e., as hurtful), and as inten-
tionally malicious, victims in the present study were expected to show more
divergent perceptions from perpetrators in their accounts of episodes
involving these three behaviors. Specifically, victims were expected to
perceive the incidents as more aversive, more hurtful, and more damaging
to their relationships with the perpetrators than the perpetrators. Perpe-
trators of betrayal, lying, and teasing were expected to report more guilt
than victims or than perpetrators of any other aversive behaviors.
The use of autobiographical narratives

Although, in an ideal world, one could manipulate sources of aversiveness
within a laboratory and examine peoples reactions to them, ethical issues
preclude such designs. However, given the prevalence of aversive behav-
iors, understanding the causes and consequences of these behaviors seems
important. Thus, narrative methods are invaluable when investigating the
darker side of human interaction (Baumeister, 1994; Baumeister &
Newman, 1994; Murray & Holmes, 1994).
Narrative methods offer what we believe to be the best means available
to examine peoples subjective experiences of and reactions to aversive
behaviors. As opposed to close-ended questions that may not allow the
participant to fully reflect on the experience being recalled, narratives allow
people to re-live their experience with anothers aversiveness, in much the

same way that keeping a journal is much more therapeutic and revealing of
ones thoughts and feelings than simply being asked about ones experience.
Participants in this study were randomly assigned to write both a victim
and a perpetrator narrative about one of seven aversive interpersonal
behaviors: betrayal, lying, breaches of propriety (impropriety), teasing,
complaining, arrogance, and dependency (excessive reassurance-seeking).
From all of the mundane aversive behaviors to which people are exposed
on a regular basis in the context of their intimate relationships, we selected
these seven for three reasons. First, these behaviors occur frequently within
the context of close relationships (Kowalski, 2001b; Miller, 2001). Thus,
participants would have no difficulty recalling vivid instances of any of the
behaviors. And, indeed, not a single participant indicated that he or she
found it difficult to think of either a victim or a perpetrator narrative.
Second, anecdotal evidence led us to believe that these seven behaviors
reflect a good cross-sampling of aversive behaviors. In this way, we could
examine differences not only among victims and perpetrators in their
recounting of occurrences of these behaviors, but also among participants
across the different types of aversive behaviors. Third, the behaviors
selected are ones that differ along the three dimensions discussed earlier
directness, relational devaluation, and intentionally malicious. As noted,
betrayal, lying, and teasing are more likely than the other behaviors to be
identified as direct as opposed to indirect (Kowalski, 1997b), they are more
likely to be perceived as indicative of relational devaluation (Leary et al.,
1998), and they are more likely to be interpreted by victims as intentionally
malicious relative to the other behaviors (Kowalski, 1997b).
Consistent with previous research, main effects of narrative
(victim/perpetrator) were expected across dependent variables, with
victims, overall, forming more negative perceptions of the behaviors (e.g.,
perceiving the incident more negatively and being more annoyed by it) and
suffering more negative consequences (e.g., feeling hurt) from the behav-
iors than perpetrators. However, as explained earlier, we expected these
main effects of narrative to interact with the type of behavior being
described. Specifically, victim/perpetrator differences were expected to be
more pronounced when the aversive behavior involved betrayal, lying, or
teasing.
Furthermore, a narrative methodology allowed us to also test for
additional differences in the linguistic features of the narratives of victims
and perpetrators. Given our hypotheses that victims and perpetrators
would differ in their perceptions of particular aversive behaviors, with
victims perceiving some aversive behaviors more negatively than perpe-
trators, we hypothesized that the narratives of victims would contain
linguistic features that distinguished them from perpetrator narratives.
Specifically, we hypothesized that victim narratives, particularly those
recounting episodes of betrayal, lying, and teasing, would contain more
negative affect and attribute more negative motivations to the perpetrator
than would perpetrator narratives. In addition, because victims would feel
more hurt and wronged relative to perpetrators, the narratives of victims

were expected to be longer and more detailed and to contain more refer-
ences to the self as they recounted the hurt they experienced compared to
perpetrator narratives. Perpetrator narratives, because they dealt with inci-
dents perpetrated against another person and perhaps in an effort to place
partial blame on the other individual, were expected to contain more other
references than victim narratives, particularly when the incident involved
betrayal, lying, and teasing. Perpetrator narratives were also expected to
show more guilt than victim narratives.
Method
Participants
Ninety-six male and 149 female undergraduate students participated in large
mixed-sex groups. Although not all students were psychology majors, the data
were collected while the participants attended upper level psychology courses.
Even though participants reported being victimized by the aversive behaviors
of acquaintances and family members, the majority were victims of aversive-
ness perpetrated by close friends and romantic partners. Specifically, 37% of
the participants indicated that they had been a victim of an aversive inter-
personal behavior that was perpetrated by a close friend. An additional 23%
reported that the perpetrator was a romantic partner or a spouse. Twenty-eight
percent of the perpetrators indicated that they had victimized a close friend,
with an additional 21% reporting that their victim was an acquaintance.
Eighteen percent of perpetrators reported victimizing a romantic partner.
Smaller percentages of participants indicated that they had victimized family
members or others who were unspecified (e.g., authority figures).
Procedure
After signing a consent form, each participant was randomly assigned to write
about one of seven aversive interpersonal behaviors: betrayal, lying, breaches
of propriety, teasing, complaining, arrogance, and dependency. Within each of
the aversive behavior categories, participants wrote two narratives, a victim
narrative and a perpetrator narrative, presented in counterbalanced order.
Instructions for victim narratives asked participants to describe an incident in
which someone had perpetrated the particular aversive behavior against them.
For example, in the instructions for betrayal, participants were told: We would
like you to describe an incident in which someone betrayed you, that is, an
occurrence in which someone betrayed your confidence, gossiped about you,
broke your trust, etc.. Across all victim narratives, participants were also told
that Nearly everyone has experienced such things more than once; please
choose an especially important and memorable event. In describing the
incident, please be as thorough and as detailed as possible, providing a
complete account of the event. Include in your narrative the events that led up
to the situation, the nature of the situation, and what happened after the situ-
ation occurred.
Instructions for perpetrator narratives mirrored those for victim narratives,
except that participants were asked to describe an incident in which they had
engaged in the aversive behavior. For example, in the betrayal condition,
participants were told: We would like you to describe an incident in which you
betrayed someone else, that is, an occurrence in which you betrayed someones
confidence, gossiped about someone, broke another persons trust, etc.
Upon completion of both of the narratives, participants completed a ques-
tionnaire that included items that assessed perceived aversiveness, relational
damage, and guilt. All questions were answered using 12-point scales with five
equally spaced scale labels. Specific items on the questionnaire included the
following: How negatively did you feel about the experience?, How annoyed
were you by the experience?, How guilty did you feel about the experience?,
How negatively do you view the other individual involved in the experience?,
How negatively do you think the other individual views you?, Prior to the
incident, how close was your relationship with the other individual?, After the
incident, how close was your relationship to the other individual?, How much
of a long-term impact did the incident have on you?, How hurt were you by
the experience?, and How hurt do you think the other person was by the
experience?.
Coding of the narratives

Victim and perpetrator narratives were analyzed using two different coding
strategies. The first coding scheme involved a text analysis using the Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count strategy (LIWC; Francis & Pennebaker, 1994).
Designed to provide insights into peoples emotional and cognitive worlds
(Francis & Pennebaker, 1994), this software program analyzes the affective,
cognitive, and structural elements of written text on a word by word basis. Sixty-
one output variables are produced, some of which reflect structural elements of
the writing (e.g., word count, question marks) and some of which are grouped
into composite variables of negative emotionality, positive emotionality, cogni-
tive mechanisms, self references, other references, and negations. As outlined
in the introduction, of interest in the present study were negative emotionality,
self references, other references, and total word count. Negative emotionality
is a composite based on words indicating anxiety, anger, paranoia, guilt, and
depression. Representative indications of negative emotionality include angry,
afraid, rude, ashamed, and worthless. Self references reflect words such as I,
me, or we, whereas other references reflect pronouns such as he, herself,
or their (Francis & Pennebaker, 1994). The LIWC has been used in research
examining the physical and mental benefits of writing about traumatic events
(see, for example, Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999; Petrie, Booth, & Pennebaker,
1998) and was used in the present study to examine victim/perpetrator differ-
ences in written accounts of aversive behaviors.
The second coding scheme involved dichotomous coding. After all of the
narratives had been transcribed, two raters independently coded each of the
stories along 15 dimensions that were combined conceptually into six different
composite variables: (a) positive consequences (happy ending described;
positive consequences described); (b) negative consequences (damage to
relationship reported; negative consequences described); (c) victims degree of
fault (victim provoked incident; cause of incident included victims behavior;
cause of incident included victims personal characteristics); (d) positive
reasons for behavior (attempt to exhibit closeness; attempt to have fun); (e)
negative reasons for behavior (revenge; perpetrator was thoughtless and mean;
perpetrator was trying to make himself or herself feel better); (f) negative
reactions by victim (overreacting; hurt; anger). For each of the 15 ratings, a
TABLE 1
Factor analysis of dependent variables
Questionnaire item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
How negatively did you feel about incident? .84 .04 .10
How annoyed were you by the experience? .73 .004 .06
How negatively do you view other individual? .51 .33 .23
How much of an impact did the incident have? .52 .01 .20
How hurt were you by the experience? .74 .09 .08
How negatively do you think the other person views you? .08 .57 .18
How close was your relationship prior to incident? .26 .73 .19
How close was your relationship after the incident? .13 .79 .09
How guilty do you feel about the experience? .07 .04 .51
How hurt do you think the other person was? .09 .06 .60
____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Factor loadings in bold indicate the factor to which a particular item was assigned.
dichotomous coding technique was used such that each variable of interest was
coded as either present (2) or absent (1). Items specific to each composite
variable were summed. In cases when there was any ambiguity concerning the
direction of coding, raters coded the feature as absent. Interrater reliability
(Kappa) across the 15 categories averaged .93 (range .611.00).
Results
All analyses to be reported are based on split-plot analyses of variance

with narrative (victim/perpetrator) as the within-participants variable and type
of behavior (betrayal/lying/breaches of propriety/teasing/complaining/arro-
gance/dependency) and sex as between-participants variables. Although no
specific predictions regarding sex were advanced a priori, we included it as a
between-participants variable to explore any possible differences between men
and women in their perceptions of and reactions to aversive interpersonal
behaviors. Because only scattered significant effects of sex were obtained, and
because these effects did not generalize across dependent variables, sex will not
be discussed further.
A conservative alpha of .01 was used to determine significance due to the
number of effects that were tested. Post-hoc tests were conducted using the
SpjotvollStoline test (Kirk, 1982) to control for unequal ns. A factor analysis
was conducted on the 10 dependent variables included on the experimental
questionnaire. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than one were retained
for analysis. Items that defined each factor were identified as those with factor
loadings greater than .35. Variables were grouped according to the factor on
which they loaded, and items specific to each factor were averaged using the
original 12-point metric by which they were originally measured. As can be seen
in Table 1, Factor 1 consisted of items that tapped into participants perceptions
of the aversiveness of the incident ( = .79). This factor accounted for 32% of
the variance. Factor 2 was defined by variables examining changes in closeness
as a result of the incident ( = .72), and accounted for 21% of the variance. The
third factor, which accounted for 12% of the variance, we labeled guilt experi-
enced. The two items defining this factor correlated significantly (r = .29) with
one another.
TABLE 2
Means (standard deviations) on victims and perpetrators perceptions and
feelings surrounding aversive interpersonal behaviors
Variable Victim Perpetrator
Perceptions of aversiveness 7.38a (2.65) 6.13a (2.61)

Changes in closeness .00 (.77) .00 (.78)
Guilt experienced 3.79a (2.73) 6.79a (3.60)
Negative emotionality 1.97 (1.47) 2.30 (1.77)
Self-references 10.28a (3.40) 11.83a (3.35)
Other-references 6.65a (3.67) 5.55a (3.24)
Total word count 135.71a (75.04) 122.04a (58.94)
Negative consequences 2.84 (.81) 2.67 (.75)
Positive consequences 2.21 (.56) 2.21 (.52)
Victims degree of fault 3.58a (.82) 3.83a (.90)
Negative reasons for behavior 3.19 (.41) 3.26 (.50)
Positive reasons for behavior 2.18 (.39) 2.19 (.39)
Victims negative reactions 3.43 (.54) 3.37 (.57)
____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Means in a single row that share a common subscript differ significantly, p < .01. Standard
deviations are reported in parentheses.
Perceived consequences
Perceived aversiveness of the incident. Five items examining participants

perceptions of the aversiveness of the incident loaded on a single factor in the
factor analysis: how negatively did you feel about the experience, how annoyed
were you by the experience, how negatively do you view the other individual
involved in the experience, how much of a long-term impact did the incident
have on you, and how hurt were you by the experience. A 7 2 2 split-plot
analysis of variance conducted on the mean score obtained from these variables
was conducted. Main effects of behavior, F(6,231) = 4.18, p < .001 (2 = .10),
and narrative, F(1,231) = 41.64, p < .001 (2 = .15), which were qualified by the
interaction between behavior and narrative, F(6,231) = 13.15, p < .001 (2 = .26),
were obtained. (Means for the main effect of narrative are shown in Table 2.)
As shown in Table 3, victims evaluated the situation more negatively than
perpetrators on four of the seven behaviors, ps < .01. Breaches of propriety,
complaining, and dependency showed no significant victim/perpetrator differ-
ences. Among victims, betrayal was viewed more negatively than other aversive
behaviors. In addition, whereas victims evaluated situations involving
complaining and dependency least negatively, perpetrators assigned less nega-
tivity to situations involving teasing.
Changes in closeness. Three items defined a second factor that focused on

relationship issues: how negatively do you think the other individual views you,
prior to the incident, how close was your relationship with the other individual
involved, and after the incident, how close was your relationship to the other
individual. Because the latter two variables were contingent on one another, a
difference variable was computed by subtracting perceptions of closeness after
the incident from perceptions of closeness prior to the incident. Larger differ-
ences reflect greater reductions in closeness as a result of the incident. Because
TABLE 3
Means (standard deviations) on victims and perpetrators perceptions of
specific aversive interpersonal behaviors
Narrative

Variable Behavior Victim Perpetrator
Perceptions of aversiveness Betrayal 9.15abc (1.99) 6.38a (2.40)

Lying 8.48def (2.20) 5.70d (2.18)
Impropriety 7.07 (2.47) 6.09 (2.78)
Teasing 7.09g (2.88) 4.61g (3.16)
Complaining 5.50bei (2.39) 7.06 (2.29)
Arrogance 8.29hij (1.79) 6.35h (2.13)
Dependency 5.76cfj (2.35) 6.67 (2.79)
Guilt experienced Betrayal 3.58a (2.60) 8.89abc (3.44)
Lying 4.04d (2.68) 7.74de (2.78)
Impropriety 3.17f (2.48) 7.93fg (3.44)
Teasing 2.85hm (2.36) 7.03hi (3.85)
Complaining 4.35 (2.96) 3.56begik (2.31)
Arrogance 2.79jl (2.32) 6.93jk (3.56)
Dependency 5.59lm (2.79) 5.35c (3.01)
Self-references Betrayal 10.75 (2.64) 12.17h (2.34)
Lying 10.86a (2.76) 13.73ae (3.56)
Impropriety 9.38j (3.27) 10.97 (2.85)
Teasing 12.76bjklm (2.22) 9.31befgh (2.56)
Complaining 8.94ck (4.99) 11.81cf (4.39)
Arrogance 9.66l (2.54) 11.04ei (2.70)
Dependency 9.64dm (3.29) 13.79dgi (2.62)
Other-references Betrayal 6.67 (3.06) 6.41 (3.16)
Lying 7.65a (3.23) 4.36ah (2.56)
Impropriety 5.35g (3.33) 5.50 (3.72)
Teasing 4.27bef (3.13) 7.67bhij (2.75)
Complaining 7.64ce (4.47) 4.61ci (3.55)
Arrogance 6.34 (3.10) 5.77 (2.87)
Dependency 8.63dfg (3.43) 4.49dj (2.89)
Note. For each variable, means sharing a common subscript differ significantly from means in
the same row and means in the same column, p < .01. Standard deviations are reported in
parentheses.
these difference scores were now on a different metric from the 12-point
response format used for the item assessing how negatively participants thought
the other individual viewed them, all scores were standardized and the stan-
dardized scores averaged to provide a composite measure of changes in close-
ness. Higher scores on this measure indicate greater changes in closeness (i.e.,
more negative effects of the incident on the relationship). A main effect of
behavior, F(6,231) = 5.53, p < .001 (2 = .13) was obtained. Participants reported
greater reductions in closeness in their relationships following betrayal
(M = .39) than following complaining (M = .20), p < .01.
Guilt experienced. The third factor obtained in the factor analysis was defined
by two variables: how guilty do you feel about the experience and how hurt do
you think the other person was by the experience. A 7 2 2 split-plot analysis
of variance conducted on the mean of these two items revealed main effects of
behavior, F(6,231) = 4.05, p < .001 (2 = .10), and narrative, F(1,231) = 130.04,
p < .001 (2 = .36), as well as a significant interaction between behavior and
narrative, F(6,231) = 12.64, p < .001 (2 = .25). As reported in Table 3, relative
to victims, perpetrators felt more guilt when they engaged in betrayal, lying,
breaches of propriety, teasing, and arrogant behavior, ps < .01. Interestingly,
among victims, more guilt was reported following dependent behavior than
teasing or arrogant behavior. Perpetrators, however, relative to complaining,
reported more guilt following betrayal, lying, breaches of propriety, teasing,
and arrogance, ps < .01.
Linguistic analysis
Of the composite linguistic variables available for analysis based on the LIWC
program, we were interested in negative emotionality, self references, other
references, and total word count for reasons detailed in the introduction.
Negative emotionality is assessed based on words such as angry, ashamed, and
worthless. A split-plot analysis of variance conducted on the negative emotion-
ality profile revealed a main effect of behavior, F(6,229) = 7.35, p < .001
(2 = .16). Participants expressed more negative emotionality in narratives
describing incidents of teasing (M = 3.22; SD = 2.08) than in recollections of
any other type of behavior (Ms = 1.732.30; SDs = 1.251.79), ps < .01. No other
significant effects were obtained.
A split-plot analysis of variance performed on the number of references to
the self in the narratives yielded main effects of behavior, F(6,229) = 3.93,
p < .001 (2 = .09), and narrative, F(1, 229) = 29.56, p < .001 (2 = .11), which
were qualified by an interaction between behavior and narrative, F(6,
229) = 10.54, p < .001 (2 = .22). As shown in Table 3, perpetrators used more
self references than victims when the narratives focused on lying, complaining,
and dependency, ps < .01. However, when the behavior involved teasing,
victims used more self references than perpetrators, p < .01. Among victims,
the greatest number of self references was used in the teasing narratives,
whereas for perpetrators self references appeared most frequently in narratives
discussing lying and dependency, followed by betrayal, ps < .01.
Analysis of the number of references to the other person revealed a main
effect of narrative, F(1,229) = 14.17, p < .001 (2 = .06), which was qualified by
an interaction between behavior and narrative, F(6,229) = 11.47, p < .001
(2 = .23). Victims used more other references than perpetrators when the
narratives related instances of lying, complaining, or dependency, ps < .01.
However, perpetrators used more other references than victims when
discussing teasing, p < .01. In addition, victims used other references most
frequently when describing dependency, whereas perpetrators used other refer-
ences more when describing teasing incidents.
Because of previous research (Kowalski, 2000) showing victim/perpetrator
differences in the total number of words used when relating incidents of aver-
siveness, the structural element of total word count was of interest. A split-plot
analysis of variance conducted on this variable revealed a significant main effect
of narrative, F(1,229) = 8.48, p < .004 (2 = .04). Victims (M = 135.71;
SD = 75.04) wrote significantly more in their narratives than perpetrators
(M = 122.04; SD = 58.74).
Content analysis
Positive and negative consequences. Split-plot analyses of variance were

performed separately on the composite variables of positive consequences and
negative consequences. The analysis performed on the negative consequences
variable yielded significant main effects of behavior, F(6,227) = 5.66, p < .001
(2 = .13), and narrative, F(1,227) = 6.31, p < .01 (2 = .03). Individuals whose
narratives described complaining (M = 2.35; SD = .51) described fewer negative
consequences than individuals describing episodes of betrayal (M = 3.08;
SD = .84) or lying (M = 2.92; SD = .80), ps < .01. In addition, victims (M = 2.84;
SD = .81), not surprisingly, reported more negative consequences than perpe-
trators (M = 2.67; SD = .75). No significant effects were obtained on the positive
consequences reported.
Victims degree of fault. Not surprisingly, victims (M = 3.58; SD = .82) perceived

themselves to be less at fault than perpetrators (M = 3.83; SD = .90) perceived
them to be, F(1,227) = 11.66, p < .001 (2 = .05). Furthermore, narratives
recounting instances of teasing ascribed more fault to victims (M = 4.07;
SD = .73) than narratives retelling episodes of betrayal (M = 3.48; SD = .81) or
lying (M = 3.45; SD = .82), F(6,227) = 4.55, p < .001 (2 = .11).
Positive and negative reasons for the behaviour. Separate split-plot analyses of
variance were conducted on the positive and the negative reasons ascribed to
the aversive behaviors. A significant main effect of behavior, F(6,227) = 2.92,
p < .01 (2 = .07), obtained on the negative reasons composite revealed that
more negative motivations were assigned to teasing (M = 3.38; SD = .56) and
arrogance (M = 3.34; SD = .61) than to lying (M = 3.08; SD = .26), ps < .01.
Interestingly, participants also assigned more positive motivations for teasing
(M = 2.36; SD = .49) and dependency (M = 2.49; SD = .53) compared to the
other aversive behaviors, F(6,227) = 13.31, p < .001 (2 = .26).
Victims negative reactions. A main effect of behavior, F(6,227) = 4.58, p < .001
(2 = .11), revealed that participants perceived victims to have more negative
reactions to being teased (M = 3.66; SD = .58) than to complaining (M = 3.23;
SD = .39) or dependency (M = 3.29; SD = .55), ps < .01. Reactions to betrayal
(M = 3.56; SD = .62), lying (M = 3.48; SD = .60), breaches of propriety (M = 3.49;
SD = .54), and arrogance (M = 3.44; SD = .55) fell in between but did not differ
significantly from one another or the other conditions.
Discussion
Consistent with research on bullying (Besag, 1989; Ross, 1996), inter-

personal conflict (Baumeister et al., 1990), negative incidents in inter-
personal relationships (Mikula, Athenstaedt, Heschgl, & Heimgartner,
1998), hurtful exchanges (Leary et al., 1998), evil (Baumeister, 1997), unre-
quited love (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993), and teasing
(Kowalski, 2000), victims and perpetrators in the present study differed in
their perceptions of the episodes about which they wrote. Relative to perpe-
trators, victims viewed the incident more negatively. Perpetrators, in
contrast, reported more guilt than victims. Perpetrators also, not surpris-
ingly, assigned more fault to the victims than victims assigned themselves.
In terms of the narratives themselves, perpetrators narratives contained
more evidence of negative emotionality than victims, and perpetrators
used more self references and fewer other references than victims in the
narratives they wrote. In addition, victim narratives were lengthier than
perpetrator narratives, a finding consistent with research by Schuetz and
Baumeister (1999).
These observed differences in victim/perpetrator responses may arise for
at least four reasons. First, victims may have incorrectly interpreted the
intentions of the perpetrators as more malevolent than was warranted.
However, a significant main effect of narrative obtained on the coding of
the negative reasons ascribed to the aversive behaviors suggests that this
was not the case. Perpetrators actually assigned more negative reasons to
their aversive behaviors than victims did, a finding that may account for
their greater use of self references in their narratives. An examination of
the negative reasons (e.g., revenge, perpetrator was thoughtless and mean,
and/or the perpetrator was trying to make himself or herself feel better)
suggests that these reasons may be either too threatening to victims or are
reasons about which perpetrators have more knowledge than victims.
Second, and related to this latter finding, perpetrators may have, indeed,
had malevolent intentions motivating their behavior, including a desire to
hurt the victim or make the victim feel bad, intentions of which the victim
may have had no awareness. Such negative intentions were clearly reflected
in a narrative in which a participant described behaving arrogantly toward
someone else.
When I was in high school . . . I was very socially conscious with my actions
and who I hung around. I would not be seen with people who I thought
would bring me down. I was very mean to a certain girl because she didnt
dress nice, had a child at 15, and hung out at the smoke shed with other
people who didnt dress nice. I would snub her when she tried to talk to
me, insult her behind her back, and when she really got on my nerves, I
would embarrass her in front of a group of my friends.
The fact that victims in the present study perceived the incident more nega-
tively than perpetrators and the fact that perpetrators assigned more fault
to victims than victims assigned to themselves would seem to suggest that
the motives of the perpetrators were not, in fact, malevolent. However,
even malevolently motivated perpetrators could blame victims and see
their own behavior in a positive light in order to justify their actions.
Third, even if perpetrators had been motivated by negative intentions
initially, the passage of time since the incident occurred may have attenu-
ated these negative feelings. Perpetrators reported feeling guilty about their
behaviors, viewed the incident negatively, and were well aware that the
victims had been hurt by their behaviors. These negative feelings, perhaps
accounting for the heightened negative emotionality in the narratives of
perpetrators relative to victims, may have contributed to reducing any
malevolent intentions that may have originally been present. Fourth, with
the passage of time, victims may have enhanced their own negative feelings
about the event. Victim ratings of how negatively they viewed the incident
were fairly high (7.38 on a 12-point scale). An examination of some of the
narratives themselves suggests that some of the participants had ruminated
about the events since they had occurred. This rumination may have height-
ened negative affect long after the event occurred (Morrow & Nolen-
Hoeksema, 1990; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987). The following narrative
provides one such example.
Jenny ruined my self-esteem in my first through third grade years and it

made a lasting impact on the way I handle confrontations. Jenny lived in
my neighborhood. . . . Her older sister was my babysitter. Jenny decided
that I was a threat because little Rebecca down the street adored me and
Jenny hated it. So, she got the neighborhood kids to go along with her to
continuously tease me, trick me, and exclude me. . . . She made me cry
virtually every day. To this day I dont understand what I ever did to her
to make her torture me for two years. I was angry at her for many years
afterward because it made me feel inferior all through elementary school
and, to this day, I hardly stand up for myself. . . . I still hate the name Jenny.
This narrative also highlights the finding that victim narratives contained
more other references than perpetrator narratives. Although we had
expected that victims might use more self references as they relayed their
personal feelings about the experience, many victim narratives made
repeated reference to the other person. Although one reason for this may
have simply been the clarity of the essay, we believe that it reflects the
salience of the perpetrator in the victims mind even to this day.
One interesting exception to the pattern of pronoun use by victims and
perpetrators involved teasing. Whereas teasing narratives of victims used
more self references, teasing narratives of perpetrators used more other
references. One might expect perpetrators to use other references related
to teasing, given that there must have been something about the other indi-
vidual, at least in the perpetrators mind, that precipitated the teasing. That
victims used more references to the self when recounting teasing episodes
may reflect the negative effect that the tease had on their self-esteem.
Although we did not specifically examine the effects of aversiveness on the
self, research has shown teasing to have detrimental consequences for self-
esteem (Kowalski, 1998).
Although the finding that victims and perpetrators differ in their percep-
tions of aversive behaviors replicates the findings in many other studies, the
present study goes much further in showing that these general differences
in the perceptions of victims and perpetrators are not uniform across all
types of aversive events. Rather, the differences observed between the
victims and the perpetrators clearly varied with the specific type of behavior
being examined. For example, in ratings of the perceived negativity of the
incident, victims perceived betrayal, lying, teasing, and arrogance more
negatively than did perpetrators. In addition, as determined by ratings of
perceived hurtfulness of the event, victims felt more relationally devalued

by betrayal, lying, and teasing than did perpetrators.
However, no significant differences between victims and perpetrators by
type of behavior were observed in ratings of relationship closeness. The
perpetrators personal feelings of guilt and regret may account for the lack
of significant differences between victims and perpetrators in ratings of how
much the closeness inherent in the relationship had been affected. Indeed,
perpetrators may have a tendency to remember and describe those situ-
ations that made them feel guilt and regret. Had we asked them specifically
to write about an aversive behavior they did not regret perpetrating, a
significant difference between victims and perpetrators in ratings of
relationship closeness may have been obtained. One narrative very
poignantly described a perpetrators feelings of guilt following his aversive
behavior:
During middle school, I was speaking in front of class about my family.
While doing this, I got started criticizing them jokingly. I said some really
mean things and one was about my mom being fat. Little did I know that
while I was doing this she happened to walk in to get me early. She did not
show it hurt her feelings at first, but when we got home she went to her
room and cried. I felt so bad.
Of note are the specific behaviors on which victims and perpetrators did not
consistently differ from one another, namely complaining and dependency.
Furthermore, even though nonsignificant, the pattern of means for these
two behaviors generally went against that observed for the other aversive
behaviors. For example, whereas victims of all other aversive behaviors
except for improprieties evaluated the behaviors more negatively than
perpetrators, perpetrators of complaining and dependency evaluated the
incident more negatively than victims. Furthermore, although perpetrators
reliably reported significantly more guilt than victims across the aversive
behaviors, no differences among victims and perpetrators in self-reported
guilt were observed with complaining and dependency, although the
pattern of means suggested that, contrary to the other guilt findings, victims
reported more guilt than perpetrators.
What is it about these two behaviors that distinguishes them from the
others so consistently? As noted earlier, aversive behaviors differ from one
another in their directness, in the degree to which they are perceived as
indicating relational devaluation, and in the degree to which they are
viewed as motivated by malicious intent. Complaining and dependency,
relative to the other behaviors, tend to be less direct. Because the content
of complaints or excessive reassurance-seeking is not necessarily directed
at the victim himself or herself, these behaviors are also less likely to
connote relational devaluation (as attested to by the means obtained on the
hurt feelings measure) and, thus, less likely to be evaluated as malicious.
Three additional features also distinguish complaining and dependency
from the other aversive behaviors. First, some aversive behaviors are more
consistently negatively valenced than others. For example, betrayal and
lying would be evaluated by most people most of the time as negative. In

contrast, behaviors such as breaches of propriety can be interpreted either
positively or negatively. (Some people think that belching or flatulence in
public is quite funny, whereas others are very offended by such behavior.)
Similarly, complaining and dependency may both be perceived as having
both positive and negative sides. On the positive side, some complaining is
justified and understandable, and such complaints may induce few negative
feelings (Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). On the negative side, some people
are habitual complainers who complain about things with which they are
not even dissatisfied, and chronic, unjustified complaining is typically
aversive. Similarly, dependency has both positive and negative features.
Infrequent reassurance-seeking may be perceived as endearing and as an
attempt to establish intimacy. Excessive reassurance-seeking, however, can
produce negative feelings not only in the perpetrator, but also in the victim
(Katz & Joiner, 2001).
Second, all of the aversive behaviors differ from one another in the
complicity of the victim in the events that transpire. For example, although
victims may have found complaining to be aversive, the frequency with
which they also complain makes it difficult to view the perpetrator too nega-
tively or to assign overly negative intentions to the perpetrator. Betrayal,
however, occurs with presumed less frequency than complaining or depen-
dency. Because victims may have difficulty perceiving themselves engaging
in the same type of behavior, they view it more negatively.
Third, in all likelihood people are exposed to others complaining and
dependency on a more frequent basis than behaviors such as betrayal. Thus,
victims may become somewhat desensitized to the aversive effects of
behaviors such as complaining, helping to explain why so few significant
differences were obtained between victims and perpetrators.
Differences among victims and among perpetrators

Significant within-group variability was observed among victims and among
perpetrators. One would expect victims to report feeling more hurt by
betrayal and lying than by dependency or complaining, for example. As
found in the present study, betrayal, lying, and teasing imply more relational
devaluation (Leary et al., 1998; Leary & Springer, 2001). One would expect,
therefore, that victims would view such situations more negatively.
However, the somewhat unexpected finding was the degree to which others
arrogance induced levels of perceived negativity similar to those created by
betrayal and lying. One reason for this high level of aversiveness attributed
to arrogance may be that it threatens the self-esteem of the victims. By
suggesting that they are, in essence, superior to others, arrogant individuals
may lead victims to feel undesired or devalued (Leary, Bednarski, Hammon,
& Duncan, 1997). In support of this, comments in some of the narratives
describing anothers arrogant behavior included I feel that she puts me
down and belittles all the stress I have, and It hurt my feelings and put me
down. In addition, because arrogant individuals are misrepresenting them-
selves as better than they really are (i.e., they are essentially lying), other
people may be unsure of how best to respond to them, creating discomfort

and stress in their interactions (Leary et al., 1997).
Yet another possibility is that participants were simply extremely
annoyed by someone behaving in an arrogant manner. People who are
arrogant are tiresome to interact with and their behavior is very off-putting.
Conclusions
The results of this study clearly show that victims and perpetrators differ
from one another in their perceptions of aversive interpersonal behaviors.
Furthermore, differences in the perceptions of victims and perpetrators
depend on the particular aversive behavior being examined. Each of the
aversive behaviors examined in this study sends victims a message about
their standing or value in the perpetrators eyes. Given the amount of rela-
tional devaluation inferred, a victim must decide how he or she will
respond to the perpetrator. Consistent with a social interactionist model
(Felson & Tedeschi, 1993), the victims response places the perpetrator in
the role of victim and the cycle continues. In the case of aversive inter-
personal behaviors, such exchanges have the potential to spiral out of
control, leading ultimately to full-blown aggression (Andersson &
Pearson, 1999; Kowalski, 2003).
That differences among victims and among perpetrators were also
obtained contributes to our understanding of why miscommunication
occurs so frequently in close relationships. Given our own perceptions and
our own histories with aversive behaviors, we may have difficulty accurately
predicting how someone else will react to such behaviors. Or, we may
ourselves react to others aversiveness in ways that are disproportionate
to the intent and nature of the behavior (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). What
another may have intended as good-natured ribbing or a white lie
intended to protect ones feelings is perceived as malicious teasing or patho-
logical lying. Naturally, such misperceptions set the stage for disagreement
and conflict in the relationship.
Ironically, however, in spite of the miscommunication, hurt feelings,
negative perceptions of the other, etc. that follow from incidents involving
aversive interpersonal behaviors, the results of this study also hint at the
resiliency of relationships in the face of adversity. No victim/perpetrator
differences were obtained in ratings of the negative impact of the aversive
incidents on the relationship (i.e., changes in closeness). Indeed, means for
changes in closeness were at or near zero. Thus, people and relationships
seem to have evolved a mechanism that allows them to overcome feelings
of negativity and resentment that stem from repeated exposure to others
aversive interpersonal behaviors.
These patterns of results highlight the need for additional research in this
area. This research, first, needs to help clarify how people define each of
the aversive behaviors studied. We provided definitions for the participants
in the present study, but these may not have meshed perfectly with their
own conceptions of each of the behaviors. Indeed, this may represent one
of the areas of miscommunication within relationships. What one partner
defines as a betrayal, another views as a small impropriety. Individual

differences in perceptions of what constitute particular aversive behaviors
may negatively affect relationship functioning and the quality of and satis-
faction with those relationships by the individuals involved.
Three limitations of this research should be noted. First, narrative
methods, of necessity, rely on retrospective reports. Thus, there is the
potential that participants recollections of the aversive behaviors may have
been distorted with the passage of time. In spite of this possibility, however,
we believe that the richness of narrative methods warrants their continued
use. Related to this, future research could examine differences in the
perceptions of individuals for whom the incident recalled was recent versus
in the distant past. One might expect differences as a function of the sheer
time that had elapsed. Third, particularly when asking people to report on
their own aversive behaviors, there is always the possibility that face-saving
concerns lead them to distort the information provided in the narrative
when that information will be made public to the researcher. However,
based on our reading of the narratives, the content of the perpetrator narra-
tives along this dimension did not seem to differ reliably from the victim
narratives.
REFERENCES
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452472.
Baumeister, R. F. (1994). Introduction to symposium. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 649.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York: Freeman.
Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). How stories make sense of personal experiences:
Motives that shape autobiographical narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20, 676690.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts
of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 9941005.
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak,
anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
377394.
Besag, V. (1989). Bullies and victims in school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on
negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808818.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (Eds.). (1994). The dark side of interpersonal communi-
cation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Felson, R. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). Social interactionist perspectives on aggression and
violence: An introduction. In R. B. Felson & J. T. Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence:
Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 110). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Francis, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1994). LIWC: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.
Unpublished manuscript, Southern Methodist University.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Horowitz, L. (1986). The interpersonal basis of psychiatric symptoms. Clinical Psychology

Review, 6, 443469.
Jones, W. H., Moore, D. S., Schratter, A., & Negel, L. (2001). Interpersonal transgressions and
betrayals. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal
relationships (pp. 233256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Katz, J., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2001). The aversive interpersonal context of depression: Emerging
perspectives on depressotypic behavior. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive
behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 117147). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kowalski, R. M. (Ed.). (1997a). Aversive interpersonal behaviors. New York: Plenum Press.
Kowalski, R. M. (1997b). The underbelly of social interaction: Aversive interpersonal
behaviors. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 19). New York:
Plenum Press.
Kowalski, R. M. (1998, June). Teasing and the self. Paper presented at the meeting of the Inter-
national Nags Head Conference, Boca Raton, FL.
Kowalski, R. M. (2000). I was only kidding!: Victims and perpetrators perceptions of teasing.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231241.
Kowalski, R. M. (Ed.). (2001a). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relation-
ships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kowalski, R. M. (2001b). Aversive interpersonal behaviors: On being annoying, thoughtless,
and mean. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal
relationships (pp. 326). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kowalski, R. M. (2003). Interpersonal teasing. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kowalski, R. M., & Erickson, J. R. (1997). Complaining: Whats all the fuss about? In R. M.
Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 91110). New York: Plenum Press.
Leary, M. R., Bednarski, R., Hammon, D., & Duncan, T. (1997). Blowhards, snobs, and narcis-
sists: Interpersonal reactions to excessive egotism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive inter-
personal behaviors (pp. 111131). New York: Plenum Press.
Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. (2001). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In R. M. Kowalski
(Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151176).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomen-
ology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
12251237.
Mikula, G., Athenstaedt, U., Heschgl, S., & Heimgartner, A. (1998). Does it only depend on
the point of view? Perspective-related differences in justice evaluations of negative incidents
in personal relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 931962.
Miller, R. S. (1997). We always hurt the ones we love: Aversive interaction in close relation-
ships. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 1129). New York:
Plenum Press.
Miller, R. S. (2001). Breaches of propriety. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive
behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 2958). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Morrow, J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Effects of responses to depression on the remedi-
ation of depressive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 519527.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1994). Storytelling in close relationships: The construction of
confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 650663.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259282.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Seagal, J. D. (1999). Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 12431254.
Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. (1998). The immunological effects of thought
suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 12641272.
Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sides of personal relationships:
Through a lens darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close
relationships (pp. 369393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Schuetz, A., & Baumeister, R. F. (1999). The language of defense: Linguistic patterns in narra-
tives of transgression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 269286.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (Eds.). (1998). The dark side of close relationships. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Young, S. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intention-
ality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,
393424.

Darker Side of Relationships

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Darker Side of Relationships

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

03 Kowalski (to) 9/7/03 12:23 pm Page 471

Lying, cheating, complaining, and

Sherri Walker, Rachel Wilkinson, Adam Queen, & Brian

KEY WORDS: aversiveness narratives relationships

472 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 473

474 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Similarly, arrogance conveys that the perpetrator views himself or herself

The use of autobiographical narratives

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 475

people to re-live their experience with anothers aversiveness, in much the

476 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

more hurt and wronged relative to perpetrators, the narratives of victims

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 477

Coding of the narratives

478 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Questionnaire item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

All analyses to be reported are based on split-plot analyses of variance

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 479

Variable Victim Perpetrator

Perceptions of aversiveness 7.38a (2.65) 6.13a (2.61)

Perceived aversiveness of the incident. Five items examining participants

Changes in closeness. Three items defined a second factor that focused on

480 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Perceptions of aversiveness Betrayal 9.15abc (1.99) 6.38a (2.40)

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 481

482 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Positive and negative consequences. Split-plot analyses of variance were

Victims degree of fault. Not surprisingly, victims (M = 3.58; SD = .82) perceived

Consistent with research on bullying (Besag, 1989; Ross, 1996), inter-

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 483

484 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

Jenny ruined my self-esteem in my first through third grade years and it

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 485

perceived hurtfulness of the event, victims felt more relationally devalued

486 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

lying would be evaluated by most people most of the time as negative. In

Differences among victims and among perpetrators

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 487

people may be unsure of how best to respond to them, creating discomfort

488 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

defines as a betrayal, another views as a small impropriety. Individual

Kowalski et al.: Aversive interpersonal behaviors 489

Horowitz, L. (1986). The interpersonal basis of psychiatric symptoms. Clinical Psychology

490 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 20(4)

S-ar putea să vă placă și