Hurtful Messages: A Literary Review of Current Communication Works

Hurtful messages are common in many interpersonal relationships, and one study found that 60% of participants reported experiencing hurt feelings more than once a month, and 20% reported feelings hurt at least once a week (Mclaren & Solomon, 2008). Hurtful messages are defined as messages that cause a negative emotion that involves feeling unjustly harmed or emotionally injured by another person; like other emotions, hurt can range in intensity from slight discomfort to intense pain (Mclaren & Solomon, 2008). Hurtful messages are important to study because of the impact these messages can have on interpersonal relationships. Because these hurtful messages are so common they have the potential to undermined relational well-being and seriously hinder relational development; therefore, hurtful messages play an important role in all interpersonal relationships. This paper seeks to summarize and synthesize hurtful message research across cultures, in intimate relationships, and amongst peers & family.

Summary of Hurtful Message Research
Tokunaga (2008) explored how hurtful messages were perceived across cultures by measuring the influence self-construal's have on the process of feeling and responding to hurt. Tokunaga (2008) had participants respond to a survey measuring self-construal's, overall hurt feelings, mood, attributions, and relational consequences. Self-construal's, which is operationalized by a culture, measures the individualism or collectivism of an individual. Hurt is experienced across cultures, and since hurt is governed by cultural display rules the perception of hurt will vary due to cultural rules. (Tokunaga 2008) Using self-construal's as a basis for comparison Tokunaga (2008) studied how independent or individualistic cultures respond to hurtful messages by understanding overall hurt, mood, attributions, and relational consequences. Then using the same criteria to study how interdependent or collectivist cultures respond hurtful messages. (Tokunaga 2008) The findings from the survey concluded that self-construal's play a significant role in hurtful message perception. Independence was associated with positive emotions after reception of a hurtful message, while interdependence was associated with a negative emotion after reception of a hurtful message; furthermore, independence was also attributed to a greater potential for an assertive response to a hurtful message, while interdependence was related to greater relational strain.

Theiss (2009) explores hurt in romantic relationships, and determined if the characteristics of that relationship correspond with experiences of hurt. Theiss (2009) uses the relational turbulence model, which explores uncertainty and interference in a relationship to test relational characteristics that may lead to hurtful messages. Theiss (2009) found through studying of 160 couples over 6 months that the hurtful episode itself, rather than relation characteristics determine the directness of hurtful communication. (Theiss 2009) This is further supported by Miller (2007) and Vangelisti (1998) where couples imagined hurt varied due to social context of the hurtful message.

Dunleavy (2009) explores the repair strategies used to mend hurtful messages. They studied 237 married couples and used an attributional framework to judge the effectiveness of each repair strategy. Hurtful messages were most often met with a justification or questioning strategy, and the silent treatment was the least effective at repairing hurtful messages. Informative messages were seen as the most hurtful, and verbally aggressive tactics were associated with a higher hurt perception. (Dunleavy 2009) Shuangyue (2009) explores the sender-recipient perspectives of honest but hurtful messages. 515 participants assessed their relationship for honest but hurtful messages from either sender or receiver perspectives. The results is a self-serving bias as recipients were more likely to recall honest but hurtful messages then the sender. (Shuangyue 2009) Recipients also rated messages as more hurtful and intentional while being less honest and lower in enhancement motivation. (Shuangyue 2009) This research gives a better perspective on the other in a relationship, and how associations differ from sender to recipient. The lesson that can be learned is to put yourself into the other's shoes, and experience the hurt you would feel on the receiving end. The self-serving bias is a term that is used throughout hurtful message research, and is a major framework for the perception of hurtful messages in romantic and close relationships. (Zhang 2009)

Myers (2009) explores adult siblings' use of verbally aggressive messages and the perceived hurt experienced by the recipient. The research was focused on three areas perceived hurt, intensity and intent of the messages. 115 participants identified times in which siblings used a verbally aggressive message, and the findings show that siblings use seven types of messages (name calling, insults, withdrawal, physical acts, repudiating the relationship, negative affect, unfair comparison.) (Myers 2009) Although the aggressive messages vary there was no difference between the seven types in intensity, intent and perceived hurt. (Myers 2009) The messages even though verbally aggressive do not necessarily mean they are hurtful messages. (Myers 2009) This supports research done by Vangelisti (2007), which says that hurtful messages have less a distancing impact on families than non-family relationships. These messages just might be how they communicate in the family unit. (Myers 2009) The research into how language is important in perception of hurt continues with Young (2010). The packaging does matter especially when families have such a long history of language mingling; therefore, messages that might be seen as hurtful or negative may in fact be supportive and positive in emotion eliciting. (Young 2010)

Synthesis of Hurtful Message Research
All the studies cited, explored and expanded on hurtful messages and possible perception of hurt experienced by the recipient. Tokunaga (2008) discussed how perceptions of hurt change due to self-construal's, which is occupationalized by either a individualistic or collectivistic cultures. This relativistic view of emotions experienced by hurt is one that can not only apply to intercultural communications, but personal intimate relationships as well. Theiss (2009) explored relational characteristics that might contribute to feelings of hurt, but found that the situation and context of that actual hurtful episode was more substantial to feelings of hurt then any personal characteristic. This is consistent with the relativist view that the particular circumstance has a greater significance in perception of hurt then personal characteristics. This is further elaborated on in Myers (2009) where siblings communication with verbally aggressive messages, that might seem to be hurtful, actually within the context of the relationship can be supportive and invoke positive emotion eliciting. (Myers 2009) Young (2010) also invoked the context of a message by focusing on the packaging of the language used. Language is not universal and can be shared in many different ways. The context that the sender and receivers reside in is the main framework for perception of hurtful messages. What is taboo for one is normal for others.

Zhang (2009) explores the self-bias that is experienced in hurtful message sending and receiving. The receiver of hurtful messages will recall those messages more then the sender and will perceive them with more hurt then the sender. (Shuangyue 2009) The ability to stand in others shoes would easily circumvent this self-bias, but it seems ever present in our interpersonal communications. Dunleavy (2009) expands on this by exploring repair strategies used after hurtful messages have been sent. The most common is justification for words or tone used. (Dunleavy 2009) This self serving explanation ignores the role of the receivers hurt, and only focuses on the sender's reason for hurting. The self-bias is a huge problem in conflict and hurtful message repair as self serving communication patterns fail to address real hurt in the relationship.

Hurtful messages are very common in interpersonal communication and knowing the context in which those messages are framed is invaluable. The context is needed to mark sure real hurt is being transmitted from a sender to a receiver. Finally if those hurtful messages are indeed causing hurt repairing them is essential to keeping up a relationship. Using self serving justifications for your messages even though common will not address the real hurt experience by the recipient. One must step out of his/her shoes into the others to understand the hurt, and better address it with sincere contrition.

In conclusion hurtful message research has been focused on the intensity and intent of the message from sender to receiver, and perceptions of hurt across a large sample of interpersonal relationships. The summary of the research points to no personality characteristics that lead to an increase in hurtful communication, but that the context of the message was more significant in determining the cause of hurtful messages. Hurtful messages are heavily reliant on the context in which they exist.

References
Dunleavy, K., Goodboy, A., Booth-Butterfield, M., Sidelinger, R., & Banfield, S. (2009). Repairing hurtful messages in marital relationships. Communication Quarterly, 57(1), 67-84.

Miller, C., & Roloff, M. (2007). The effect of face loss on willingness to confront hurtful messages from romantic partners. Southern Communication Journal, 72(3), 247-263.

Myers, S., & Bryant, L. (2008). Emerging adult siblings' use of verbally aggressive messages as hurtful messages. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 268-283.

Shuangyue, Z. (2009). Sender-Recipient perspectives of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 22(2), 89-101.

Theiss, J., Knobloch, L., Checton, M., & Magsamen-Conrad, K. (2009). Relationship characteristics associated with the experience of hurt in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 588-615.

Tokunaga, R. (2008). But, words can never hurt me if ... : Cultural relativity in evaluating appraisals, attributions, and consequences of hurtful messages. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37(3), 169-188.

Vangelisti, A., & Crumley, L. (1998). Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs, 65(3), 173.

Vangelisti, A., Maguire, K., Alexander, A., & Clark, G. (2007). Hurtful family environments: Links with individual, relationship, and perceptual variables. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 357-385.

Young, S. (2010). Positive perceptions of hurtful communication: The packaging matters. Communication Research Reports, 27(1), 49-57.

Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2009). Relational ramifications of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in close relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 73(4), 481-501.