Hurtful communication

Last updated October 10, 2024

Hurtful communication occurs when the receiver perceives a specific social interaction as upsetting or harmful emotionally.^[1] In the course of human interaction, one party will say or do something that results in unpleasant emotional feelings for another.^[2] Negative social interactions can be intentional, when one or both parties are involved in interpersonal conflict, or unintentional, such as when misunderstandings occur. Actions such as failure to recognize accomplishments or significant dates can cause hurtful outcomes within relationships.^[3]

Hurtful communication more commonly occurs in intimate relationships where parties have disclosed more information to one another than stranger interaction.^[4] Hurtful communication has been studied in romantic relationship and parent-child relationships, with findings having potential applications in sibling relationships, in-law relationships, work relationships, educator-student relationships, and friendships. In relation to other negative emotions such as anger or guilt, hurt is more often linked to interpersonal interaction.^[3] Interactions are adversely affected by hurtful communication.^[5] Hurtful communication negatively affects trust within a relationship resulting in more defensive behavior by both parties.^[6] Hurtful communication topics can be found interpersonal communication and relational communication research.

Defining hurtful communication

Types of hurtful verbal communications and actions:

Devaluation –the perception that one is not as close as thought. This can be a result of verbal or non-verbal communication where one party feels less important than they desire within the exchange. Often, devaluation is manifest through betrayal and/or rejection.^[3]
Relational transgressions –the violation of relationship norms which causes one party to feel betrayal.
Hurtful messages – words that result in pain. Commonly these messages are combinations of profanity, threats or attacks on appearance, competencies, origins or character.^[7]

Both the content of the message and the delivery play a part in how a hurtful message is interpreted.^[8] Content that provides new information to the recipient is considered more sensitive and better received than content that insults the person's intelligence.^[8] In terms of delivery, hurtful communication packaged in the form of giving unsolicited advice may be seen as more supportive than the same information in the form of giving orders.^[8]

Factors such as whether the hurtful communication was intentional and the frequency of occurrence has an impact on the meaning of the event.^[2] Types of hurtful communication include relational denigration, humiliation, aggression, intrinsic flaw, shock, tasteless humor, misunderstood intent, and discouragement as probable causes of hurt feelings.^[2]^[3] Hurtful communication is interaction that causes the receiver to feel marginalized.^[9]

The injured party most often is harmed by the undermining of self-concept ^[3] causing loss of self-worth resulting in estrangement within the relationship, as receivers have difficulty trusting themselves and the one who engaged in hurtful communication.

Use of hurtful communication

Communication is not exclusively a sender/receiver exchange of finite information. What is communicated through verbal and nonverbal communication is interpreted by both parties through a lens of schema of previous experiences and knowledge. Rather than scholarly research defining phrases and terms that universally are considered hurtful, researchers focus on what communication causes negative feelings in the receiver. Expressions of honest feelings by one party can be devastating to the other such as professions of attraction to another person or expressing disinterest in continuing a romantic relationship.^[10] A child displaying disinterest in a parent's involvement could be considered hurtful communication just as a parent criticism could be hurtful to an adolescent. In less familiar relationships such as acquaintances or strangers, hurtful communication is more general and typically focused on observations such as gender, race, sexual orientation or identity, ethnicity, national origin, or religion often in the form of verbal slurs and hate words.^[11] The more familiar the relationship becomes, the more specific and personal hurtful communication potential.

Responses to hurtful communication

Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi (2010) noted three ways people react and respond to hurtful communication:^[4]

Active verbal responses- Verbally confronting the offending party.
Acquiescent responses- Acknowledging the offender's ability to inflict pain and surrendering. This action includes forgiveness.
Invulnerable responses- Avoidance of acceptance of a hurtful message often deflected through humor or ignoring. Rumination (over-focusing on the occurrence rather than solutions) may prevent one from moving past the infraction.^[6]

It is probable that one or more (even all three) responses occur in when someone is faced with hurtful communication. In cases where the injured party perceived the hurtful communication intentional relational distancing often occurred which complicates resolution.^[3]

Application

Hurtful communication studies fall under relational communications which is an interdisciplinary subject with connections to psychology, sociology, and communication fields. Researchers have produced various studies over past two decades relating to hurtful communication.

Drugs

Alcohol

A 2021 study, that examined the relationship between drunk texting and emotional dysregulation, found a positive correlation. The findings suggest that interventions targeting emotional regulation skills may be beneficial.^[12]

Romantic relationships

Scholarly research on the topic of hurtful communication in romantic relationships is more readily available than any other category. Romantic partners use communication to construct and evolve their relationship or as a means to sabotage stability.^[10] Partners rate their relationships based on the current communication (whether positive or negative).^[10] Perhaps due to the closeness and interdependency of romantic relationships, communication between romantic partners that is deemed hurtful has significant impact on current and future interaction. Young, Bippus, & Dunbar (2015) state the intimate knowledge of the significant other's hopes, fears and insecurities enable each party to inflict pain more deeply than others in one's life.^[1] Intimate knowledge of all aspects of another's life gives access that can be used both positively and negatively. In conflict interaction, observations from one's partner may be processed differently than a non-conflict interaction.^[1]

Self-uncertainty often occurs after a negative exchange rather than partner-uncertainty.^[6] When both self-uncertainty and partner-uncertainty occur the relationship status is called into question.^[6] Malachowski et al., (2015) found when self-uncertainty or partner-uncertainty occurred, it was more likely the parties would engage in forgiveness after a hurtful communication event theorizing it was part of the coping mechanism to reduce relationship-uncertainty.^[6]

Parent–child relationships

The parent–child relationship is to some degree involuntary but both parties develop communication that provides the structure for the relationship.^[9] Relationships between parent and child is a deeply connected bond that evolves over time where familiarity and the changing dynamics can result in hurtful communications.^[13] The responsibility of parents to nurture their offspring has been theorized to result in more hurt feelings for the parents than the child when hurtful communications occur.^[13] While adolescence also feel pain from hurtful communications, adolescence may be less likely to verbalize their feelings perhaps due to the parent-child dependence that exists.^[13] Perceived rejection or betrayal between parent-child results in doubts of self, other and relationship as questioning of honesty, intimacy and closeness often occurs.^[13] Self-identity and family-identity is unstable when hurtful communication has or is occurring because eventually communication will be impaired.^[9] Since the attachment between parent and child differs from that of a romantic relationship, there is a difference in how hurtful communication is processed.

Related Research Articles

Deception is the act of convincing one or many recipients of untrue information. The person creating the deception knows it to be false while the receiver of the message has a tendency to believe it. It is often done for personal gain or advantage. Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda and sleight of hand as well as distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception. It can also be called, with varying subjective implications, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, ruse, or subterfuge.

In social psychology, an interpersonal relation describes a social association, connection, or affiliation between two or more persons. It overlaps significantly with the concept of social relations, which are the fundamental unit of analysis within the social sciences. Relations vary in degrees of intimacy, self-disclosure, duration, reciprocity, and power distribution. The main themes or trends of the interpersonal relations are: family, kinship, friendship, love, marriage, business, employment, clubs, neighborhoods, ethical values, support and solidarity. Interpersonal relations may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and societies. They appear when people communicate or act with each other within specific social contexts, and they thrive on equitable and reciprocal compromises.

Jealousy generally refers to the thoughts or feelings of insecurity, fear, and concern over a relative lack of possessions or safety.

Intrapersonal communication is communication with oneself or self-to-self communication. Examples are thinking to oneself "I will do better next time" after having made a mistake or imagining a conversation with one's boss in preparation for leaving work early. It is often understood as an exchange of messages in which sender and receiver are the same person. Some theorists use a wider definition that goes beyond message-based accounts and focuses on the role of meaning and making sense of things. Intrapersonal communication can happen alone or in social situations. It may be prompted internally or occur as a response to changes in the environment.

Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value. Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register. Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

The uncertainty reduction theory, also known as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication theory from the post-positivist tradition. It is one of the few communication theories that specifically looks into the initial interaction between people prior to the actual communication process. Uncertainty reduction theory originators' main goal when constructing it was to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainty between strangers during a first interaction. Uncertainty reduction theory claims that everyone activates two processes in order to reduce uncertainty. The first being a proactive process, which focuses on what someone might do. The second being a retroactive process, which focuses on how people understand what another does or says. This theory's main claim is that people must receive information about another party in order to reduce their uncertainty and, that people want to do so. While uncertainty reduction theory claims that communication will lead to reduced uncertainty, it is important to note that this is not always the case. Dr. Dale E. Brashers of the University of Illinois argues that in some scenarios, more communication may lead to greater uncertainty.

In psychology, the theory of attachment can be applied to adult relationships including friendships, emotional affairs, adult romantic and carnal relationships and, in some cases, relationships with inanimate objects. Attachment theory, initially studied in the 1960s and 1970s primarily in the context of children and parents, was extended to adult relationships in the late 1980s. The working models of children found in Bowlby's attachment theory form a pattern of interaction that is likely to continue influencing adult relationships.

The social penetration theory (SPT) proposes that as relationships develop, interpersonal communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more intimate ones. The theory was formulated by psychologists Irwin Altman of the University of Utah and Dalmas Taylor of the University of Delaware in 1973 to understand relationship development between individuals. Altman and Taylor noted that relationships "involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or degree of social penetration". SPT is known as an objective theory as opposed to an interpretive theory, meaning it is based on data drawn from actual experiments and not simply from conclusions based on individuals' specific experiences.

Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles and interplay between contrary tendencies. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions. Dialectics are described as the tensions an individual feels when experiencing paradoxical desires that we need and/ or want. The theory contains four assumptions, one of them being that relationships are not one dimensional, rather, they consist of highs and lows, without moving in only one direction. The second assumption claims that change is a key element in relational life, in other words, as our lives change, our relationships change with it. Third, is the assumption that, “contradictions or tensions between opposites never go away and never cease to provide tension,” which means, we will always experience the feelings of pressure that come with our contradictory desires. The fourth assumption is that communication is essential when it comes to working through these opposing feelings. Relationships are made in dialogue and they can be complicated and dialogue with similarities and differences are necessary. Relational communication theories allow for opposing views or forces to come together in a reasonable way. When making decisions, desires and viewpoints that often contradict one another are mentioned and lead to dialectical tensions. Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery exemplify these contradictory statements that arise from individuals experience dialectal tensions using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; as well as, "two's company; three's a crowd" but "the more the merrier". This does not mean these opposing tensions are fundamentally troublesome for the relationship; on the contrary, they simply bring forward a discussion of the connection between two parties.

Knapp's relational development model portrays relationship development as a ten step process, broken into two phases. Created by and named after communication scholar Mark L. Knapp, the model suggests that all of the steps should be done one at a time, in sequence, to make sure they are effective. However, not every relationship will go through these stages of development in the same way. Compared to DeVito's six-stage model of relational development, Knapp's model is far more prescriptive and detailed, but also presupposes that the relationship will ultimately dissolve, as evident in the five "coming apart" stages that make up the second half of the model. However, Knapp himself has said that his model is also descriptive; the model describes what seems to happen, not necessarily what should happen. The model proposes that coming apart need not be seen as inherently bad, just as coming together need not be seen as inherently good.

Interpersonal deception theory (IDT) is one of a number of theories that attempts to explain how individuals handle actual deception at the conscious or subconscious level while engaged in face-to-face communication. The theory was put forth by David Buller and Judee Burgoon in 1996 to explore this idea that deception is an engaging process between receiver and deceiver. IDT assumes that communication is not static; it is influenced by personal goals and the meaning of the interaction as it unfolds. IDT is no different from other forms of communication since all forms of communication are adaptive in nature. The sender's overt communications are affected by the overt and covert communications of the receiver, and vice versa. IDT explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges.

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

Cognitive valence theory (CVT) is a theoretical framework that describes and explains the process of intimacy exchange within a dyad relationship. Peter A. Andersen, PhD created the cognitive valence theory to answer questions regarding intimacy relationships among colleagues, close friends and intimate friends, married couples and family members. Intimacy or immediacy behavior is that behavior that provides closeness or distance within a dyad relationship. Closeness projects a positive feeling in a relationship, and distance projects a negative feeling within a relationship. Intimacy or immediacy behavior can be negatively valenced or positively valenced. Valence, associated with physics, is used here to describe the degree of negativity or positivity in expected information. If your partner perceives your actions as negative, then the interaction may repel your partner away from you. If your partner perceives your actions as positive, then the interaction may be accepted and may encourage closeness. Affection and intimacy promotes positive valence in a relationship. CVT uses non-verbal and verbal communications criteria to analyze behavioral situations.

Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Verbal aggressiveness in communication has been studied to examine the underlying message of how the aggressive communicator gains control over different things that occur, through the usage of verbal aggressiveness. Scholars have identified that individuals who express verbal aggressiveness have the goal of controlling and manipulating others through language. Infante and Wigley defined verbal aggressiveness as "a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication". Self-concept can be described as a group of values and beliefs that one has. Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication, but it can produce positive outcomes. Infante and Wigley described aggressive behavior in interpersonal communication as products of individual's aggressive traits and the way the person perceives the aggressive circumstances that prevents them or something in a situation.

How to set boundaries in a relationship

Loreen Olson is an American scholar of family communication, with an emphasis on gender, communication, and violence. She is an assistant professor for the Communication Studies department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She teaches graduate and undergraduate classes on communication theory, gender communication, relational communication, family communication, qualitative research methods, and interpersonal communication theory. Olson and co-authors Elizabeth A. Baiocchi-Wagner, Jessica M. Wilson-Kratzer, and Sarah E. Symonds published a book entitled The Dark Side of Family Communication. Loreen Olson is also the current editor of the Journal of Family Communication.

References

1 2 3 Young, Stacy L.; Bippus, Amy M.; Dunbar, Norah E. (January 2015). "Comparing Romantic Partners' Perceptions of Hurtful Communication During Conflict Conversations". Southern Communication Journal. 80 (1): 39–54. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2014.941113. ISSN 1041-794X. S2CID 144712829.
1 2 3 Bippus, Amy M.; Young, Stacy L. (2012-12-19). "Using Appraisal Theory to Predict Emotional and Coping Responses to Hurtful Messages". Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships. 6 (2): 176–190. doi: 10.5964/ijpr.v6i2.99 . ISSN 1981-6472.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Vangelisti, Anita L.; Young, Stacy L.; Carpenter-Theune, Katy E.; Alexander, Alicia L. (August 2005). "Why does it hurt? The perceived causes of hurt feelings". Communication Research. 32 (4): 443–477. doi:10.1177/0093650205277319. ISSN 0093-6502. S2CID 206437042. EBSCOhost edsgcl.134536875.
1 2 Guerrero, Laura K. (2017-03-24). Close encounters : communication in relationships. Andersen, Peter A.,, Afifi, Walid A. (Fifth ed.). Los Angeles. ISBN 9781506376721. OCLC 962141064.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑ Vangelisti, Anita L. (2015-12-01). "Hurtful Communication". In Berger, Charles R; Roloff, Michael E; Wilson, Steve R; Dillard, James Price (eds.). Hurtful Communication. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. Vol. A–E. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 1–9. doi:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic178. ISBN 9781118540190.
1 2 3 4 5 Malachowski, Colleen C.; Frisby, Brandi N. (2015-03-15). "The Aftermath of Hurtful Events: Cognitive, Communicative, and Relational Outcomes". Communication Quarterly. 63 (2): 187–203. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1012218. ISSN 0146-3373. S2CID 146265209.
↑ Hoskins, Natalie; Woszidlo, Alesia; Kunkel, Adrianne (Fall 2016). "Words can hurt the ones you love: Interpersonal trust as it relates to listening anxiety and verbal aggression". Iowa Journal of Communication. 48 (1/2): 96–112. EBSCOhost 118459975.
1 2 3 Young, Stacy L. (2010-02-09). "Positive Perceptions of Hurtful Communication: The Packaging Matters". Communication Research Reports. 27 (1): 49–57. doi:10.1080/08824090903526562. ISSN 0882-4096. S2CID 144168002.
1 2 3 Dorrance Hall, Elizabeth (September 2017). "The process of family member marginalization: Turning points experienced by "black sheep"". Personal Relationships. 24 (3): 491–512. doi:10.1111/pere.12196. S2CID 179177987.
1 2 3 Dunleavy, Katie Neary; Goodboy, Alan K.; Booth-Butterfield, Melanie; Sidelinger, Robert J.; Banfield, Sara (2009-02-20). "Repairing Hurtful Messages in Marital Relationships". Communication Quarterly. 57 (1): 67–84. doi:10.1080/01463370802664701. ISSN 0146-3373. S2CID 144394027.
↑ Leetaru, Kalev (2017-02-23). "Fighting Words Not Ideas: Google's New AI-Powered Toxic Speech Filter Is The Right Approach". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-10-19.
↑ Trub, L; Doyle, KM; Parker, V; Starks, TJ (2021). "Drunk Texting: When the Phone Becomes a Vehicle for Emotional Dysregulation and Problematic Alcohol Use". Substance Use & Misuse. 56 (12): 1815–1824. doi:10.1080/10826084.2021.1954027. PMID 34353214.
1 2 3 4 McLaren, Rachel M.; Pederson, Joshua R. (February 2014). "Relational Communication and Understanding in Conversations about Hurtful Events Between Parents and Adolescents". Journal of Communication. 64 (1): 145–166. doi:10.1111/jcom.12072.