Scripts and Communication for Relationships

Table Of Contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• About the author(s)/editor(s)
• About the book
• This eBook can be cited
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter One: The Pursuit of Intimacy and Relational Scripts
• Fatal Attraction
• Symbolic Interdependence in Relationships
• Matching Hypothesis: Birds of a Feather Flock Together
• Interpersonal Attraction
• Ratings of Physical Attractiveness
• A Brief Introduction to Relational Scripts
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Part One: Emotions, Imagination, and Physiology of Relationships
• Chapter Two: Emotion and Cognition About Relationships
• Characteristics of Happiness
• Representation of Affect According to Cognitive Theories of Emotion
• Differences Among Emotions, Moods, and Affect
• Similarities and Differences Among Love, Hate, Anger, and Jealousy
• Prototypes of Anger in Relationships
• Types of Anger
• Scripts for Anger
• Emotional Scripts for Relationships
• Communication and the Sentiment-Override Hypothesis
• Emotions and Social Media Relationships
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Three: Generating and Maintaining Relationships Through Imagined Interactions
• Creating Relationship Scripts Through Imagined Interactions
• Main Features of Imagined Interaction Theory
• Third-Party IIs
• Relational Maintenance Function of Imagined Interactions
• Imagined Interactions with Ex-partners
• Comparisons Between Friends and Friends with Benefits
• Imagined Interactions and Social Isolation: Parasocial Relationships
• Affect and Imagined Interactions
• Use of Imagined Interactions in Linking Together Prior Conversations
• Gender Differences in Imagined Interactions and Memory
• Imagined Interactions in Marriage
• Imagined Interactions Among Engaged and Married Couples
• Imagined Interactions in Virtual Relationships
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Four: Physiology and Relationships
• Communibiology Assumptions
• Imagined Interactions (IIs) Conflict-Linkage Theory
• Why Study Physiology in Relationships?
• Common Physiological Measures of Arousal
• Oxytocin and the Physiological Development of Love
• Cortisol and Stress in Relationships
• Diffuse Physiological Arousal in Couples
• A Physiological Script for Relational Deterioration
• Study of the Impact of Imagined Interactions and Arguing Among Couples on Heart Rate
• Procedure
• Case Study of a Couple Discussing Pleasing and Displeasing Topics
• Agenda Initiation
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• Notes
• References
• Part Two: Bases of Relational Scripts
• Chapter Five: Schemata, Scenes, and Scripts for Relationships
• Sex Differences in Interpreting Flirtatious Signs
• A Comparison of Memory with the Organization of a Computer
• Schemata
• Relational Schemata
• Scenes
• Scripts
• Mindlessness Versus Mindfulness
• Initial Interaction Scripts
• Scripts for Dating
• Sequences of Dating Behavior
• Sequence-Grouping in Dating Behavior
• Sexual Scripts
• Sex with Androids
• Hooking Up
• Friends with Benefits
• Online Relationship Scripts
• Cultural Scripts and Performances for Sex
• Changes in Interactive Scripts
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Six: Development of Relationships: Stage Theories and Relational Script Theory
• Developmental Models of Relationships
• Criticisms of Developmental Models
• Relational Dialectic Models
• Criticisms of Relational Dialectic Models
• Social Cognition: The Script Approach
• Gender Differences in Intimate-Relationship Scripts
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Part Three: Relational Escalation and Deescalation
• Chapter Seven: Scripts for Romantic Development and Decline
• Redundancy and the Complexity of Romantic Scripts
• Content of Romantic Scripts
• Deescalating Script
• Inferences Associated with Relationship Decay
• Typicality Versus Necessity in Predicting Beliefs About Relational Development
• Predicting Beliefs About Relational Decay
• Underlying Dimensions of Relational Development and Decline
• Card-Sorting Experiment for Escalating and Deescalating Actions
• Story-Segmentation Analysis
• Gender Differences in Generating and Processing Scripts
• Scripts for Friendships Compared with FWBs
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Eight: Semantics of Break-ups
• Linguistic Codes of Omissions and Commissions
• Semantic Codes of Action
• An Attributional Explanation
• An Implicit Benefit-of-the-Doubt Explanation
• A Rules-Based Explanation
• Gender Differences in Omissions and Commissions
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• Note
• References
• Part Four: Relationship Scripts in Context
• Chapter Nine: Online Communication and Relational Scripts
• Cues-Filtered Out Theories and Computer-Mediated Communication
• Online Relationships Development
• Uncertainty Reduction Theory
• Social Penetration Theory
• Hyperpersonal Perspective
• Changing Nature of Friendships
• Romantic Relationships Online
• Tinder
• Who Forms Online Relationships?
• Attitudes Toward Online Relationships
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Ten: Scripts for Office Romance: Approved or Forbidden?
• Proximity Theory and the Formation of Relationships
• When Mentoring Scripts Include Romance
• Gender Scripts in Office Romances
• Hierarchy Differences
• Sexual Harassment Scripts
• Same-Sex Sexual Harassment
• Intercultural Differences
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Application
• References
• Part Five: Cautions and Recommendations
• Chapter Eleven: Dysfunctional Scripts for Abusive Relationships
• Conflict Tactics and Types of Abuse
• Cycle of Abuse
• Stalking
• Gender Differences in Relational Abuse
• Signal Detection Theory and the Ability to Notice Escalating Conflict
• Verbal Aggression, Arguing, and Physical Coercion
• Imagined Interactions and Verbal Aggression in Predicting Physical Coercion
• Pit-Bull and Cobra Batterers
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Twelve: The Dark Side of Social Media Communication
• Mechanization, Attention Deficit, and Addiction
• Selective Self-Presentation and Narcissism
• Declining Quality of Interpersonal Relationships
• Privacy and Security
• Cyberbullying
• Cyberstalking
• Misinformation and Deception on Social Media
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Applications
• References
• Chapter Thirteen: Scripts for Constructive Communication
• Communication Competence
• Communication Behaviors Leading to Breakup or Divorce
• Conflict Tactics
• Rules for Arguing
• An Acronym for Effective Communication Tips: Listen Observe (or Oxytocin) Verify (or Validate) Express
• Biofeedback to Reduce Stress
• Linguistic Cues Signifying a Happy Relationship
• Tests of Grievances and Arguing Behaviors
• Summary
• Discussion Questions
• Application
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Honeycutt, James M., author. | Sheldon, Pavica, author.
Honeycutt, James M. Scripts and communication for relationships.
Title: Scripts and communication for relationships /
James M. Honeycutt and Pavica Sheldon.
Description: 2nd edition | New York: Peter Lang
Revised edition of Scripts and communication for relationships, c2011.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017019787 | ISBN 978-1-4331-4217-8 (paperback: alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-4331-4263-5 (ebook pdf)
ISBN 978-1-4331-4264-2 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-4331-4265-9 (mobi)
Subjects: LCSH: Interpersonal relations.
Couples.
Interpersonal communication.
Intimacy (Psychology).
Interpersonal conflict.
Classification: LCC HM1166 .H66 | DDC 302—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017019787
DOI 10.3726/b11028

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2018 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York
29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006
www.peterlang.com

All rights reserved.
Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

 

About the author(s)/editor(s)

James M. Honeycutt (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is an LSU Distinguished Professor of Communication Studies and a winner of numerous research awards including the Rainmaker Research Award. He has shaped research in psychology and family studies. He is founder of the Matchbox Interaction Lab and is internationally recognized for his work in relationship scripts and imagined interactions.

Pavica Sheldon (Ph.D., Louisiana State University) is Associate Professor and Interim Department Chair of the Department of Communication Arts at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In 2015 Sheldon won the Janice Hocker Rushing Early Career Research Award from Southern States Communication Association.

| 25 →

CHAPTER TWO

Emotion and Cognition About Relationships

When people are asked to describe the relationships that are the most meaningful in their lives, they often use emotional inferences to express how they feel about the relationship. Indeed, people find it difficult to be descriptive as opposed to being evaluative in describing their romantic partners. How they currently feel about a relational partner affects their recall about the events in the relationship. For example, a married couple who has just had a heated argument will view their wedding video with more cynicism as compared to how they felt on the day of the wedding. This chapter reviews research on the role of emotions in processing information about the development of relationships. People have emotion prototypes for anger and love that reveal an association with other types of emotion, such as despair or infatuation. Furthermore, during relationship conflict, there are three types of emotion referred to as hard, soft, and flat emotion (Sanford & Grace, 2011). “Hard” emotion is associated with hostility and asserting power (e.g., anger is a prototypical hard emotion), while “soft” emotion reflects vulnerability including sadness, hurt, concern, and disappointment. “Flat” emotions reflect withdrawal, boredom, indifference, and disinterest (Nichols, Backer-Fulghum, Boska, & Sanford, 2015). People in relationships feel a threat to their status when partners communicate hard emotions and feel neglect when they observe an increase in partner flat emotion or a decrease in partner’s soft emotion. ← 25 | 26 →

The role of emotions in the development and maintenance of relationships is critical to understanding how people differentiate among different kinds of relationships. For example, friendships are distinguished from intimate relationships on the basis of arousal and feelings of passion. The role of emotions in interpersonal relationships is a frequent theme in popular music. Songs deal with love, finding the right partner, and how happiness is a consequence of being in a romantic bond.

Characteristics of Happiness

Research reviewed by Diener and Biswas-Diener (2008) suggests that there are various predictors of happiness which are listed in Box 2.1. The most important predictor is being in a quality relationship. This is supported by Issacowitz, Valliant, and Seligman (2003) who reported that among their middle-aged and older participants, a loving relationship was strongly predictive of life satisfaction. In fact, among middle-aged individuals it was the only predictor of being happy with one’s life. Furthermore, married people of both sexes report more happiness than those who are never married, divorced, or separated (e.g., Lee, Seccombe, & Shehan, 1991). Interestingly, Diener and Suh (2003) report that life satisfaction is lower when one’s parents had a highly conflictual marriage or when they were divorced, and that this pattern was true in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Perhaps growing up in a conflictual or distrusting environment interferes with one’s later social relationships because of the cultural script it builds for relating to other people.

Box 2.1. Components of Happiness

1. Being in a quality relationship.

2. Genes—As much as 50% of a person’s happiness is due to a genetic tendency. Like cholesterol and blood pressure levels, happiness is genetically influenced, yet amenable to volitional control.

3. Internal locus of control, as opposed to being a victim or feeling helpless.

4. Belief in God.

5. Optimism—Refusing to accept setbacks or hindrances. The glass is half full.

6. Flow—Feeling needed and use of one’s training or experiences.

7. Extroversion—They are outgoing and draw their energy from people.

8. Self-esteem—They see themselves as emotionally and physically healthy while having ethics and intellect. They believe they are less prejudiced and better able to get along with people. ← 26 | 27 →

The genetic tendency for happiness has been demonstrated in cases of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different families in different states (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996). Later, the twins demonstrate similar levels of humor and reactions to events even though they have no shared family experiences. The genetic argument is strong in explaining happiness among individuals in countries where the standard of living is low and resources are scarce, and depression among individuals with more affluent lifestyles. Even having one’s standard of living raised significantly does not appear to predict increased levels of happiness. For example, Brickman, Coates, and Janoff-Bulman (1978) found that former lottery winners were no happier than individuals who had not won the lottery and, in fact, took less pleasure from mundane events than those who were not lottery winners.

Predictors of happiness appear to be independent of cultural influences (Argyle, 2002). In a cross-cultural study of nearly 13,000 Swiss and American adults, Peterson, Ruch, Bermann, Park, and Seligman (2007) found that life satisfaction was most highly associated with being engaged, having pleasurable experiences, and having meaningful experiences. All of these arguably associated with quality relationships. This in turn led to individuals’ reports of loving, fulfilling lives.

Representation of Affect According to Cognitive Theories of Emotion

The cognitive theories of emotion seek to explain how people experience emotion and the phenomenology of emotions (Zajonc & Markus, 1984). The cognitive theories of emotion assume that the representation of affect is imposed by individuals using contextual cues. According to Schacter and Singer (1962), individuals construe emotions by combining perceptions of their feelings with observations of external events. For example, individuals injected with adrenaline were friendly in a friendly context and hostile in a hostile environment. Yet, as Zajonc and Markus (1984) noted, the representation of people’s internal feeling states, how they label their internal experiences as representing a given emotion, is rather abstract and is inferred by observing behavior and its antecedent conditions. By observing behavior and antecedent conditions, people often learn to habitually associate emotions with certain contexts. Emotion theorists have shown that by altering individuals’ cognitive appraisals of a stimulus (e.g., viewing a disturbing movie of a surgical incision from the viewpoint of a surgeon or from the stance of an observer), it is possible to alter individuals’ emotional responses (Mandler, 1975). ← 27 | 28 →

People’s expectations from relationships affect their emotional responses to events in relationships. Mandler (1975) argued that past experiences provide expectations about relationships. He suggested that an interruption of the expectations may result in positive or negative emotion, depending on the degree and intensity of the interruption. Low-level interruptions occur when people’s expectations are more closely met, whereas high-level interruptions produce more arousal and more intense emotional reactions. An example of a low-level interruption would be an individual asking someone out after he or she has spoken with the other person who is now involved in a conversation with others. Because it is now harder to isolate this person in order to pop the question, a low-level interruption in what was expected occurs.

Indeed, people have expectations for emotions in relationships and scripts for emotions in relationship. These expectations influence how emotions are displayed and interpreted. For example, individuals who have prior experience with meaningful relationships are more likely to express more emotions, suggesting that the working models formed through earlier relationships have significant influences on later relationships (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007). Planalp (1999) noted that many emotions are played out and negotiated through interpersonal scripts. Some emotions are only experienced internally and dissipate, whereas other emotions provoke a response from other people, such that there may be some mutual adjustment. A common example on a first date is avoiding any display of anger even if the dating partner has done something to offend. The motivation for the emotional control is to foster the best possible impression of oneself, yet, this may be part of individual’s scripts for emotions in terms of appropriateness of display.

Gottman (2011) defined affect in terms of the nonverbal behaviors emitted by a speaker while delivering a message. Affect is the observable outcome of an emotion. For example, labeling a person angry is done by observing his or her facial expressions, tone of voice, or some combination of behaviors. Gottman coded affect on a continuum ranging from very negative to very positive. He found that nonverbal affect discriminates happily married couples from less happily married couples more than the content of their speech does. Unhappily married couples tend to match negative affect, whereas happily married couples tend to respond to negative affect with neutral or positive affect. Indeed, among less happily married couples, there is a vicious affective cycle in which the wife expresses negative feelings while the husband withdraws emotionally. She then responds with increasingly intense negative affect and the husband either withdraws or becomes exceedingly expressive as he loses control of his emotions (Fitness & Strongman, 1991; Gottman, 2011). ← 28 | 29 →

Differences Among Emotions, Moods, and Affect

Before discussing the affect of emotion on processing information about personal relationships, the terminology should be defined. Emotion is a loosely used, vacuous term because it has multiple meanings to different people. Furthermore, what is emotional to one person may be unemotional to someone else. Although some emotion theorists believe that emotions are hardwired biological processes, Planalp (1999) discussed how emotions evolved not only in response to the physical environment but to the social environment as well. This has been supported by Hastings and De (2008) who studied over 100 preschool children, examining both biological predispositions and parental socialization patterns. They discovered children who had less regulatory parasympathic capability were more susceptible to parental responses to their emotions.

Andersen and Guerrero (1998) reviewed studies indicating how emotions arise more in social situations than in nonsocial ones. Examples of social emotions are guilt, love, contempt, jealousy, and embarrassment (Planalp, 1999). These emotions are commonly elicited in romance. Some emotions are even defined as being ways an individual feels about other people.

Shields (1987) performed a classic, pioneering study in gender differences in emotions in which individuals were asked to think of the most emotional person they knew and explain why they chose the person. Emotional people were designated in terms of the magnitude of their responses such as the extremity of their reaction to an event. Negative emotions were cited more often than were positive ones. Participants were also asked to describe a particular situation in which the person that they were thinking about had been emotional. Sadness and depression were mentioned most (41%), followed by anger (37%). Shields reported that positive emotions such as love or happiness were mentioned in 13% of the cases. Interestingly, in retrospect, negative emotions are not always evaluated negatively. The participants in Saffrey, Summerville, and Roese’s study (2008) who were asked to recall past negative emotions identified “regret” in a favorable manner. These individuals appeared to value their past regret experiences, which they attributed to themselves more often than others, reporting that regret assisted in self-understanding leading to preserving harmony in interactions with others.

In Shield’s study, negative emotions appeared to be most associated with male participants. The only emotion that men felt they could express without being labeled as girlish was anger and for the most part they were judged to be hiding their emotions. Men also reported that the emotional women that they were thinking about expressed more healthy emotions than they did. The association between men and anger and between women and other common emotions such ← 29 | 30 → as sadness, fear, or happiness is learned by age 5 (Birnbaum, Nosanchuck, & Croll, 1980). Indeed, women experience just as much anger as men do, but that they may cry or feel hurt as a reaction to it.

Appraisal occurs when labeling the event. Appraisals are interpretations of the relationship between the individual and the environment in terms of how the individual’s well-being is affected and his or her ability to cope with the event (Dillard, Kinney, & Cruz, 1996). Positive emotions emanate from a compatible fit between environmental events and an individual’s motives, desires, or goals. Negative emotions occur when there is a mismatch between the environment and an individual’s motives. Initial appraisals appear to influence later perceptions whether positive or negative. Halberstadt and Niedenthal (2001) reported that individuals who initially told angry stories they identified with a facial expression later recalled faces much angrier than were actually shown; individuals who told happy stories identified faces as being much happier than actually indicated.

Appraisal theories distinguish between positive and negative emotions based on the relationship between events in the environment and individual motivations, needs, or desires at given times. Appraisal theories of emotion posit that emotions unfold in a sequence in which an event occurs in the environment that may or may not be noticed (Dillard et al., 1996; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). If the event is noticed, the individual appraises it by deciding if the event may harm or benefit him or herself. Depending on the magnitude of the appraisal, an emotion arises. Appraisal theorists claim that individuals compare what they observe in the environment to their goals, desires, or motives. When the observations are congruent with their desires, positive emotions follow. The perception of mismatch results in negative emotions. The intensity of emotion depends on the degree of congruence or mismatch.

Mandler (1975) also discussed how philosophers and psychologists argued that emotions follow an initial appraisal of an object as good or bad. It is important to note that there are instances in which an event generates some particular meaning regardless of whether arousal is associated with it and that the final emotional expression leads to a post hoc assessment of the event as bad or good (Mandler, 1975). In addition, behaviorists such as Bowlby (1999) argued that approach toward and avoidance of stimuli are not inherently positive or negative, respectively; rather, approach and withdrawal tendencies with respect to a potential emotional stimulus are independent of linguistic labels of “good” and “bad.” People often approach bad stimuli, as well as the reverse. Indeed, Mandler (1975) argued that bad evaluations are often a consequence of invoking an expectation about some event and that the observed behavior cannot be assimilated into the expectation or the expectation cannot be accommodated to account for the unexpected behavior. ← 30 | 31 → An example is someone expecting a partner to be supportive in times of need, only to find out that this partner is busy coping with his or her own problems and, consequently, is too busy to provide the expected support. Negative evaluations of the intimate partner are likely to result. A relational expectation of support or comfort is violated.

This is an example of the assimilation of the unsupportive behavior into the expectation that the intimate partner should be supportive in times of stress. On the other hand, accommodation occurs when the expectation is modified such that intimate partners are now conditionally expected to provide support only to the extent that intimate partners are not overwhelmed with stress.

A good working definition of emotion is provided by Clore, Schwartz, and Conway (1994). According to these researchers, emotions are defined as “internal mental states that are focused primarily on affect (where affect simply refers to the perceived goodness or badness of something)” (p. 325). Examples of emotion terms are “adore,” “aggravated,” “anguished,” “apprehensive,” and “awestruck.” These terms do not refer directly to events or to bodily reactions or behavior. Instead, they refer to mental events that integrate feelings. That is, we note our mental state and physiological reactions and provide terms to assist us in understanding these feelings and communicating them to others. Common terms that do not constitute emotions refer to external events (e.g., abandoned) or bodily states (e.g., tired).

Clore et al. (1994) defined affect in terms of valence or the positive and negative aspects of things. Affect reflects the evaluative component of emotions. Indeed, Clore et al. (1994) stated that all emotions are affective, but that not all affective terms are emotions. They indicated that attitudes and preferences are affective, but are not emotions. Emotions are also seen as states, whereas preferences and attitudes are personality dispositions.

The distinction between moods and emotion is clear. Batson, Shaw, and Oleson (1992) indicated that emotions are concerned with the present, whereas moods concern anticipation of the future. Furthermore, Schwartz and Clore (1988) argued that emotions have a specific focus, whereas moods are nonspecific. Emotions have an object that moods may not have. Moods do not have to be caused by emotion. In essence, a working definition of mood is a feeling state, “which need not be about anything, whereas emotion refers to how one feels in combination with what the feeling is about” (Clore et al., 1994, p. 326).

An implication of these definitions is that cognition is essential for emotion, but not for mood (Clore, Ortony, Dienes, & Fujita, 1993). Hence, a person may be in a depressed mood on dreary morning because the absence of sunlight inhibits the release of a hormone as opposed to simply appraising the day’s opportunities as futile. In addition, Clore et al. (1994) argued that such changes may alter moods ← 31 | 32 → rather than emotions. In essence, emotions result from ongoing appraisals of situations regarding whether they are negative or positive for one’s goals. Emotions serve as intrapersonal communication concerning the nature and urgency of the situation. Emotions appear to have biological correlates that set up cycles of behaviors. Boyatzis and McKee (2005) write that situations that are interpreted as emotionally threatening cause stress arousing the sympathetic nervous system which in turn releases the hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine, elevating blood pressure. Concurrently the brain becomes focused on the stressor, inhibiting creativity and flexibility.

Indeed, the people at HeartMath LLC are dedicated to improving health, performance, and well-being at home and in the workplace (www.heartmath.com). They provide products and services that enable people to transform stress, better regulate emotional responses, and harness the power of heart/brain communication. Stress is almost an emotional reaction to a situation. The brain has emotional memories that activate the autonomic nervous system through the amygdala (LeDoux, 1996). Imagine an argument between two partners in which one partner has said something that got under the skin of the other partner. The heart rate remains elevated after the argument ends. This will be discussed further in the chapter on physiology and relationships.

Given that emotion is concerned with feedback or information about the nature of a stimulus (Clore et al., 1994), the question arises about the characteristics that provide the prototypes for many human emotions such as love, hate, anger, and jealousy. Holmes (1991) noted that couples often have distinct and specific memories of past hurts. Furthermore, spouses may misremember or not remember specific emotions that are incongruent with their beliefs about the types of emotions that are commonly expected in marriage (Fitness, 1996).

Similarities and Differences Among Love, Hate, Anger, and Jealousy

Fitness and Fletcher (1993) examined the emotions of love, hate, anger, and jealousy in marriage. Both love and anger events, as opposed to hate or jealousy, had occurred the preceding month. In addition, both anger and love scripts reflected the desire to communicate with the partner, whereas hate or jealousy scripts reflected the desire to withdraw from the partner (cf., Gottman, 1994).

A love, hate, anger, or jealousy survey was randomly assigned to 160 married individuals who were asked to remember the most recent time they had felt their assigned emotion in relation to their spouses. They answered a series of open-ended questions dealing with their mood before the events; details of the actual ← 32 | 33 → events including what they remembered thinking, saying, or feeling; whether they had any urges to do something; and how they actually behaved during the incident. They also reported about controlling their emotions, the duration of the emotion, their mood after the event, and their partners’ reactions. Both love and anger events had occurred recently, whereas hate or jealousy events had occurred earlier.

As expected, love-eliciting events were evaluated as pleasant, involving little effort and few perceived obstacles. The cause of love was global (“She’s such a beautiful woman”) rather than being isolated to a context. Love was also associated with a feeling of security for some individuals. Prototypes for both romantic and companionate love include trust, caring, and respect. Characteristics of romantic love were contentment, euphoria, smiling, gazing, butterflies in one’s stomach, and periods of uncertainty. Passionate attributes such as “thinking about the partner all the time” were only secondary in describing love; however, they were primary qualities in describing emotions like hate. Indeed, people sometimes talk about the fine line between love and hate in a variety of codependent relationships involving chemical dependency, battery, or jealousy.

Not surprisingly, hate-eliciting events were seen as unpleasant and the opposite of love-eliciting events. Participants feeling hate reported lack of support by the partner and less control of the situation. Hate was elicited by being humiliated by the spouse in public. For wives, this often involved the husbands drinking too much at a social gathering and becoming aggressive. Husbands reported feeling humiliated and hating their wives when they made angry or jealous scenes in public. Both spouses reported wanting to withdraw and escape from the situation. There were feelings of being powerless and trapped.

Regarding jealousy-eliciting events, few of the spouses reported infidelity. The most intense jealousy occurred when the third party was the partner’s ex-spouse. Jealousy was characterized by worrying, brooding, and less self-esteem. A common jealousy theme was that the partner was not necessarily responsible for the third party’s overtures, but that the partner could have reacted more distantly. Interestingly, self-reported lonely individuals report experiencing heightened levels of jealously more frequently that nonlonely people (Rotenberg, Shewchuk, & Kimberley, 2001). It should be noted that infidelity occurs in two forms: sexual and emotional infidelity. Emotional infidelity develops after one self-discloses with another that result in an emotional bond characterized by trust, while sexual infidelity obviously involves sexual experiences (Barta, 2005).

These results reveal that people share socially constructed scripts or knowledge structures for basic emotions in close relationships like marriage. Furthermore, there are facial scripts for communicating emotion such as using the facial zygomatic muscles to smile, while disgusted and mixed-emotion people use their corrugator ← 33 | 34 → muscles between the eyebrows to frown (Kreibig, Samson, & Gross, 2013). Additionally, heart rate decreases while respiration increases, while heart rate does not increase as much with disgust. Physiological arousal is discussed in Chapter 4.

Fitness (1996) discussed how individuals share knowledge about emotions in general, as well as having more specific knowledge structures about the display of emotions in their own personal relationships. She provided an example of jealousy in which a spouse expressed jealousy to his or her partner because the expression of jealousy has positive outcomes such as loving reassurances from the partner who perceives the jealousy as flattery. Guerrero and Andersen (1998) also reported that relational partners may respond to jealousy in order to maintain the existing relationship. However, in other instances, the negative sentiment endures and neutral or positive emotions are labeled as cynically motivated by a partner. Moreover, jealousy shows no limitations as to age as revealed in Picture 2.1. Prior studies have revealed that younger women in their twenties are more affected by emotional infidelity while men are distressed by sexual infidelity. Research contrasting older adults in their sixties (mean age = 67 years) with younger people (mean age = 20) found similar results. Moreover, older women were less likely than younger women to select a partner’s emotional infidelity as more distressing than a partner’s sexual infidelity (Shackelford et al., 2004).

Picture 2.1. Jealousy knows no age. ← 34 | 35 →

Finally, the research by Fitness (1996) revealed that in contrasting anger with hate-eliciting events, anger was reported to be less demeaning and associated with less loss of self-esteem. The common elicitor of anger was the perception of having been treated unfairly, whereas hate was associated with humiliation and neglect. Anger events were viewed as more controllable and predictable than hate or jealousy events. Fitness (1996) and Fehr and Baldwin (1996) reported that the anger script is very common in and outside of close relationships.

The role of communication in eliciting emotion is critical. Planalp (1999) and Andersen and Guerrero (1998) discussed that emotions are elicited by communication, manifested in communication, and socialized through interaction. For example, emotions in romance often serve interaction goals such as embarrassing others to discredit or help them. An individual’s inability to communicate effectively with partners can lead to anger, depression, and loneliness, just as effective communication may lead to happiness, joy, and contentment.

Prototypes of Anger in Relationships

There has been intriguing research on emotion prototypes of anger in personal relationships. Indeed, American culture has idioms indicating the prevalence of anger in people’s closest relationships, such as “knowing which buttons to push.” When individuals are asked to describe anger, 90% of the descriptions mostly involve another person as the target of anger (Fehr & Baldwin, 1992). Anger can be defined as a type of social relationship because the emotion so often emanates from frustration with another person.