All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relations Among Apology, Forgiveness, and Communicative Responses to Hurtful Messages
Unformatted Document Text:  Forgiveness and Communication 15 forgiveness was measured with two straightforward Likert items ( α = .84): “I have forgiven my partner for hurting me” and “I completely forgave my partner.” Communicative responses. The seven communicative responses to hurtful events were all measured using 7-point Likert scales, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement. Each item had the same stem: “When I was feeling hurt I tended to . . .” As can be seen in Table 1, all of these scales had acceptable inter-item reliability. Conciliatory responses were measured using three scales: relational repair, integrative communication, and loyalty. Relational repair tactics all constitute prosocial behaviors designed to repair the relationship. The items for this scale were drawn from work by Emmers and Canary (1996) on uncertainty reduction tactics and Guerrero et al. (1995) on compensatory restoration responses to jealousy. Items comprising the integrative communication scale focus on self- disclosure and relational talk. These items were derived from Emmers and Canary’s (1996) list of interactive modes of uncertainty reduction and Guerrero et al.’s (1995) integrative responses to jealousy. The items comprising the loyalty scale were all derived from Rusbult’s (1983, 1987) measure of the same name. According to Rusbult and her colleagues, these items represent passive-constructive behaviors that help people avoid the problem (at least temporarily) while remaining loyal to the relationship. Destructive responses were measured using four scales: de-escalation, revenge, distributive communication, and negative avoidance. De-escalation was measured using a mix of items from Rusbult et al.’s (1987) scales for assessing exit and neglect behavior. Thus, this scale represents both active and passive ways that people seek to de-escalate or terminate their relationships following hurtful events. Similar items have also been used to assess relational threat as a response to jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998) and breaking up as an active response to uncertainty reduction (Emmers & Canary, 1996). Revenge was measured with three

Authors: Bachman, Guy. and Guerrero, Laura.
first   previous   Page 15 of 39   next   last



background image
Forgiveness and Communication 15
forgiveness was measured with two straightforward Likert items (
α
= .84): “I have forgiven my
partner for hurting me” and “I completely forgave my partner.”
Communicative responses. The seven communicative responses to hurtful events were all
measured using 7-point Likert scales, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating
strong agreement. Each item had the same stem: “When I was feeling hurt I tended to . . .” As
can be seen in Table 1, all of these scales had acceptable inter-item reliability.
Conciliatory responses were measured using three scales: relational repair, integrative
communication, and loyalty. Relational repair tactics all constitute prosocial behaviors designed
to repair the relationship. The items for this scale were drawn from work by Emmers and Canary
(1996) on uncertainty reduction tactics and Guerrero et al. (1995) on compensatory restoration
responses to jealousy. Items comprising the integrative communication scale focus on self-
disclosure and relational talk. These items were derived from Emmers and Canary’s (1996) list
of interactive modes of uncertainty reduction and Guerrero et al.’s (1995) integrative responses
to jealousy. The items comprising the loyalty scale were all derived from Rusbult’s (1983, 1987)
measure of the same name. According to Rusbult and her colleagues, these items represent
passive-constructive behaviors that help people avoid the problem (at least temporarily) while
remaining loyal to the relationship.
Destructive responses were measured using four scales: de-escalation, revenge,
distributive communication, and negative avoidance. De-escalation was measured using a mix of
items from Rusbult et al.’s (1987) scales for assessing exit and neglect behavior. Thus, this scale
represents both active and passive ways that people seek to de-escalate or terminate their
relationships following hurtful events. Similar items have also been used to assess relational
threat as a response to jealousy (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998) and breaking up as an active
response to uncertainty reduction (Emmers & Canary, 1996). Revenge was measured with three


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.