 

 

 

I LIBRARY
Z O O (a Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

AN EXPLORATION OF THE FREQUENCY, ANTECEDENTS,
AND PERCEPTIONS OF COMPLAINING IN
lNTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

presented by

KELLI JEAN K. ASADA

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

 

 

Doctoral degree in Communication

7 %

Major Professor’s Signature \
A93. 8, z 005

Date

 

 

MSU is an Aﬂinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p. 15

 

— ”I!!!

AN EXPLORATION OF THE FREQUENCY, ANT ECEDENTS, AND PERCEPTIONS
OF COMPLAINING IN lNTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

By

Kelli Jean K. Asada

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2005

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATION OF THE FREQUENCY, ANT ECEDENTS, AND PERCEPTIONS
OF COMPLAINING IN INT ERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

By

Kelli Jean K. Asada
Although complaining is a common form of communication, few studies have
investigated the variables associated with it or the effects that complaining has on
interpersonal relationships. In Study 1 (N = 173) the frequency of interpersonal
complaints was estimated and correlates of complaining were explored. In Study 2 (N =
152) the effects of perceptions of complaining propensity on liking was investigated
along with perceptions and metaperceptions of complaining. Diary and questionnaire
methods were utilized in Study 1, and a social relations model analysis was conducted in
Study 2. Results suggest that the Complaining Propensity Scale, narcissism, and message
design logic are not associated with the number of complaints expressed and that
perceptions of a target’s complaining propensity are not related to ratings of liking for the
target. Results show perceiver, target, and relationship variance in ratings of complaining
propensity. In addition, there is self-other agreement and generalized meta-accuracy in

perceptions of complaining propensity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have been blessed with a wonderful group of ﬁ'iends and family who have
supported me throughout my graduate career. I am grateful to all of you and would like to
thank individually those of you who have been especially supportive:

To my dissertation committee, Sandi Smith, Kelly Morrison, and Stan Kaplowitz,
thank you for all of the valuable feedback and advice you’ve given me. Kelly, thank you
for always knowing when I needed a little bit of extra support. To Tim Levine, my patient
advisor, thank you for always being there for me when I needed your guidance. I have
enjoyed working with each of you and have learned so much from you.

To Frank and Linda Boster and Ron Tarnborini, thank you for everything you
have done for me both in and out of the classroom. You have been great teachers and
friends throughout my career at MSU.

To my family, thank you for the love and support you’ve given me all these years.
Thanks also for sending me all of those care packages full of aloha.

To my irreplaceable ﬁ'iends, especially Lisa, Mikayla, Tracy, Dave, Cat, Mike,
Rachel, Joce, and Craig, thank you for all of the good times we’ve had and for helping me
get through the bad times. I could not have made it through this program without you.

Finally, to Kelly Aune, my cheerleader, counselor, and fellow Aquarian, I would
never have made it this far without your encouragement and guidance. Thank you for

believing in me and for helping me believe in myself.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE ...................................... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................. 3
Complaining ...................................................... 3

Types of Complaints ......................................... 6

Responses to complaints ...................................... 9

The Present Research ........................................ 11

STUDY 1 ............................................................. 12
Frequency of Complaining .......................................... 12
Antecedents of Complaining ........................................ 12
Method ......................................................... 15
Participants ................................................ 15

Procedures ................................................ 16

Measures ................................................. 16

Results ......................................................... 18
Discussion ...................................................... 19
STUDY 2 ............................................................. 24
Consequences of Complaining ...................................... 24
Interpersonal Perception ........................................... 26
Reciprocity ...................................................... 28
Accuracy and Meta-accuracy ........................................ 29
Method ......................................................... 30
Participants ................................................ 30

Procedures ................................................ 30

Measures ................................................. 3 1

Results ......................................................... 31

Tests of Research Questions and Hypotheses ..................... 31

Supplemental Analyses ...................................... 34

Discussion ...................................................... 35
GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................ 40
Limitations ...................................................... 43
Directions for Future Research ...................................... 45
Conclusion ...................................................... 48

iv

APPENDICES ......................................................... 5 1

Appendix A. Complaining Propensity Scale ............................ 52
Appendix B. Narcissism Measure .................................... 53
Appendix C. Message Design Logic Message Production Activity .......... 55
Appendix D. Complaint Log ........................................ 56
Appendix E. Liking Measure ........................................ 58
REFERENCES ........................................................ 59

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1
Correlations between Number of Complaints, Complaining Propensity,
and Narcissism ......................................................... 18

Table 2
Variance Partitioning and Reciprocity Correlations ............................ 32

Table 3
Summary of Complaint Typologies from Previous Research
and Proposed New Typology .............................................. 47

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Kowalski’s theoretical model of complaining. ......................... 5

vii

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE

There has been a recent increase in research on what Kowalski and colleagues
(Kowalski, 1997, 2001; Kowalski, Walker, Wilkinson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003) refer to
as aversive interpersonal behaviors. These aversive interpersonal behaviors, mundane
behaviors that people are exposed to on a regular basis such as lying, teasing, arrogance,
and complaining, occur frequently in relationships with family members, friends, and
romantic partners and can cause tension within these relationships. This paper focuses on
one such behavior: complaining.

People complain for a number of reasons including to bring about the change of
an undesirable state, for emotional release, to solicit sympathy and understanding, to
convey favorable personal attributes, and to elicit social comparison information (Alicke
et al., 1992; Kowalski, 1996; Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). In addition to these desirable
outcomes, however, complaining can also result in negative interpersonal consequences
for the complainer (Kowalski, 1996, 2002, 2003). Complaining has the potential to
become what Cunningham and his colleagues (Cunningham, Barbee, & Druen, 1997)
label a social allergen. Social allergens are relatively minor obnoxious behaviors that can
cause major negative emotional reactions in others. They are deﬁned as “behavior[s] or
situation[s] created by another person that may be seen as unpleasant, but not as strongly
aversive, to objective observers” (Cunningham et al., 1997, p. 191). Repeated exposure to
social allergens may produce a social allergy, “a reaction of hypersensitive disgust or
annoyance to a social allergen” (Cunningham et al., 1997, p. 191).

Kowalski (1996) presented a theoretical model of complaining and discussed

several ﬁmctions, antecedents, and consequences of complaining, but few studies have

been designed to test the model and examine the antecedents and consequences of
complaining. Another largely unexplored topic is variation in the way people perceive
their own and other people’s complaining behavior. The purpose of the proposed research
is to explore a few of the antecedents and consequences of complaining and to examine

perceptions and metaperceptions of complaining among acquainted people.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Complaining

Alicke and his colleagues (1992) argued that “complaints imply or state explicitly
that an object, state of affairs, institution, or event falls below the complainer’s hopes or
expectations” (pp. 286-287). According to their conceptualization, complaining can be
distinguished from ordinary criticism in that complaining is an expression of internal
feelings of dissatisfaction whereas criticism involves objective, dispassionate
observations about an object, event, state of affairs, or institution (Alicke et al., 1992).
For example, if Sam’s romantic partner Molly said, “You forgot our anniversary,” the
statement would be considered a complaint because Molly was disappointed that Sam did
not remember their anniversary. If a ﬁend of Sam’s said, “You forgot your anniversary,”
the statement would be considered a criticism because he or she was not personally
affected by Sam’s forgetfulness.

Kowalski (1996) points out, however, that people sometimes complain when they
are not dissatisﬁed. For example, a person who is perfectly healthy may complain about
feeling sick to gain attention or sympathy or to get out of performing an undesirable task.
Kowalski therefore deﬁnes a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, whether
subjectively experienced or not, for the purpose of venting emotions or achieving
intrapsychic goals, interpersonal goals, or both” (1996, p. 180). Criticisms, in contrast, are
negative appraisals that are not voiced to achieve personal goals. From Kowalski’s
perspective, in the above example Molly complained as a means of venting her frustration
(intrapsychic goal) or to change Sam’s behavior (interpersonal goal) whereas Sam’s

ﬁ'iend’s utterance was not voiced to achieve an intrapsychic or interpersonal goal.

The motivation to achieve interpersonal goals is related to ﬁilﬁlling interpersonal
needs. Schutz (195 8) argued that people have three interpersonal needs: the needs for
inclusion, control, and affection. The need for inclusion refers to a desire for social
contact, a sense of belonging to a group. The need for control is the need to be able to
inﬂuence other people and be inﬂuenced by others. The need for affection refers to the
desire to give and receive friendship and love. People establish and maintain
interpersonal relationships to satisfy these needs. Complaining may satisfy one’s need for
control if it results in a change in an unsatisfactory state, and it may serve as a bonding
activity if people complain about a common source of dissatisfaction, thereby satisfying
the needs for inclusion and affection. Excessive complaining, however, may make it
difﬁcult for complainers to satisfy their needs for inclusion and affection. People may
develop social allergies to complaining and avoid complainers. The exclusion and
accompanying lack of affection may result in loneliness and depression in the complainer
if the needs for inclusion and affection are moderate to strong.

Kowalski (1996) proposed a theoretical model of complaining (see Figure 1). She
argued that self-focus is “the key factory underlying complaining behavior” (p. 192). It
prompts people to evaluate their current and desired states and become aware of
discrepancies between them. Iftheir current state fails to meet their expectations the
person experiences dissatisfaction. If the dissatisfaction experienced exceeds the person’s
dissatisfaction threshold, the person then assesses the utility of complaining. If they
conclude that complaining will help them achieve their desired state, the complaining
threshold is exceeded and they will complain. Kowalski (1996) argued that dissatisfaction

is sufﬁcient but not necessary for complaining to occur. As stated previously, people who

are not dissatisﬁed with their current state may still complain if they believe that
complaining will result in desirable outcomes. In this situation, the complainer’s
dissatisfaction threshold has not been exceeded, but his or her complaining threshold has

been exceeded so he or she expresses a complaint.

 

Self-Focus

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awareness of
Discrepancy

 

 

 

 

Dissatisfaction
(Negative Affectivity)

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment of Utility
’ of Complaining

Complaining N0 Complaining

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure l . Kowalski’s theoretical model of complaining.

Complaints are expressed for the purpose of achieving one’s desired state which

means achieving an intrapersonal goal such as experiencing catharsis and/or interpersonal

goals such as conveying desirable aspects of oneself to others, saving face, and getting
another person to change their behavior (Kowalski, 1996). Complaining can help one
achieve both intrapsychic and interpersonal goals simultaneously. For example, if a
person complains to his or her roommate because the roommate left a mess in the kitchen,
the complainer may feel better after venting, and the complaint may induce the roommate
to clean the kitchen.

Individual differences in a person’s likelihood of complaining exist, so Cantrell
and Kowalski (1994) developed a scale to measure a person’s tendency to complain and
then tested the validity of that scale. High scores on the Complaining Propensity Scale
indicate that one complains frequently, and low scores on the measure indicate that one
complains infrequently. The scale validation study revealed that complaining propensity
was positively correlated with self-esteem, private self-consciousness, emotionality, and
irnpulsivity and was negatively correlated with embarrassability, fear of negative
evaluation, social anxiety, and agreeableness (Cantrell & Kowalski, 1994). A stepwise
multiple regression analysis revealed that agreeableness, self-esteem, emotionality, and
neuroticism accounted for 30% of the variance in complaining propensity (Cantrell &
Kowalski, 1994).

Types of Complaints

Several researchers have developed typologies of complaints. Alicke and his
colleagues (1992) suggest that there are two general types of complaints: instrumental
complaints and noninstrumental complaints. Instrumental complaints are expressed for
the purpose of changing an undesirable state. For example, a person may complain to his

or her romantic partner that they are not spending enough time together in order to get the

romantic partner to pay more attention to him or her. Noninstrumental complaints are not
expected to change the current undesirable state but, rather, are expressed to provide
emotional release for the complainer or to solicit sympathy and understanding from
listeners. Complaints about bad weather or trafﬁc are typical noninstrumental complaints.

Alicke et al. (1992) identiﬁed eight major categories of complaints. Attitude and
emotional expression complaints are global statements about a target that ascribe
relatively enduring attributes to the target. Behavioral complaints include complaints
about speciﬁc or general behaviors enacted by the target. Physical state complaints are
expressions of dissatisfaction with a physical condition of a person or the state of the
environment. The category of obligations includes complaints about not fulﬁlling or not
wanting to fulﬁll commitments. The disappointment category includes complaints about
service, products, or events falling below expected standards. Complaints about falling
below achievement expectations refer to complaints concerning one’s failure to perform
at desired levels on a task. Obstacles to goal attainment complaints express frustration
over blocked goals. Finally, desire for change complaints include a wish for things to be
different from the way they currently are.

Alicke and colleagues (1992) acknowledged that some complaints can fall into
more than one category. For example, the statement, “My thighs are so fat,” is a physical
state complaint which can also be considered an attitude expression, and the statement, “I
failed my communication exam,” is a falling below achievement expectations complaint
which can also be considered a behavioral complaint. Alicke and colleagues placed

complaints of this nature in the more speciﬁc category.

Boxer (1993) also described two different types of complaints in her speech-act
research: direct complaints and indirect complaints. Direct complaints are leveled at the
person responsible for the perceived offense. In contrast, indirect complaints, which were
the focus of her study, are expressions of dissatisfaction about oneself or someone or
something that is not present, and the addressee is not held responsible for the
dissatisfaction. Boxer categorized indirect complaints into three types: self, other, and
situation. Self indirect complaints are complaints in which speakers express negative
evaluations about themselves. Speakers may denigrate their own behavior, ability, or
characteristics. Other indirect complaints focus on the behavior, ability, or characteristics
of another party. Situation indirect complaints can be divided into two sub-categories:
personal and impersonal. Situation indirect complaints with personal focus involve
problems that the speaker encounters. These complaints differ from self indirect
complaints in that they do not focus on a shortcoming or characteristic of the speaker.
Situation indirect complaints with impersonal focus have more global signiﬁcance such
as a situation created by the media or science and technology.

Alberts (1988, 1989) presented a taxonomy of romantic couples’ complaints
which were expressed as reproaches made in response to some undesirable act committed
or desirable act omitted. Behavioral complaints are complaints about actions done or not
done, whereas performance complaints concern how an action is performed rather than
whether it was done. Personal characteristic complaints are complaints about the whole
person, their personality, attitudes, emotional nature, or belief system, and personal

appearance complaints criticize the partner’s appearance. Finally, complaints about

complaining concern the manner in which the partner complaints (e. g., content,
frequency, etc.).

Cupach and Carson (2002) also examined complaints directed at the recipient of
the complaint. They coded ﬁiends’ and romantic couples’ complaints into three
categories: dispositional, relational, and behavioral/physical appearance complaints.
Dispositional complaints are relatively global and stable and focus on ﬂawed personality
characteristics. Relational complaints are expressions of dissatisfaction with some aspect
of the relationship such as the amount of time the partners spend together or the level of
intimacy in the relationship. Behavioral/physical appearance complaints are expressions
of dissatisfaction with speciﬁc behaviors, attitudes, or physical appearance.

The typologies developed by these researchers vary in their focus and levels of
speciﬁcity, and there is considerable overlap among the typologies. Rather than creating a
new typology, Kowalski (1996) describes the functions of complaints. Complaining can
serve a cathartic function by allowing people to vent their frustrations and
dissatisfactions. It can also serve self-presentational functions such as allowing people to
save face or convey desirable attributes of themselves to others. In addition, complaining
can be used to obtain social comparison information to validate and support for one’s
thoughts and feelings. Finally, complaints can serve as calls for remedial action, getting
the offending party to either engage in desired behaviors or stop performing undesired
behaviors.

Responses to Complaints
Alicke and colleagues (1992) identiﬁed six types of responses to complaints:

agreement with the complainer’s statement, disagreement with the complainer’s

statement, attempts to resolve the problem, sympathetic responses, noncommittal
responses, and no responses. Similarly, Boxer (1993) reported that people responded to
indirect complaints by agreeing or commiserating with the complainer, contradicting the
complaint, giving advice or lecturing, and giving no response or switching topics. In
addition, she reported that people sometimes responded with questions that encouraged
the complainer to elaborate on the complaint or with joking and teasing. Alberts’ (1988,
1989) taxonomy of couples’ responses to complaints included justiﬁcations/excuses,
denial (disagreement with the complainer or refusal to change), agreement,
countercomplaints, and ignoring or failing to respond verbally to the complaint.

The responses to complaints include both positive and negative reactions which
suggests that complaining is not an inherently aversive behavior. In fact, the most
common response to complaints in both the Alicke et a1. and the Boxer studies was
agreement and/or commiseration. These ﬁndings suggest that if the listener can
empathize with the complainer they are more likely to give positive responses to the
complaint. Responses to complaints may also vary as a function of the listener’s
perceptions of how frequently the complainer expresses their dissatisfaction. Excessive
complaining can be perceived as aversive and elicit negative responses from listeners
(Kowalski, 1996, 2002) whereas inﬁ'equent complaining may be perceived as more
acceptable. The controllability of the subject of the complaint may also inﬂuence the way
that people respond to the complaint. Hearing complaints about an uncontrollable
situation may be ﬁ'ustrating for the listener if they think that voicing such complaints is
pointless. For example, hearing complaints about a third party may annoy a listener if

they believe that the complainer should direct the complaint at the guilty party rather than

10

express it to someone who has no control over the situation. In addition, listening to
complaints about something that can be controlled by the complainer may be ﬁ'ustrating
because the listener may wonder why the complainer does not do something to improve
the situation.
The Present Research

Little research has been conducted to determine which variables predispose a
person to be a chronic complainer. The purpose of Study 1 is to estimate how many times
people complain in a day and examine three personality traits that are expected to be
related to complaining. Much of the research on the interpersonal consequences of
conversational complaints has focused on instrumental complaints, complaints directed at
the source of the complainer’s dissatisfaction (e.g., Alberts, 1988; Alberts & Driscoll,
1992; Cupach & Carson, 2002). Alicke et al. (1992) reported, however, that 75% of the
complaints expressed by their participants were noninstrumental in nature. Little is
known about how noninstrumental complaints impact complainers and their relationships
with others. For example, it is plausible that noninstrumental complaining affects
relationship satisfaction in that it may be perceived as a social allergen, or it may be an
enjoyable shared activity. Study 2 is an investigation of the relationship between
complaining propensity and liking as well as an examination of perceptions and

metaperceptions of complaining.

ll

STUDY 1

Prevalence of Complaining

Complaining is thought to be a prevalent form of communication (Alicke et al.,
1992; Kowalski, 1996, 2002, 2003). This belief, however, appears to be based more on
personal experience than on empirical evidence. The only study that provides data about
the frequency of complaints was conducted by Alicke and colleagues (1992) who
reported that their participants complained an average of 4.32 times per day. This may be
a conservative estimate of the actual prevalence of complaining. Participants in the Alicke
et 31. study logged each of their complaints, but participants in a preliminary investigation
(Asada, 2004) counted the number of interactions that they had in which they complained
to another person at least once rather than counting each complaint. Participants reported
an average of 9.21 interactions in which they complained. Because it is possible that
participants voiced more than one complaint per interaction, the actual number of times
people complain per day is likely higher than the Alicke et al. study suggests. This
expectation is supported by the fact that indirect complaints were found in ahnost every
one of the 426 social conversations recorded by Boxer (1993). Thus, one goal of Study 1
is to gather additional data on the ﬁequency of complaining (RQ1).
Antecedents of Complaining

A second goal of Study 1 is to examine the antecedents of complaining. Cantrell
and Kowalski’s (1994) Complaining Propensity Scale is intended to measure a person’s
likelihood of complaining, however, no data have been collected which demonstrate that
the scale predicts actual complaining behavior. If the Complaining Propensity Scale is a

valid measure of one’s tendency to complain, scores on the scale are expected to be

12

positively related to the number of complaints expressed in the average day. It is therefore
hypothesized that there will be a positive correlation between complaining propensity and
the number of complaints expressed in a day (HI).

Another likely antecedent of complaining is narcissism. According to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV,
American Psychiatric Association, 1994), the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder
include a grandiose view of the self, a sense of entitlement, arrogant or haughty behavior
or attitudes, and the tendency to exploit others. These characteristics may increase a
person’s likelihood of complaining. People who believe that they deserve special
treatment or who believe that they are superior to others are expected to experience
dissatisfaction more readily than people who do not have such beliefs. Consistent with
this reasoning, in a 14-day diary study people high in narcissism reported a higher number
of transgressions committed against them than did people low in narcissism
(McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Mooney, 2003). In addition, people who exploit
others may complain in order to get others to do what they want them to do. It is therefore
hypothesized that narcissism will be positively related to the number of complaints
expressed in a day (HZ).

Message design logic, (O’Keefe, 1988; O’Keefe & McCornack, 1987), is a third
probable antecedent to complaining. Message design logics are message producers’
implicit theories of how communication should be structured to facilitate the achievement
of communicative goals. The number and type of communicative goals a message
producer pursues varies from situation to situation. Message design logic does not have

much of an effect on message attributes when message producers either lack clear goals

13

or have one dominant goal. When a message producer has multiple competing goals,
however, message design logic has a greater inﬂuence on the attributes of the message
that he or she produces in order to achieve these goals.

O’Keefe (1988) describes three different message design logics: expressive,
conventional, and rhetorical. The fundamental principle of the expressive message design
logic is that, “language is a medium for expressing thoughts and feelings” (O’Keefe,
1988, p. 84). People who are this message design logic express their internal thoughts and
feelings clearly and honestly with little editing of the message out of concern for the
listener’s face. The speaker essentially “dumps” their current mental state onto listeners
(O’Keefe, 1988; O’Keefe & McComack, 1987). Expressive messages contain no
references to the ﬁiture accomplishment of the immediate task (O’Keefe, 1990). People
who are expressive reason that the only job that a message can accomplish is
communicating one’s inner state.

The fundamental principle of the conventional message design logic is that,
“communication is a game played cooperatively, according to socially conventional rules
and procedures” (O’Keefe, 1988, p. 86). People who are this message design logic
believe that their goals should be achieved within the boundaries of socially appropriate
behavior. Whereas the expressive message design logic dictates, “express what you
think,” the conventional message design logic dictates, “say what needs to be said in
order to secure the desired response in the present context.” Conventional messages
reference the immediate task to be accomplished and point out the message target’s
obligation to perform the task. People who are conventional create messages that point

out features of the context that justify their demanding the performance of future goal-

14

related actions (O’Keefe, 1990). Conventional messages may also contain references to
negative consequences that may be incurred if the desired actions are not performed.

The ﬁmdarnental principle of the rhetorical message design logic is that,
“communication is the creation and negotiation of social selves and situations” (O’Keefe,
1988, p. 87). People who are this message design logic strive to create the desired context
with the messages they produce by reﬁ'aming the situation. Rhetorical messages involve
perspective-taking and the negotiation of explicit solutions and speciﬁc desired outcomes
for both interactants.

Of the three message design logics described by O’Keefe, the expressive message
design logic in particular is expected to be related to complaining behavior. Complaining
is a way to express one’s internal state of dissatisfaction. If expressives readily
communicate their internal thoughts and feelings with little concern for the thoughts and
feelings of others they are likely to complain when they are dissatisﬁed. It is therefore
hypothesized that the expressive message design logic will express more complaints than
the conventional or rhetorical message design logics (H3).

Method
Participants

Participants were 173 undergraduate students enrolled in communication courses
at a large university in the Midwest. The sample was 68.2% female (n = 118) and 29.5%
male (n = 51), and the mean age of the participants was 21.90 (SD = 3.79). The majority
of participants were white or Caucasian (72.8%) followed by black or Aﬁ'ican American
(11.6%), Asian or Asian American (8.1%), other (3.5%), and Hispanic or Latino (1.7%).

Four participants did not report their sex, age, and ethnicity.

15

Procedures

Participants completed an in-class survey composed of Kowalski and Cantrell’s
(1994) Complaining Propensity Scale, a measure of narcissism, and demographic
questions. They also wrote a message in response to a hypothetical scenario. The
messages were later classiﬁed as characterizing one of three message design logics
(O’Keefe, 1988, 1990; O’Keefe & McComack, 1987). Finally, participants kept a
complaint diary in which they recorded all of the complaints that they expressed in one
day and provided information about the circumstances surrounding each complaint.
Measures

Complaining propensity. Cantrell and Kowalski’s (1994) Complaining Propensity
Scale, a 14-item, 7-point measure (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), was used
to assess participants’ propensity to complain (see Appendix A).1 The scale was subjected
to item analyses and conﬁrmatory factor analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) which
revealed that two items decreased the internal consistency of the scale. These items were
therefore deleted. The responses to the remaining 12 items were averaged to yield a total
score with higher scores indicating greater complaining propensity (M = 4.43, SD = 1.04,
a = .91). Complaining propensity was slightly negatively skewed.

Narcissism. Three dimensions of narcissism were assessed with an 20-item, 7-
point Likert-type measure (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) that was
constructed for use in a previous study (Lee, 2004; see Appendix B). Item analyses and
conﬁrmatory factor analysis revealed that eight items decreased the internal consistency
of their respective subscales so these items were deleted. Entitlement was measured with

ﬁve items (M = 4.68, SD = 1.12, a = .82), exhibitionism was measured with four items

16

(M = 4.29, SD = 1.67, at = .81), and grandiosity was measured with three items (M = 3.06,
SD = 1.39, a = .90). Entitlement was negatively skewed, exhibitionism was slightly
negatively skewed, and grandiosity was positively skewed.

Message design logic. Following O’Keefe & McComack (1987) and O’Keefe
(1988), participants read a scenario in which they were the leader of a group who had to
deal with a member who was not completing the tasks assigned to him. They were then
instructed to write a message they would use in the situation described (see Appendix C).
Three participants did not write messages and two participants did not produce useable
messages so only 168 messages were obtained. To establish intercoder reliability two
independent coders read 40 of the messages and classiﬁed the messages as representing
either the expressive, conventional, or rhetorical message design logic.2 Disagreements
were resolved through discussion. Agreement between coders was 95%, K = .93. The
remaining messages were coded by one coder. Thirty messages were classiﬁed as
expressive (17.9%), 111 were classiﬁed as conventional (66.1%), and 27 were classiﬁed
as rhetorical (16.1%).

Complaint log. Participants kept a diary in which they recorded each complaint
that they expressed in one day. They were instructed to record the complaint immediately
after the conversation in which it arose ended and to try to reproduce the original wording
of the complaint as closely as possible. They were also asked to indicate to whom they
complained, their reasons for expressing the complaint, what happened immediately
before they complained, and how the person to which they complained responded to the

complaint (see Appendix D).

17

Results
Research Question I asked how frequently people complained in a day. A total of
837 complaints were reported. Participants expressed an average of 4.84 complaints in
one day (SD = 2.40, range = 1-11). Women reported complaining slightly more often than
men (Mmmm = 5.01, SD = 2.51, Mm, = 4.43, SD = 2.03), but the difference in the number

of complaints expressed was not statistically signiﬁcant, t(167) = 1.45, ns.

Table 1

Correlations between Number of Complaints, Complaining Propensity, and Narcissism

 

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

 

1. Number of Complaints -----

2. Complaining Propensity .07 -----

3. Entitlement .06 .18* .....

4. Exhibitionism .06 .35" .52" -----

5. Grandiosity .02 .24" .48M .40" -----

 

Note. *p < .05, “p < .01

Correlation analyses were conducted to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. Correlations are
presented in Table 1. It was hypothesized that complaining propensity would be
positively correlated with the number of complaints expressed in a day (H1). The data
were not consistent with this hypothesis. There was no relationship between scores on the
Complaining Propensity Scale and the number of complaints reported by the participants,
r(171) = .07, ns. The scatterplot for this correlation was inspected for a nonlinear

relationship, but none was observed.

18

It was also hypothesized that the three dimensions of narcissism would be
positively related to the number of complaints expressed in a day (HZ). The data were not
consistent with this hypothesis. Entitlement, exhibitionism, and grandiosity were not
related to the number of complaints expressed. The correlations were .06, .06., and .02,
respectively, and none were statistically signiﬁcant. The scatterplots for these correlations
were also inspected for nonlinear relationships, but none were observed.

Because the predictors were highly intercorrelated, a regression analysis was
conducted with the main effects and all of the interaction effects entered as predictors of
the number of complaints expressed. The results indicated that when controlling for the
intercorrelation among the predictors there was still no relationship between the variables.
There was also no evidence of interactions between the predictors.

Finally, it was hypothesized that the expressive message design logic would
express more complaints than the conventional or rhetorical message design logics (H3).
Contrast weights (2, -1, -1) were assigned to the groups, and a contrast test was conducted
to test this hypothesis. The analysis revealed that there was no statistically signiﬁcant
difference between the groups in the number of complaints expressed, F < 1. The mean
number of complaints reported by expressives, conventionals, and rhetoricals were 5.17
(SD = 2.77), 4.77 (SD = 2.37), and 5.04 (SD = 2.24), respectively.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of complaining and to
examine three potential predictors of complaining behavior. It was predicted that
complaining propensity and three dimensions of narcissism would be positively related to

complaining behavior and that the expressive message design logic would complain more

19

than the conventional and rhetorical message design logics. Participants reported
expressing an average of 4.84 complaints in a day, but the data were not consistent with
any of the hypotheses.

There was no difference in the number of complaints expressed by the expressive
message design logic and the number of complaints expressed by the conventional or
rhetorical message design logics. One possible explanation for this ﬁnding is that
message design logic is more likely to predict variance in the wording of the complaints
rather than in the number of complaints expressed. O’Keefe (1988, 1990; O’Keefe &
McComack, 1987) argued that variation in messages is particularly likely in regulative
situations, situations in which one person needs to control or correct the behavior of
another. In this type of situation message producers often have competing goals (e.g.,
efﬁciently changing the person’s behavior while being respectﬁrl of that person). Message
design logic inﬂuences the way people pursue these competing goals. This argument
suggests that there would be variance in the phrasing of complaints, particularly
complaints aimed at the source of the complainer’s dissatisfaction as this type of
complaint arises in regulative situations. Further analysis of the complaints reported in the
diaries will be conducted to test this hypothesis.

It may also be that expressives and conventionals complain for different reasons:
expressives may complain in order to communicate their dissatisfaction whereas
conventionals may complain in order to obtain desired outcomes. If expressives perceive
language as a medium for expressing their internal thoughts and feelings they are likely to
express noninstrumental complaints. In contrast, conventionals perceive communication

as a means for securing desired outcomes according to the rules and procedures dictated

20

by the present context and are thus likely to express complaints that are meant to bring
about a change in the undesirable state.

There was a strong positive correlation between the three dimensions of
narcissism and complaining propensity, but none of these variables was positively related
to the number of complaints that participants reported expressing. One possible
explanation for these results is that the complaining propensity and narcissism measures
differed from the behavioral measure of complaining in their level of speciﬁcity. The
complaining propensity and narcissism measures focused on general tendencies while the
diary focused on the events of one day. A more general measure of complaining behavior
such as a more extensive diary may correlate with the general complaining propensity and
narcissism measures. Conversely, it may not be possible to predict complaining behavior
with a general measure of complaining propensity because each situation varies in both
the level of dissatisfaction elicited and the perceived utility of complaining. Future
research will be conducted to test these hypotheses.

The lack of an observed relationship between complaining propensity and the
number of complaints expressed may also suggest that the Complaining Propensity Scale
predicts variables other than the frequency of complaints. For instance, scores on the
scale may be related to the intensity of the complaints a person expresses. Someone who
is high in complaining propensity may be more forceﬁrl in the expression of their
dissatisfaction than someone who is low in complaining propensity. The scale may also
be related to the duration of the complaining episode. A person who is high in
complaining propensity may carry on about their dissatisfaction longer than a person who

is low in complaining propensity. Additional research to test the validity of the scale will

21

be conducted, and the intensity and duration of complaining will also be examined in
future research.

Kowalski’s (1996) theoretical model of complaining offers another explanation
for these results. The Complaining Propensity Scale assesses people’s likelihood of
expressing their dissatisfaction, but Kowalski’s model describes complaining as
involving a more complex process. According to the model, each time a person becomes
aware of a discrepancy between their cmrent and desired state they go through the process
of assessing both their level of dissatisfaction with the discrepancy as well as the
perceived utility of complaining in that situation. Dissatisfaction is sufﬁcient but not
necessary for complaining to occur. People will complain even when they are not
dissatisﬁed if they perceive that doing so will bring about some desired outcome. They
will also withhold their complaints if they believe that expressing them will not bring
about a desired outcome. Measures of a person’s likelihood of experiencing
dissatisfaction (their dissatisfaction threshold) and of their perceptions of the general
utility of complaining (their complaining threshold) may be more accurate predictors of
complaining behavior than people’s likelihood of expressing their dissatisfaction. A
replication of this study with the proposed measures included is needed to determine if
the measures predict complaining behavior.

Finally, it may also be that people are not accurate judges of their levels of
complaining propensity. People may overestimate or underestimate how much they tend
to complain which could account for why participants’ complaining propensity scores did
not correspond with the actual number of complaints they expressed. Other people may

provide more accurate ratings of a person’s complaining propensity. Study 2 therefore

22

addresses the question of whether people’s self-ratings of complaining propensity
correspond with other people’s judgements of their complaining propensity. Perceptions
and metaperceptions of complaining propensity and the relationship between perceptions

of complaining propensity and ratings of liking are also explored.

23

STUDY 2
Consequences of Complaining

Complaining can have both negative and positive interpersonal consequences
(Kowalski, 1996, 2002, 2003). Chronic complainers may elicit anger and resentment ﬁom
their partners and may even be ostracized for excessive complaining (Kowalski, 1996,
2002). In particular, complainers who seek help or advice and then proceed to reject all of
the advice they receive (i.e., help-rejecting complainers) are considered especially
aversive (Kowalski, 2003; Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). Similarly, people who frequently
express noninstrumental complaints but make no attempt to change the dissatisfying
situation are perceived negatively (Kowalski, 1996; Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). It is not
surprising, then, that behaviors such as complaining, ignoring advice, and complaining
again as well as being frequently critical were among the social allergens documented by
Cunningham et al. (1997). Complaints can also be perceived as face threats (Cupach &
Carson, 2002) in that complaints can communicate disregard for the target and the
relationship, especially when expressed in public.

Complaining may also be beneﬁcial in interpersonal relationships. According to
social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 197 3) self-disclosure in interpersonal
relationships tends to increase gradually as relationships become more intimate. In the
early stages of a relationship people exchange superﬁcial information and explore
potential conversational topics. They tend to avoid disclosing information that will make
them vulnerable or cause them to be seen in a negative light. As the relationship develops
people begin to disclose negatively valenced information along with positive self-

disclosures and express negative emotions more freely. People trust that their partners

24

will accept them, ﬂaws and all, so they no longer feel as if they need to be on their best
behavior. It is at this point that there may be an increase in the number of complaints
expressed to the relational partner because people feel that they do not have to withhold
relational irritations. Consistent with this possibility, Roloff and Solomon (2002) reported
a positive association between relational commitment and the willingness to express
relational complaints. It is therefore plausible that complaining may communicate
relational intimacy because it conveys trust that one’s partner will respond to the
complaints in a supportive, nonjudgrnental fashion (Kowalski, 2002).

Complaints serve the added function of providing listeners with information about
the complainer’s opinions of people and issues. According to Berger and Calabrese’s
(1975) uncertainty reduction theory, decreases in uncertainty produce increases in liking
so complaining that reduces the listener’s uncertainty about the complainer is expected to
increase their liking of the complainer. Complaining can reduce uncertainty in initial
interactions. Complaints can serve as a social lubricant or ice breaker to make it easier for
people to start conversations (Kowalski, 2002) and can be used to establish rapport or
solidarity between interactants @oxer, 1993). A recent meta-analysis (AhYun, 2002)
revealed that there is a strong positive association between attitude similarity and
interpersonal attraction. This effect is weakened when actual interaction is involved, but
as interaction time increases, at least up to 30 minutes, the effect of attitude similarity on
interpersonal attraction increases. AhYun’s results suggest that if people discover that
they share feelings of dissatisfaction with a target and proceed to complain about the

target together, this joint activity can have a bonding effect.

25

Complaining can also reduce uncertainty in established relationships. Siegert and
Stamp (1994) investigated romantic partners’ ﬁrst big ﬁght, “an episode of conﬂict
during which partners recall discussing for the ﬁrst time certain feelings, doubts,
disappointments, expectations, ideals and/or assessments about their relationship” (p.
345). They found that although the ﬁrst big ﬁght was a traumatic experience, it reduced
uncertainty about the relationship for couples whose relationship survived the ﬁght. The
ﬁght resulted in clariﬁcation of the couples’ feelings for each other as well as greater
awareness of their interdependence.

In sum, complaining can be perceived as aversive if it is excessive, if the
complainer is considered to be “all talk and no action” or if it is perceived as a face threat,
but it can also convey relational intimacy and reduce uncertainty, thereby increasing
liking of the complainer. Thus, the question of how perceptions of a person’s
complaining propensity affects liking of that person was posed (RQ2).

Interpersonal Perception

The Social Relations Model (SRM; Kenny, 1994; Kenny & La Voie, 1984) allows
for the estimation of how much of the variance in interpersonal perception is due to the
perceiver, target, and relationship effects. Perceiver effects measure the tendency for a
person to rate others similarly. Target eﬂects measure the extent to which people agree in
their ratings of a particular person. Relationship eﬂects measure the amount of variance
which is due to the unique relationship between dyad members after controlling for their
perceiver and target effects. To illustrate, suppose that in a group composed of Alex,
Beth, and Dan, each person rates the others’ complaining propensity. A perceiver effect

would indicate that people’s ratings of others’ propensity to complain is consistent across

26

all targets. For instance, Alex may rate Beth and Dan as frequent complainers, but Beth
may rate Alex and Dan as infrequent complainers. A target effect would indicate that
people tend to agree about a speciﬁc target’s propensity to complain. For example, Alex
and Beth might agree that Dan rarely complains. A relationship effect reﬂects the unique
impression a person has of a particular partner after controlling for that person’s perceiver
effect and their partner’s target effect. Thus, Alex might rate Beth as high in complaining
propensity because of his idiosyncratic relationship with Beth. The SRM examines the
variance in perceiver, target, and relationship effects.

There are two basic SRM designs: block and round-robin (Kenny, 1994). In the
block design, a group of people is split into two subgroups, and each person rates
everyone in the other subgroup. This design requires a minimum of four people total, two
in each subgroup. In the round-robin design, each person rates everyone in the group.
Self-ratings are often included when measuring interpersonal perception variables such as
liking or agreeableness. This design also requires a minimum of four people per group.
Regardless of the design used, the variance in ratings is partitioned into perceiver, target,
and relationship variance.

Kowalski (1996) suggested that individual-difference variables such as negative
affect, agreeableness, locus of control, extraversion, and self-presentational concerns may
moderate the frequency of complaining. Ifthese variables do moderate complaining
behavior, it follows that some people will complain more than others and thus perceivers
would have similar impressions of them. Put another way, it is hypothesized that there

will be target variance in ratings of complaining propensity (H4).

27

Kowalski and Erickson (1997) argued that “complaining may be regarded as
aversive when people are indiscriminant in selecting a listener and seem oblivious to the
impressions they are creating through their constant whining and griping” (p. 97).
Kowalski (1996) suggested that people may strategically tailor their complaints to the
perceived values and preferences of their audiences in order to avoid the possibility of
creating undesirable impressions. In other words, people try to ﬁnd a sympathetic
audience to which to complain when they are dissatisﬁed. For example, an employee
would be unlikely to complain to his or her employer about having too much work but
would be more likely to complain to a similarly burdened co-worker. Tailoring
complaints to speciﬁc partners should result in people having unique perceptions of their
partners. Thus, it is hypothesized that there will be relationship variance in ratings of
complaining propensity (HS).

Reciprocity

The SRM also allows researchers to measure two types of reciprocity. Dyadic
reciprocity indicates that members of a dyad perceive each other similarly. Applied to
complaining propensity, if Alex sees Beth as a frequent complainer, Beth sees Alex as a
frequent complainer. Generalized reciprocity indicates that a person perceives others as
others perceive him or her, so if Beth rates everyone as low in complaining propensity,
everyone sees her as an infrequent complainer. Complaints from one person often elicit
complaints ﬁ'om others (Kowalski, 1996; Kowalski & Erickson, 1997). Kowalski offers
three explanations for the contagiousness of complaining. First, hearing another person’s
complaints may cause the listener to think about their own dissatisfaction and which can

cause the listener to complain. Second, hearing another person’s complaints may induce

28

dysphoria in the listener, stimulating him or her to complain. Finally, people who listen to
complaints may feel the urge to outdo the complainer by expressing a bigger complaint. If
complaining elicits complaints from others and people tailor their complaints to speciﬁc
partners, then it is likely that two dyad members’ unique ratings of each other’s
complaining propensity will be correlated. Thus, it is hypothesized that there will be
dyadic reciprocity of ratings of complaining propensity (I-l6).
Accuracy and Meta-accuracy

SRM analyses can assess the correspondence between people’s views of
themselves and other people’s views of them by examining self-other agreement. For
instance, if Dan thinks that he rarely complains, do others also think that he rarely
complains? SRM analyses can also address the question of how accurate people are at
judging how others view them. There are two types of meta-accuracy. Generalized meta-
accuracy refers to the extent to which people know how they are perceived by others in
general (does Dan know how people generally perceive his complaining?), and dyadic
meta-accuracy refers to the extent to which people know how particular others perceive
them (does Dan know how Beth perceives his complaining?)

Kowalski and Erickson (1997) claim that the majority of complaints expressed on
a daily basis are expressed mindlessly. This suggests that complaining may be so
common that people may not be aware of just how much they complain. People who are
forced to listen to the complaints, however, may be all too aware of others’ propensity to
complain. Thus, the proposed research will address the questions of whether people see
their own complaining propensity the way that other people see their complaining

propensity (RQ3), whether people are able to judge accurately how other people in

29

general perceive their complaining propensity (RQ4), and whether people are able to
judge accurately how particular partners perceive their complaining propensity (RQS).
Method

Participants

One hundred ﬁfty two undergraduate students (90 females, 60 males, and two
who did not report their sex) composing 38 groups of four participated in the study. The
average length of acquaintance for participants was 6.14 months (SD = 19.91). The data
were collected four months into the semester, and the majority of the participants (92.6%)
reported having known their group members for four months or less indicating that they
had not been acquainted prior to the class. There were two all-male groups, eight all-
female groups, and 26 mixed-sex groups. (The composition of two groups could not be
determined because two participants did not report their sex.) The mean age of the sample
was 20.59 (SD = 1.78). The majority of participants were white or Caucasian (78.3%)
followed by black or African American (10.5%), Asian or Asian American (3.9%), other
(2.6%), and Hispanic or Latino (2.0%). Four participants did not report their ethnicity.
Procedures

Participants were recruited ﬁ'om an introductory-level communication class and
were offered extra credit for their participation. Participants worked together on a group
project for the class. The project was the same for all groups. Each person provided self-
ratings, ratings of each group member, and estimations of each group members’
perceptions of them on the propensity to complain and liking. A round-robin SRM
analysis was conducted to examine perceptions and metaperceptions of complaining

propensity and liking among group members.

30

Measures

Complaining propensity. Kowalski’s (2003) 14-item Complaining Propensity
Scale which was described in Study 1 was used to assess participants’ propensity to
complain. The responses to the 14 items were averaged to yield a complaining propensity
score with higher scores indicating a greater propensity to complain. Participants rated
themselves as being higher in complaining propensity (M = 4.15, SD = 1.00) than others
(M = 3.95, SD = 1.04), t(37) = 2.52, p < .05. Chronbach’s alpha for the scale was .91.
Participants also estimated their group members’ perceptions of their complaining
propensity. The mean for metaperceptions of complaining propensity was 4.14 (SD =
0.93, a = .90).

Liking. A ﬁve-item, 7-point Likert-type measure (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 =
Strongly Agree) of liking was constructed for use in this study (see Appendix E). The
responses to the ﬁve items were averaged to yield a liking score with higher scores
indicating greater liking. Participants’ self-ratings of liking (M = 5.88, SD = 0.89) did not
differ from their ratings of others’ liking (M = 5.87, SD = 1.09), t(37) = 0.13, ns.
Chronbach’s alpha for the scale was .95. Participants also estimated how much each of
their group members liked them. The mean for metaperceptions of liking was 5.61 (SD =
0.99, a = .94).

Results
Tests of Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question I asked if perceptions of a person’s complaining propensity

affects liking for that person. The correlation between target effects of complaining

propensity and target effects of liking was examined to address this question. There was

31

no relationship between perceptions of complaining propensity and liking, r(37) = .02, ns.
The scatterplot for the correlation was examined for a nonlinear relationship, but none

was observed.

Table 2

Variance Partitioning and Reciprocity Correlations

 

 

 

 

Variance Reciprocity'
. Relationship . .
Variable Perceiver Target + Error Generalized Dyadic
Complaining Propensity .26* .34‘ .41 .01 .05
Liking .30* .11* .59 -.38 .40
Metaperceptions of .85* .00 .15 .45 .13
Complaining Propensity
Metaperceptions of .56* .00 .44 .00 .42*
Liking
Note. * p < .05.

’The reciprocity correlations are disattenuated correlations, thus it is possible to obtain
large correlations that are not statistically signiﬁcant.

It was hypothesized that there would be target variance (H4) and relationship
variance (HS) in ratings of complaining propensity. The relative variance partitioning was
examined to test these hypotheses. Table 2 presents the variance partitioning results.
Consistent with Hypothesis 4, statistically signiﬁcant target variance in ratings of
complaining propensity was observed. Statistically signiﬁcant perceiver variance in

ratings of complaining propensity was observed as well.

32

Relationship variance in ratings of complaining propensity was also observed, but
because measurement error is included in the estimate of relationship variance, 3 second
analysis was conducted in which the complaining propensity items were treated as
indicators on a scale rather than a single construct. The variance was then partitioned into
stable and unstable variance. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, relationship variance
accounted for 15.7% of the stable variance in ratings of complaining propensity.2

Hypothesis 6, which predicted that there would be dyadic reciprocity of ratings of
complaining propensity, was tested by assessing the correlation between dyad members’
relationship effects for complaining propensity. There was no dyadic reciprocity of
complaining propensity ratings, r(37) = .05, ns. Members of dyads did not perceive each
other’s complaining propensity similarly.

Research Question 3 asked if people see their own complaining propensity the
way that other people their complaining propensity. In other words, is there self-other
agreement on perceptions of complaining propensity? Self-other agreement was assessed
by correlating self-ratings of complaining propensity with target effects of complaining
propensity. People’s self-ratings of complaining propensity were positively related to
other people’s ratings of their complaining propensity, r(113) = .48, p < .05.

Research Question 4 asked if people are able to judge accurately the way that
others in general perceive their complaining propensity. In other words, is there
generalized meta-accuracy about other people’s perceptions of one’s own complaining
propensity? Generalized meta-accuracy was assessed by examining the correlation
between target effects in perceptions of complaining propensity (how people generally

view the person) and a person’s perceiver effects in metaperceptions of complaining

33

propensity (how the person thinks others generally see him or her). The data suggest that
there is generalized meta-accuracy for perceptions of complaining propensity, r(37) = .52,
p < .01.

Research Question 5 asked if people are able to judge accurately the way that
particular partners perceive their complaining propensity. In other words, is there dyadic
meta-accuracy for perceptions of complaining propensity? Dyadic meta-accuracy was
assessed by examining the correlation between relationship effects in perceptions of
complaining propensity (the unique perception one person has of their partner, controlling
for that person’s perceiver effect and their partner’s target effect) and relationship effects
in metaperceptions of complaining propensity (the unique perception one person has of
how their partner sees them, controlling for that person’s perceiver effect and their
partner’s target effect). The data suggest that there is no dyadic meta-accuracy for
complaining propensity, r(37) = .00, ns.

Supplemental Analyses

Table 2 presents the variance partitioning and reciprocity correlations for liking
and metaperceptions of liking. Statistically signiﬁcant perceiver and target variance in
liking were also observed. Participants tended to report similar levels of liking for each of
their group members, and they agreed on how much they liked particular targets. In
addition, a substantial amount of relationship variance in liking was observed.
Relationship variance accounted for 49.7% of the stable variance in liking ratings. There
was no generalized or dyadic reciprocity of liking.

Perceiver variance in metaperceptions of liking was also observed indicating that

participants believed that others have similar judgements of them. A substantial amount

34

of relationship variance in metaperceptions of liking was observed as well. Relationship
variance accounted for 34.4% of the stable variance in metaperceptions of liking. The
data also revealed dyadic reciprocity in metaperceptions of liking. Participants’
judgements of particular others’ liking for them were positively correlated such that if
Alex thought that Beth liked him a great deal, Beth also thought that Alex liked her a
great deal.

Participants were not able to judge accurately at rates signiﬁcantly greater than
chance how much others in general liked them, r(37) = .16, ns. They were, however, able
to judge accurately how much speciﬁc others liked them, r(37) = .44, p < .01. Statistically
signiﬁcant self-other agreement on ratings of liking was not observed, r(113) = .31, ns.‘

Discussion

The purpose of Study 2 was to investigate the relationship between judgements of
complaining propensity and liking and to examine perceptions and metaperceptions of
complaining. Research questions regarding the relationship between perceptions of
complaining propensity and liking as well as accuracy and meta-accuracy in judgements
of complaining propensity were posed. In addition, it was hypothesized that there would
be target and relationship variance in ratings of complaining propensity and that there
would be dyadic reciprocity of ratings of complaining propensity. A social relations
model analysis was conducted to address these research questions and hypotheses.

It was previously suggested that complaining can have both positive and negative
consequences. Chronic and help-rejecting complainers may be perceived as aversive, and
direct complaints may be seen as face threats, but complaints may also communicate

relational intimacy and reduce uncertainty in relationships, thereby increasing liking for

35

the complainer. These data suggest, however, that there is no relationship between
perceptions of a person’s complaining propensity and liking for that person. Liking was
high regardless of the target’s complaining propensity. It may be that only extremely high
levels of complaining propensity are considered aversive. Future research is needed to
determine the range of acceptable levels of complaining propensity and see if people who
exceed the accepted levels are disliked.

The nature of a person’s complaints rather than their tendency to complain might
also affect how much other people like them. According to Heider’s (195 8) balance
theory, two people who share a negative attitude toward a stimulus can develop positive
attitudes toward each other, thus creating a balanced state. Consistent with balance
theory, AhYun’s (2002) meta—analysis revealed a positive association between attitude
similarity and interpersonal attraction. It is plausible that many of the complaints
expressed to group members concerned the class or the group project, and having a
common source of dissatisfaction about which to complain may have increased liking
among group members regardless of how ﬁequently they expressed their dissatisfaction.
Complaints that did not concern a common source of dissatisfaction, however, could
decrease liking of the complainer if the complaints created a state of imbalance. In
addition, it is plausible that a single complaint directed at one’s group members could
result in dislike for the complainer. Information about the types of complaints expressed
to group members is needed to test this hypothesis.

Kenny and DePaulo’s (1993) review of eight SRM studies suggested that for both
personality traits and liking people are better at determining how others generally view

them than they are at determining how particular others view them. The review also

36

suggested that people are more accurate at determining how much particular others like
them than they are at determining how particular others judge their personality traits. The
results of this study were consistent with Kenny and DePaulo’s ﬁndings. Participants
were able to judge accurately how others in general perceived their complaining
propensity, but participants’ judgements of how particular others perceived their
complaining propensity were not accurate. Conversely, participants were able to judge
accurately how much particular others liked them but were unable to judge accurately
how much others generally liked them. People may be more motivated to judge accurately
how much speciﬁc others like them because being liked by highly valued others is more
important than being liked by less valued others. If a person is able to determine how
much a speciﬁc other likes him or her then he or she is better equipped to determine the
amount of maintenance their relationship requires to keep it at a satisfactory level.
Because of the lack of extremely high ratings of complaining propensity and because
ratings of liking was generally high, however, additional research is needed to determine
if these ﬁndings extend to people who complain more frequently and are less liked than
those included in this study.

The data were consistent with the hypotheses that there would be target and
relationship variance in ratings of complaining propensity. There was consensus among
participants when rating the complaining propensity of particular targets, and participants
also developed idiosyncratic views of particular targets. These ﬁndings suggest that
although people tend to tailor their complaining to particular partners there is still some
consistency in their complaining behavior across partners. In addition, participants rated

their group members as being similar in levels of complaining propensity which suggests

37

that people are not particularly discriminating when judging the complaining propensity
of others. It is plausible that participants in this study perceived their group members as
more similar to each other because they did not know each other particularly well. Having
knowledge about the unique characteristics of one’s group members can result in unique
perceptions of them which, in turn, would increase relationship effects and decrease
perceiver effects. Further research is needed, however, to determine if relationship effects
are greater and perceiver effects are less pronounced in well-acquainted groups.

Kowalski (1996; Kowalski & Erickson, 1997) argued that complaints from one
person often elicit complaints ﬁom others. The hypothesized dyadic reciprocity of ratings
of complaining propensity, however, was not observed which suggests that people do not
consistently elicit similar levels of complaints from particular others. In addition,
generalized reciprocity was not observed, suggesting that complaints from one person do
not consistently elicit complaints from others in general. It is also plausible, however, that
there is reciprocity in complaining behavior, but complaints that are voiced in response to
other complaints may not always be perceived as complaints. For example, if a person
agrees with and adds to the original complaint his or her utterance could be deﬁned as a
complaint, but it may be perceived only as a statement of agreement. To illustrate, if Alex
says, “Dan is so inconsiderate! He borrowed my notes and didn’t give them back to me
until the day of the exam!” and Beth replies, “Yeah, he borrowed my notes once, and

when he returned them they were covered with coffee stains Alex may not perceive
Beth’s utterance as a complaint. If this type of exchange was common in this study and

the responses were perceived as statements of agreement rather than complaints then

reciprocity of ratings of complaining propensity would not be observed. It is also

38

plausible that certain types of complaints are more likely to elicit complaints in return.
For instance, if Alex tells Dan that it was inconsiderate of him to keep his notes until the
day of the exam, Dan might respond with a complaint of his own about Alex. Participants
in this study may not have expressed many complaints that were directed at the source of
their dissatisfaction so few complaint-countercomplaint exchanges may have occurred.
Future research is needed to determine what variables inﬂuence the way that people
generally respond to complaints as well as how they respond to complaints from

particular others.

39

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Interpersonal complaining is believed to be a prevalent form of communication
that has the potential to damage as well as beneﬁt relationships, but few studies have
investigated the antecedents and consequences of complaining. The purpose of this
research was to examine three personality traits that were expected to be related to
complaining behavior, to investigate the relationship between complaining propensity and
liking, and to examine perceptions and metaperceptions of complaining among
acquainted people. The results from Study 1 called into question the validity of the
Complaining Propensity Scale. The scale was created to measure a person’s likelihood of
complaining. Although it had good face validity and internal consistency, it did not
predict the number of complaints expressed. It did, however, correlate positively with the
three dimensions of narcissism, which were also unrelated to the number of complaints
expressed. The results from Study 1 also called into question people’s ability to judge
accurately their tendency to complain. The results from Study 2, however, indicate that
participants’ self-ratings of complaining propensity corresponded with other people’s
ratings of their complaining propensity. It is therefore unlikely that the lack of a
relationship between complaining propensity scores and the number of complaints
expressed in Study 1 is due to participants having inaccurate perceptions of their
complaining propensity. Taken together, these results, suggest that the Complaining
Propensity Scale is a valid measure and that the diary method is not a valid way of
measuring complaining propensity. An observational study in which people are brought
into the laboratory and their complaining behavior is coded may be a more valid

behavioral measure of complaining propensity.

40

It is still unclear what variables predict complaining behavior. None of the
variables measured in Study 1 were related to the number of complaints reported by the
participants, but the results of Study 2 suggest that some people do complain more than
others. These individual differences may be due to personality traits, but it may be
necessary to use more accurate measures of both the traits and complaining behavior
before the relationship can be observed. One potential predictor of complaining that must
be explored is optimism. The way that a person views the world is likely to inﬂuence how
frequently he or she complains. If a person tends to look for the good in every situation
and anticipates the best possible outcomes he or she will be unlikely to complain. If,
however, a person focuses on the negative aspects of every situation and anticipates the
worst possible outcomes he or she will be highly likely to complain. In addition to
personality traits, situational characteristics may inﬂuence a person’s likelihood of
complaining. For instance, a person may be more likely to complain if he or she is
prompted (e.g., if someone asks if anything is wrong) than if no prompt is given if the
complainer may perceive the prompt as permission to express his or her dissatisfaction.
There may also be an interaction between personality traits and characteristics of the
situation that motivate people to complain. For example, someone who enjoys being the
center of attention may ﬁ'equently complain to groups of people but may rarely complain
to individuals. Further research must be conducted to determine the antecedents of
complaining behavior.

Kowalski (1996) argued that dissatisfaction is sufﬁcient but not necessary for
complaining and points out that people sometimes complain when they are not

dissatisﬁed. For example, she states that a healthy person may complain about feeling

41

sick to gain sympathy or attention or to get out of performing an undesirable task. In both
of these situations, however, although the complainer is not dissatisﬁed with the state of
his or her health, he or she is dissatisﬁed with a feature of the situation (e. g., others are
not paying a sufﬁcient amount of attention to him or her or he or she is unhappy about
having to perform a disliked task). It appears, then, that people may complain about a
subject with which they are not dissatisﬁed so that they may change a dissatisfying
situation. Future research is needed to examine the ﬁ'equency and effects of this type of
complaint in interpersonal relationships.

Kowalski (1996) also argued that people will complain even if they do not
perceive a discrepancy between their current and ideal states if they perceive that the
utility of complaining is high. The perception that expressing dissatisfaction will result in
the attainment of a desired outcome suggests, however, that the complainer does perceive
a discrepancy between his or her current and ideal states. Ifa person is motivated to
obtain a desired outcome this motivation implies that he or she is aware of a discrepancy
between his or her current and desired states and is experiencing some amount of
dissatisfaction with the discrepancy. It appears, then, that awareness of a discrepancy
between the current and desired states must precede the assessment of the utility of
complaining. Future research might modify Kowalski’s model along these lines.

In addition, different types of people may go through different processes when
they complain. For instance, the expressives in Study 1 may not have assessed the utility
of complaining before expressing their dissatisfaction. For them, experiencing
dissatisfaction may have been sufﬁcient to trigger complaining. In contrast, the

conventionals in Study 1 may have gone through a process similar to the one described in

42

Kowalski’s model but with the additional step of determining how socially acceptable
complaining is in the given context before deciding to express their dissatisfaction. It is
plausible that the number and type of complaints expressed vary depending on which
process complainers go through and the number and type of complaints expressed can
inﬂuence liking for complainers. Future research is needed to explore these alternate
models of complaining as well as the consequences associated with the models.
Limitations

One of the limitations of this research is the reliance on self-report data.
Participants were asked to record all of their complaints for one day. In a preliminary
investigation (Asada, 2004) participants reported an average of 9.21 interactions in which
they complained at least once. Participants in the Alicke et a1. (1992) study and in Study 1
recorded each complaint they expressed yet they reported roughly half as many
complaints. In the Asada study participants merely counted the number of complaints
they expressed and provided no additional information about the complaint or the
circumstances surrounding the complaint. In both the Alicke et al. study and the current
study far more information was requested (e. g., their actual complaints, their reasons for
complaining, who they complained to, and how people responded to their complaints). It
is plausible that participants in both of these studies only recorded what they believed was
a sufﬁcient number of complaints rather than recording all of their complaints for the day.
Future research that does not rely solely on diary methods is needed to provide more
accurate estimates of the prevalence of complaining.

A second limitation of this research is that participants’ liking for their group

members in Study 2 was uniformly high. This restriction in range may have attenuated the

43

relationship between perceptions of complaining propensity and liking. Future studies
that include participants who dislike each other as well as participants who like each other
is needed before any conclusions about the relationship between liking and complaining
can be made.

Finally, Miller and Steinberg’s (1975) deﬁnition of interpersonal communication
states that people engage in interpersonal communication when they base their
predictions about communication outcomes on a psychological rather than cultural or
sociological level of analysis. In other words, predictions about communication outcomes
are based on knowledge of one’s partner’s unique characteristics rather than general
knowledge of the cultural or sociological groups he or she belongs to. In Study 2,
however, the participants were likely using the sociological level of analysis to predict
their communication outcomes. The majority of participants had not been acquainted
prior to the class and may not have had much interaction outside of the class. It is also
unlikely that their relationships with their group members continued after the class ended.
It is plausible that their perceptions of each other may have been different if they had
more opportunities to interact with each other. Their behaviors may also have been
different had they anticipated having an extended relationship with their group members.
For these participants, the knowledge that they were all students in the same class may
have been sufﬁcient for them to engage in successful interactions with each other. They
may not have felt the need to reduce uncertainty further and engage in interpersonal
communication. Additional research with groups of people who are better acquainted

such as ﬁiends, family members, and co-workers is needed to determine if these results

extend to people who have more intimate relationships and who anticipate future
interaction with each other in a context other than that of working on a class project.
Directions for Future Research

The lack of dyadic reciprocity for complaining propensity ratings in Study 2
indicates that dyad members did not perceive each other’s complaining propensity
similarly. One implication of this ﬁnding is that dyads are composed of complainers and
listeners and raises the question of whether some people are complaint magnets. It may be
that some people are more willing to listen to complaints than others or that they are more
likely to provide the desired response whether it’s giving sympathy or advice or
validating the complainer’s feelings. It is likely that personality traits such as empathy
inﬂuence the way that people receive and respond to complaints. Future research is
needed to investigate whether certain types of people are sought out by complainers.

Another avenue for future research involves a closer examination of the
interaction between the sender and receiver of the complaint. Some complaints are
expressed spontaneously whereas others are expressed in response to questions or are
provoked by the actions of the receiver. It is plausible that unsolicited complaints may be
perceived differently than complaints expressed in response to an inquiry about how
one’s day was. It is also likely that people respond differently to complaints aimed at
them than to complaints about a third party. Focusing on the entire conversation in which
a complaint is expressed rather than on what was said or done immediately before and
immediately after the complaint will provide a more complete picture of the functions of

complaining as well as the impact it has on interpersonal relationships.

45

Additionally, the existing typologies of complaints vary in their focus and levels
of speciﬁcity. Boxer’s (1993) categorization, which only includes complaints about
someone or something other than the recipient, is perhaps too broad because it does not
allow researchers to distinguish various sources of dissatisfaction within the categories of
self and other. Alicke and colleagues’ (1992) categories of falling below expectations,
obstacles to goal attainment, and desire for change are perhaps too speciﬁc in that
altogether they only accounted for less than 12% of the complaints recorded. The types of
complaints described by Alberts (1988, 1989) and Cupach and Carson (2002), complaints
directed at the source of the complainer’s dissatisfaction, can also be applied to oneself or
to a third party. In addition, there is considerable overlap among the typologies. One way
to resolve these concerns is by consolidating the many types of complaints into fewer
categories. It may be sufﬁcient to group them into complaints about oneself, complaints
directed at the source of one’s dissatisfaction, complaints about a third party (a single
person, group, or entity), and complaints about one’s physical environment or situation,
and complaints about products, services, or events. Table 3 contains a summary of
existing typologies and the proposed new typology. The complaints can then be classiﬁed
as global or speciﬁc. Future research may determine whether broader characterizations of
complaints such as the one proposed are useﬁrl or if speciﬁc categories such as Alicke et

al.’s are necessary.

46

Table 3

Summary of Complaint T ypologies from Previous Research and Proposed New Typology

 

 

Author(s) Categories of Complaints
Alberts (1988, 1. Behavioral: complaints about actions done or not done
1989) 2. Performance: complaints about how an action is performed

3.

rather than whether it’s done

Personal characteristic: complaints about the whole person,
their personality, attitudes, emotional nature, or belief system
Personal appearance: complaints about the partner’s
appearance

. Complaints about complaining: complaints about the manner

in which the partner complains

 

Alicke et a1. (1992)

. Attitude and emotional expression: global statements that

ascribe relatively enduring attributes to the target

. Behavioral: complaints about speciﬁc or general behaviors

enacted by the target

. Physical state: complaints about a person’s physical condition

or the state of the environment

. Obligations: complaints about not fulﬁlling or not wanting to

fulﬁll commitments

. Disappointment: complaints about service, products, or

events falling below expected standards

Falling below achievement expectations: complaints about
failure to perform at desired levels on a task

Obstacles to goal attainment: complaints over blocked goals
Desire for change: a wish for things to be different ﬁom the
way they currently are

 

Boxer (1993)

. Direct: complaints leveled at the person responsible for the

perceived offense
Self indirect: negative evaluations of oneself

. Other indirect: complaints about the behavior, ability, or

characteristics of another party
Situation indirect (personal): complaints about problems the
speaker encounters

. Situation indirect (impersonal): complaints about globally

signiﬁcant problems

 

47

Table 3 (cont’d)

 

Author(s) Categories of Complaints

 

Cupach & Carson 1.

(2002)

2.

Dispositional: global, stable complaints that focus on the
partner’s ﬂawed personality characteristics

Relational: complaints about unsatisfying aspects of the
relationship

. Behavioral/physical appearance: complaints about the

partner’s speciﬁc behaviors, attitudes, or physical appearance

 

p—s

Proposed typology

. Self: complaints about one’s physical state, behavior,

attitudes, obligations, or personal situation (includes Alicke
et al.’s 1-4, 6, and 8, and Boxer’s 2 and 4)
Offender-directed: complaints directed at the source of
dissatisfaction; complaints about their physical state,
behavior, attitudes, or obligations (includes Alberts’ 1-5,
Alicke et al’s 1-4, and 6-8, Boxer’s l, and Cupach &
Carson’s 1 and 3)

. Third party: complaints about the physical state, behavior,

attitudes, or obligations of another person, group, or entity
(includes Alicke et al’s 1-4 and 6-8 and Boxer’s 3)
Environment/situation: complaints about one’s physical
environment, dissatisfying aspects of a relationship (not
about the self or partner), or globally signiﬁcant problems
(includes Alicke’s 3, Boxer’s 5, and Cupach & Carson’s 2)

. Disappointment: complaints about service, products, or

events falling below expected standards (Alicke’s 5)

 

Conclusion

Complaining is a form of communication that serves a variety of functions. It

allows people to bring about changes in their environments and as well as in their internal

states. This research suggests that people vary in their tendency to complain, but much

more research is needed to determine whether variables such as personality traits of the

complainer or listener affect complaining behavior. This research also suggests that

although complaining may cause short-term annoyance at times, it does not necessarily

result in long-lasting dislike for the complainer. Being able to judge accurately how other

48

people view one’s complaining propensity and being selective in who one complains to
may allow people to avoid triggering social allergies in others. There were limitations to
this research; however, the future research suggested here will address these limitations
and provide additional information about the antecedents and consequences of

interpersonal complaining.

49

Footnotes

1The original scale uses a 5-point response format with “not at all characteristic of
me” and “extremely characteristic of me” as the anchors, but a 7-point response format
and anchors of “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” was used in this study to be
consistent with the other measures used in this study.

2Messages were coded according to the standards articulated by O’Keefe (1988,
1990; O’Keefe & McComack, 1987).

3There is no signiﬁcance test for the amount of stable variance accounted for by
relationship variance. When the average covariance of the relationship effects of the
complaining propensity items was determined, however, the average t-value with 37
degrees of ﬁeedom was 3.10 which is statistically signiﬁcant (p < .01). This test suggests
that the amount of stable variance accounted for by relationship variance is greater than
would be expected by chance alone.

’The correlations presented are disattenuated correlations, thus it is possible to

obtain large correlations that are not statistically signiﬁcant.

50

APPENDICES

51

APPENDIX A

Complaining Propensity Scale

Please read each statement and rate how much you agree or disagree with the statement using
the following scale:

8.*

9.*

10.*
11.*

12.*
13.*

l4.*

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Slightly Disagree

4 = Neutral

5 = Slightly Agree

6 = Agree

7 = Strongly Agree
Whenever I am dissatisﬁed, I readily express it to other people.
I frequently express dissatisfaction with the behavior of others.
I don’t usually vent my frustrations or dissatisfactions. (R)
When people annoy me, I tell them.
I seldom inform others that I am disappointed. (R)
I usually keep my discontent a secret. (R)
When someone does something to make me feel bad, I am likely to inform
that person of my displeasure.
I tend to complain a great deal.
I seldom state my dissatisfaction with the behavior of others. (R)
I generally don’t say much when I am dissatisﬁed. (R)
I usually vent my dissatisfaction.
I keep my dissatisfactions to myself. (R)
When I am unhappy or upset, I usually keep it to myself. (R)

When people or events don’t meet my expectations, I usually communicate

my dissatisfaction.

Note. (R) indicates reverse-scored items. * indicates items retained for analysis.

52

APPENDIX B

Narcissism Measure

Please read each statement and rate how much you agree or disagree with the statement using
the following scale:

10.*

ll.*

12.

13.

M."

15.

16.*

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly Disagree
4 = Neutral
5 = Slightly Agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly Agree
I deserve praise and recognition from others.
I feel I am entitled to favorable treatment from others.
I am resentful when others don’t treat me well.
I consider myself to be a deserving person.
I have a sense of entitlement.
I get uncomfortable when it seems I am getting special treatment. (R)
I want to be treated just like everyone else. (R)
I enjoy being the center of attention.
I sometimes “show off” to other people.
I like talking about my self.
I like people to pay attention to me.
I am a modest person. (R)
I am uncomfortable being the center of attention. (R)
Deep down, I think I am better than most other people.

I am more successful than most of my ﬁiends.

I often feel a sense of superiority over others.

53

_17. Other people often envy me.

_18.* I am better than most other people.
_19. I am really kind of an average person. (R)
_20. I often daydream about doing great things.

Note. (R) indicates reverse-scored items. * indicates items retained for analysis.

54

APPENDD( C
Message Design Logic Message Production Activity

Imagine that you have been assigned to a group project in one of your classes.
The class is in your major, and it is important to you that you get a good grade in this
class. Your ﬁnal grade will depend to a great extent on how well the group project turns
out. You were assigned to your group by the instructor, who also designated you to be
the leader of your group. Each person will receive two grades for the project: an overall
grade to the group based on the overall quality of the project report and an individual
grade based on each person’s contribution to group effort. Your duties as group leader
will include telling the instructor what grade you think each individual in the group
deserves based on their individual contributions.

One group member (whose name is Joe) has been causing some problems. Joe
seldom makes it to group meetings on time and entirely skipped one meeting without
even calling anyone in advance to let the group know. When Joe missed that meeting,
two of the group members wanted you to have the instructor remove Joe from your group,
but another member persuaded the group to give him another chance. At the next
meeting Joe arrived late but apologized for missing the previous meeting and mentioned
something about family problems. Joe did volunteer to do all the background research on
one important aspect of the group’s topic, saying he had a special interest in that part of
the project.

The group project is due next week. The group planned to put together the ﬁnal
draft of its report at a meeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Joe calls you up today
and says he doesn’t have his library research done and can’t get it ﬁnished before the
meeting. He says he just needs more time.

Write down wractly what you would say to Joe in response to this situation.

55

APPENDD( D
Complaint Log
Instructions:

A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with an object, person, event, or situation.
Some people rarely complain, and others complain quite frequently. For this study, you
will keep track of your complaints for one day. Record only the complaints expressed in
face-to-face or telephone conversations (do not count the complaints expressed via email,
text message, or instant messaging). Record each complaint as soon as possible after the
conversation is over, and try to use the same wording that you used in the original
complaint. For every complaint you record, you must also indicate who you complained
to, what the person said or did directly before you complained to them, your reason for
complaining, and what they said or did in response to your complaint. Ifyou complained
to more than one person please indicate everyone that you complained to, and if you had
more than one reason for complaining please indicate them all. Finally, if you run out of
pages, please continue to log your complaints using your own paper. Thank you for your
participation.

1. What was your speciﬁc complaint (i.e., what did you say)?

 

 

 

 

2. Who did you complain to? Circle all that apply: Romantic partner Friend
Acquaintance Stranger Family member Co-worker

Service provider (e. g., waiter, doctor, etc.) Other:

 

3. What, if anything, did the person say or do immediately before you complained?

 

 

 

56

4. Why did you complain to this person? Circle all that apply: To vent frustration
To seek advice To change their attitude or behavior To avoid blame
To seek sympathy To seek information To get attention

Other (specify):

 

5. What did the person say or do in response to the complaint? Circle all that apply:
Agree with you Disagree with you Justify or make excuses Give advice
Give sympathy Ignore the complaint

Make a complaint of their own (specify):

 

Other (specify):

 

57

APPENDIX E
Liking Measure

Please read each statement and rate how much you agree or disagree with the statement using
the following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree

3 = Slightly Disagree
4 = Neutral

5 = Slightly Agree

6 = Agree

7 = Strongly Agree

__ 1. I enjoy talking with

__ 2. is pleasant to be around.
__ 3. I enjoy spending time with

4. is a likeable person.

5. I could be ﬁiends with

58

REFERENCES

59

AhYun, K. (2002). Similarity and attraction. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, &
N. A. Burrell (Eds), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through
meta-analysis (pp. 145-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alberts, J. K. (1988). An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints. Communication
Monographs, 55, 184-197.

Alberts, J. K. (1989). A descriptive taxonomy of couples’ complaint interactions. The
Southern Journal of Communication, 54, 125-143.

Alberts, J. K., & Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation: The trajectory of
couples’ conversational complaints. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 394-
412.

Alicke, M. D., Braun, J. C., Glor, J. E., Klotz, M. L., Magee, J., Sederholm, H., & Siegel,
R. (1992). Complaining behavior in social interaction. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 286-295.

Altman, 1., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Asada, K. J. K. (2004). [Frequency of complaints]. Unpublished raw data.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and
beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints.
Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 103-125.

Cantrell, C. C., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). What type of person complains? Paper
presented at the meeting of the Society of Southeastern Social Psychologists,
Winston-Salem, NC.

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1997). Social allergens and the
reactions that they produce: Escalation of annoyance and disgust in love and
work. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 189-214).
New York: Plenum Press.

Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of

interpersonal complaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 19, 443-462.

60

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidirnensional measurement, second order
factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 267-
320.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York,
NY: Guilford Publications.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them?: An
empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145-161.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (V 01. 18, pp. 142-182). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and
consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 1 I 9, 179-196.

Kowalski, R. M. (Ed.) (1997). Aversive interpersonal behaviors. New York: Plenum
Press.

Kowalski, R. M. (Ed.) (2001). Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal
relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kowalski, R. M. (2002). Whining, griping, and complaining: Positivity in the negativity.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1023-1035.

Kowalski, R. M. (2003). Complaining, teasing, and other annoying behaviors. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Kowalski, R. M., & Erickson, J. R. (1997). Complaining: What’s all the fuss about? In R.
M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 91-110). New York:
Plenum Press.

Kowalski, R. M., Walker, S., Wilkinson, R., Queen, A., & Sharpe, B. (2003). Lying,
cheating, complaining, and other aversive interpersonal behaviors: A narrative
examination of the darker side of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 20, 471-490.

Lee, E. (2004). Narcissism and self-presentation: Conceptualization and empirical
evidence. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

61

McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N. (2003).
Narcissists as “victims”: The role of narcissism in the perception of
transgressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885-893.

O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning
about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.

O’Keefe, B. J. (1990). The logic of regulative communication: Understanding the
rationality of message designs. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance (pp. 87-
104). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Publishers.

O’Keefe, B. J., & McComack. S. A. (1987). Message design logic and message goal
structure: Effects on Perceptions of message quality in regulative communication
situations. Human Communication Research, 14, 68-92.

Roloff, M. E., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Conditions under which relational commitment
leads to expressing or withholding relational complaints. The International
Journal of Conﬂict Management, 13, 276-291.

Schutz, W. C. (195 8). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New
York, NY: Rinehart.

Siegert, J. R., & Stamp, G. H. (1994). “Our ﬁrst big ﬁght” as a milestone in the
development of close relationships. Communication Monographs, 61, 345-360.

62