EMOTIONS & BETRAYAL RESPONSES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS I DON’T GET MAD, I GET EVEN: By Joshua Charles Nelson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Communication–Doctor of Philosophy 2019 ABSTRACT EMOTIONS & BETRAYAL RESPONSES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS I DON’T GET MAD, I GET EVEN: By Joshua Charles Nelson This study investigated the revenge process by identifying predictors of engagement in revenge behaviors within close relationships. Consisting of two parts, this study first used social exchange theory as a basis to test whether emotion management, feelings of anger and hurt, or tendency to forgive are associated with general revenge or relational restoration following a betrayal by a close relational partner. Findings suggested the only significant association with revenge is feelings of anger. No variable showed a relationship with relational restoration. The second part of the study refined the first part by drawing from the theory of revenge process to test whether emotion management or tendency to forgive was associated with covert, overt, avoidant, and approaching revenge behaviors. No relationships were found between emotion management or tendency to forgive with any of the revenge behaviors described in the theory of revenge process. New directions for the study of revenge engagement are suggested. Copyright by JOSHUA CHARLES NELSON 2019 This dissertation is dedicated to my daughter Lyla. She and this project share the same birth year, and both have certainly been a source of fascination, frustration, and motivation for improvement for me. Our quick naps on the couch and dance sessions were some of the few precious moments of true piece and relaxation I had during this whole endeavor. Thank you, and I love you little one. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I have to thank my advisor and chair, Dr. Mary Bresnahan. Without her this project would absolutely not exist. After my first two advisors left to pursue careers at other universities, Mary was still willing to give me a chance. Her constant check-ins and guidance are the number one reasons this project was ever completed. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Maria Lapinski-LaFaive for reaching out to me and volunteering to be a member of my committee solely because she believed in me and wanted me to complete my PhD. Maria’s critiques and feedback were also invaluable for shaping this project into the defensible product it became. I also owe Dr. Brandon Van Der Heide my gratitude for his immediate willingness to join my committee. His calm and flexible attitude was always reassuring during my proposal and defense meetings. Lastly, I want to thank my fourth committee member Dr. Genevieve Risner for joining my committee as well. I realize how big of a request it was given her busy schedule running the consulting center, but her immediate, positive response to the request meant a lot. This committee was so much more amazing and supportive than I probably deserved. Thank you all so much! I must also thank my MSU cohort and friends. Rain, Shannon, Soo, Kate, and Greg; our title as the Super Cohort was something truly earned. If I could ever work with, and be surrounded by, a group of people who are even half as supportive and genuinely loving as you five, I would have found my dream position. I wish you all the best of luck in all of your endeavors! Jeff and Pat, you two are hands-down the two best friends I have ever made. The adventures, laughs, and drinks we shared are some of my favorite memories, and often things I remembered when life and this project became too overwhelming. I love you both. v Finally, I absolutely have to thank my family. My parents and siblings continued to support and cheer me on, even when all reason suggested the completion of my PhD was a lost cause. It was with great pride I was able to call them and tell them the news after I had successfully defended. My children, Ash and Lyla, were two of the biggest motivators for me to finish. I had to show them the importance of dedication, even when the odds are not favorable. And in the end, I have to thank Mai. Whatever happens, I will always consider this project a product of our work to keep our lives afloat together. I absolutely could not have completed graduate school while raising a family without your help. For that, you will always be in my heart. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 Definitions of Revenge..................................................................................................5 Revenge in Close Relationships....................................................................................6 Motives....................................................................................................................7 Goals........................................................................................................................8 Strategies..................................................................................................................9 Outcomes.................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................11 STUDY PART ONE................................................................................................................11 Social Exchange Theory..............................................................................................11 Altruistic Punishment Perspective...............................................................................12 Emotions and Revenge................................................................................................13 Hurt........................................................................................................................14 Anger......................................................................................................................15 Distinguishing hurt from anger............................................................................16 Emotional Regulation and Management......................................................................18 Forgiveness……………………..................................................................................21 Methodology…………………....................................................................................22 Participants….........................................................................................................22 Procedures..............................................................................................................23 Measures................................................................................................................23 Relationship information.................................................................................23 Closeness prior to transgression.....................................................................24 Transgression event.........................................................................................25 Revenge............................................................................................................25 Emotion measures...........................................................................................25 Emotion management......................................................................................26 Tendency to forgive........................................................................................27 Demographics..................................................................................................28 Coding....................................................................................................................28 Proposed Models..........................................................................................................30 vii Model for revenge seeking...................................................................................30 Model for relational restoration seeking.............................................................30 Results..........................................................................................................................31 Factors influencing revenge and restorative behaviors......................................31 Relational closeness influencing emotions..........................................................32 Discussion....................................................................................................................32 Initial Limitations.........................................................................................................34 Implications for Theory...............................................................................................36 CHAPTER THREE........................................................................................................................39 STUDY PART TWO...............................................................................................................39 Theory of Revenge Process…….................................................................................39 Event experience phase…….................................................................................39 Fantasy/action phase.............................................................................................41 Outcome phase.......................................................................................................42 Emotion Management, Forgiveness, and the Dimensions of Revenge.......................43 Methods........................................................................................................................47 Coding....................................................................................................................47 Covert/overt revenge communication..................................................................48 Avoid/approach revenge communication...........................................................50 Verbal avoid/approach...................................................................................51 Nonverbal avoid/approach.............................................................................51 Results..........................................................................................................................52 Emotion management, forgiveness, and revenge behaviors...............................53 Discussion....................................................................................................................54 Implications for the Theory of Revenge Process.........................................................57 Limitations...................................................................................................................59 CHAPTER FOUR..........................................................................................................................61 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................61 APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................62 APPENDIX A: Statistics Tables..............................................................................................63 APPENDIX B: Models............................................................................................................71 APPENDIX C: IRB Approval..................................................................................................72 APPENDIX D: Informed Consent Form..................................................................................73 APPENDIX E: Scales & Measures...........................................................................................75 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................78 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Revenge Coding Scheme...................................................................................................29 Table 2 Restoration Coding Scheme...............................................................................................30 Table 3 Covert/Overt Coding Scheme............................................................................................50 Table 4 Verbal Avoid/Approach Coding Scheme..........................................................................51 Table 5 Nonverbal Avoid/Approach Coding Scheme....................................................................52 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations.........................................................................................63 Table 7 Correlation Matrix for Study 1...........................................................................................64 Table 8 Binary Logistic Regression Model for Revenge................................................................65 Table 9 Binary Logistic Regression Model for Restoration............................................................66 Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations.......................................................................................67 Table 11 Correlation Matrix for Study 2.........................................................................................68 Table 12 Coding Contingency Table..............................................................................................69 Table 13 OLS Regression Models..................................................................................................70 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Proposed Model for Revenge Seeking..............................................................................71 Figure 2 Proposed Model for Relational Restoration Seeking........................................................71 x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The ascent of mankind must have been a boon to them. At last there was a species that could be persuaded to shoot itself in the foot. -- Terry Pratchett Thief of Time Revenge is one of the oldest plot devices in stories throughout human history (Jacoby, 1983). It can be seen in stories ranging from a Ronin samurai determined to avenge his fallen master (Mitford, 2012), a lone cowboy out to get his family’s killer (Cicogna, Morsella, & Leone, 1963), or an orphaned daughter driven to destroy the lives of those who destroyed her father’s life (Bowen & Godfrey, 2011). Be they fable, popular fiction, or even religious, stories of vengeance draw people in by connecting with one of the darkest urges in the human heart, the desire to make others pay for what they have done. However, these stories, almost without exception, also include a moral lesson. These lessons may include the teachings that revenge always comes with a cost, or revenge only leads to more problems (e.g., Homer, Fagles, & Knox, 1998). Because of these tried-and-true tropes, it is often easy for people to forget that revenge does indeed happen in the real world, situated in actual relationships beyond the realm of after school specials, primetime dramas, and stories by the fire. And when it does occur, it can have serious consequences (e.g., Dawson, 2014; Fox, 2010). Increasing frequency of revenge incidents, along with the growing awareness of devastating effects on the victims, has spurred major online entities and government authorities to take action (Pelegrin, 2015). Many documented revenge incidents take the form of online revenge porn. Revenge porn is defined as an instance in which a person, often an ex-lover or ex- partner, posts nude or intimate pictures and videos of a victim online without the victim’s consent to get back at the victim (Hamilton, 2018). For example, Google, Facebook, and Reddit 1 have officially banned any form of revenge porn from appearing on their social media platforms and are now offering victims the ability to have previously posted content taken down and removed from searches (Guynn, 2015; Pelegrin, 2015; Price, 2015). Governments in Europe, along with sixteen states within the United States, have approved legislation that criminalizes the act of posting revenge porn content; and currently, the U.S. federal government is considering similar legislation (Pelegrin, 2015). This means that instances of revenge porn can, and do, depending on a perpetrator’s location, result in fines and imprisonment. While revenge porn represents an extreme case of retaliation, ordinary people who feel betrayed by a friend or a relational partner may turn to their social interpersonal network, the social media or their smart phones to enact revenge without porn (McCreery & Krach, 2018). Porn revenge is an extreme, illegal and prosecutable response. As the opening examples illustrate, revenge can have dangerous, devastating, and even deadly outcomes. However, only a small percentage of individuals ultimately enact revenge (Schumann & Ross, 2010). In their review of the revenge literature, Schumann and Ross (2010) found that across most studies, while people would commonly report that they held or had held vengeance “in their hearts” in response to perceived transgressions, only a small portion reported acting on these feelings. For example, Crombag, Rassin, and Horselenberg (2003) found that while 64% of their undergraduate student participants could recall an instance in the last year when they felt the need to exact revenge within an interpersonal relationship, only 29% of that 64% reported actually acting on this urge. As the occurrence of revenge behaviors, especially those within the context of interpersonal relationships, appears to be rare (Rasmussen, Alibhai, Boon, & Ellard, 2016), it may seem that scholarly attention is not merited. However, this is not the case. There has yet to be a study that identifies a clear, strong predictor of revenge engagement. Further, 2 examining the role emotion plays in the revenge process may facilitate understanding of why those few people enact revenge and others do not. While intuitive theories of behavior have been offered to explain revenge (Rasmussen, 2013; Schumann & Ross, 2010), the goal of this research is to extend understanding psycho-social mechanisms underpinning revenge in interpersonal relationships. The role of emotion in revenge is also investigated in an attempt to better explain the engagement in revenge behavior. A number of studies have examined the role of emotion in revenge. For example, Yoshimura (2007) utilized Ohbuchi and Tedeschi’s (1997) conflict goals measure in his study examining romantic revenge goals. After completing a measure on specific revenge strategies they had used in the past, participants were asked to identify goals and the degree to which they were prioritized in their revenge. Results showed a clear emphasis on power and dominance (i.e., power-hostility) goals. Additionally, participants reported the emotional outcome they most strongly experienced while recalling the revenge episode. The reported outcomes included both positive (e.g., warmhearted, kindly, and affectionate emotions) and negative (e.g., angry, fearful, and regretful emotions) emotional experiences. Of all the emotional experiences reported, participants reported experiences of anger (i.e., angry, hateful, and defiant emotions) most frequently, with positivity being the least experienced emotion by a wide margin. This research by Yoshimura (2007) supports the idea that revenge is an act of anger that is pursued when the victim seeks power over their partner rather than relationship restoration. Further lending support to the influential role emotions play in the revenge process, Wang, Bowling, Tian, Alarcon, and Kwon (2018) investigated the mediating effects of state anger in exacting revenge in the workplace. Using a cross-cultural sample with participants from the United States and China, Wang and colleagues found that state anger was a significant 3 mediator between intensity of harassment and engagement in revenge behaviors. This mediating effect of anger was true for all types of revenge behaviors, ranging from overtly aggressive revenge behaviors, to more covert, indirect revenge behaviors. Wang and colleagues’ (2018) work, along with Yoshimura’s (2007) and a multitude of others (e.g., Boon, Deveau, & Alibhai, 2009; McDonald & Asher, 2013; Wright, 2015), clearly show emotion (particularly anger) plays a role in the revenge process. Some recent research, however, questions whether emotions themselves are purely predictive of revenge engagement. Boon, Rasmussen, Deveau, and Alibhai (2017) recently investigated reasons why people chose not to engage in revenge. The findings of this study are particularly interesting because the three major reasons participants gave for not seeking revenge are complimentary to the three dimensions of emotion management as posited by Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, and Palfai (1995). Boon and colleagues (2017) found that participants, even if they were experiencing strong emotions, would often forgo seeking revenge if they took time to consider the potential relational costs of revenge and weigh them proportionally to the potential benefits, while also questioning the morality of their engagement in revenge. The dimensions of emotion management focus on how attentive a person is to their affective experience, their clarity in discriminating those feelings, and their ability to effectively repair their mood (Salovey et al., 1995). Considering that Boon and colleagues’ (2017) findings suggest a victim’s ability to critically reflect on their situation and weigh long-term costs and benefits, strong emotion management skills would likely be crucial in suspending immediate, emotionally-charged reactions to vengeance-inducing events. To begin exploring the influence of affective factors in the revenge process the definition of revenge is reviewed along with a discussion of the relevant research on revenge motives, 4 goals, and strategies. Theoretical foundations are considered next, followed by consideration of two emotions that may play a central role in revenge. The influence of emotion management is also explored as well as other potentially complementary concepts such as relational closeness and tendency to forgive. This study consists of two parts. The first part examines revenge as a dichotomous behavior (engaging or not engaging) to better identify its frequency of occurrence, as compared to relationally restorative behaviors following a betrayal event. The second part of this study investigates the influence of emotion management on engagement in revenge in a more detailed manner, drawing from the theory of revenge process (Yoshimura & Boon, 2018). The study concludes with consideration of theoretical and practical implications of findings from both parts of the study. Definitions of Revenge Revenge is defined as a behavioral act that is enacted in response to a perceived wrong towards oneself (Yoshimura & Boon, 2014). Here the word perceived is important to note as it assumes that the interpretation of wrong-doing stems from the victim’s perspective rather than the intentions of the transgressor. If there was no perception of being wronged on the victim’s behalf, then any responding behaviors would not be vengeful (Boon et al., 2009). Additionally, revenge must be enacted with the purpose of making the perceived transgressor suffer, to some degree, a negative consequence for his or her action. This aspect of revenge is important because the desire to make the transgressor suffer captures the negative, relationally destructive essence of revenge (Rusbult, Verette, & Whitney, 1991). Often there are other goals (discussed further in the following section), but to constitute a vengeful act there must be a desire for transgressors to suffer for their misdeeds in some way, whether the suffering is physical, social, emotional, psychological, or a combination thereof (Yoshimura & Boon, 2018). 5 Schumann and Ross (2010) further elucidated the definition of revenge by distinguishing it from other aggressive and punitive acts. Revenge differs from aggression and deviance in that revenge requires that an individual be wronged in some way. Hence, at its foundation, revenge is reactive. Aggressive and deviant behaviors certainly can be utilized during the revenge act, but on their own they lack the defining, initial motive that makes revenge unique. Revenge also differs from the similar concept of punishment in that the purpose of revenge is to make a transgressor suffer for a previous offense, whereas punishment is enacted with the sole purpose of curbing undesirable behavior and improving a transgressor (Schumann & Ross, 2010). Again, revenge acts can (and often do) incorporate aspects of punishment, but at the most basic level, revenge must consist of a desire to see a transgressor suffer above all else. If at any point the avenger becomes more concerned with improving a transgressor’s behavior than inflicting a form of suffering, the act ceases to be vindictive and becomes punitive. Revenge in Close Relationships Most behaviors in close relationships are comprised not only of strategic maintenance behaviors, but also routine behaviors that help to maintain the relationship (Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). It may only take one perceived transgression, however, to end a relationship with vengeful retaliation (Yoshimura, 2007a; Yoshimura, Anderson, Curran, & Allen, 2013). Boon and colleagues (2009) explained that because revenge is a response to perceived transgression, it often is the case that the victim perceives the transgression as more severe due to his or her role as the victim and the perception of being unjustly treated. This perception does not have to be acknowledged publicly by others, or even the transgressor, only victims themselves. Consequently, the transgression stands out in stark contrast to normal, routine relationship behaviors. Thus, revenge is described as leading to vindictive behaviors that 6 are disproportionally punishing. Despite being relatively uncommon, this behavior has the ability to negatively affect a relationship’s quality, sometimes to the point that the relationship is terminated (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006). Much of the research on revenge in interpersonal relationships has examined the motives (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Boon et al., 2009), goals (e.g., Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997; Yoshimura, 2007a), strategies (e.g., Yoshimura, 2007a; Yoshimura et al., 2013), and outcomes of revenge. On the whole, these studies have reached overlapping and commensurable conclusions reported in the discussion which follows. Motives. Bachman and Guerrero (2006) studied the role that expectancy violations played in terminating relationships following revenge. In their study, they focused solely on negative relation expectancy violations (e.g., kissing, flirting, or sleeping with someone other than your partner) and feelings of hurt influencing the likelihood of breakups. Hurt and negative expectancy violation valence (i.e., the measure assessed how negative the expectancy violation was) were both measured using Likert-type items. Results indicated that extremely negatively- valenced violations had a strong positive relationship with termination of the relationship, however strong feelings of hurt had a negative relationship with termination of the relationship. This suggests that, while extremely negatively-valenced expectancy violations are likely to lead to relationship termination following revenge; this effect may be lessened if high levels of hurt are experienced. Boon and colleagues (2009) also examined the role of negatively-valenced relational expectancy violations in revenge motives. These violations were termed “violations of relational rules,” though they consisted mostly of the same behaviors listed in Bachman and Guerrero (2006). Boon and colleagues coded participant recollections for negative violations of relational 7 norms that lead to engaging in vengeance against a romantic partner. Once again, negatively- valenced violations were found to have a strong positive relationship with revenge. However, in this case, researchers found that the desire for the transgressing partner to feel empathy for the victim’s emotional pain also had a strong positive relationship with revenge behavior. Unfortunately, Boon and colleagues did not code for the experience of specific emotional responses. Therefore, the role of emotion, particularly hurt, in mitigating revenge behaviors was not clearly established beyond Bachman and Guerrero’s (2006) findings. These findings, in conjunction with studies like Wang and colleagues’ (2018) and Yoshimura’s (2007) investigating the role of anger in revenge, identify the need to further clarify the role that feelings and emotions play in vengeance engagement. Goals. While not examining revenge specifically, Ohbuchi and Tedeschi’s (1997) study of interpersonal conflict goals included romantic relationship revenge. Their study provided a number of different goals for resolving a conflict and grouped them into eight distinct categories based on their purpose. These goals include: relationship (to maintain or initiate a relationship), power (to influence or dominate), identity (to save face or self-esteem), justice (to achieve fairness), hostility (to punish or terminate a relationship), functionality (to reach a constructive solution), economic resource (to possess something high in economic value), and personal resource (to protect freedom and privacy). After participants recalled a memorable interpersonal conflict, they then rated how much they valued each of these goals when handling the conflict. Analyses showed that relationship goals, the most common goals overall, were emphasized most when the individuals felt close to their conflict partners. Power goals (eventually termed power- hostility goals), were not as common overall, but were the most prominent goals emphasized 8 when the conflicting individuals were not close at all. This suggests a strong link between relational closeness and relationally positive conflict goals. Strategies. Over the course of multiple studies (e.g., Boon et al., 2009; Yoshimura, 2007a; Yoshimura et al., 2013; Yoshimura & Boon, 2018), Yoshimura, Boon, and their colleagues created categorical inventories of revenge strategies. They utilized open-ended questions in their data collection exploring the types of revenge behaviors people use in romantic revenge. In the cases of Yoshimura (2007) and Boon and colleagues (2009), the inventories were only utilized for their respective analyses; however, Yoshimura and colleagues (2013) created the Intimate Revenge Behavior Measure, which Yoshimura and Boon (2018) formalized, to provide future revenge researchers with a complete, itemized measure that did not require excessive coding. The interesting thing across studies though, was that each of the inventories contained extremely similar (in most cases identical) revenge behavioral categories that were all relationally detrimental in nature (e.g., relationship termination, social distancing, or infidelity). Collectively, their research clearly illustrates the inherent, relationally destructive nature of revenge. Outcomes. Researchers studying the outcomes of revenge (i.e., satisfaction, emotions, relationship quality) have consistently found that the outcomes often are contradictory with, and even paradoxical to, the initial motives and goals of the vengeful behavior. For example, revenge may be highly satisfying in an initial stage (Gollwitzer & Denzier, 2009; Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmitt, 2011), but the avenger may also experience regret and depression as a result of their vengeful behavior (Yoshimura, 2007a). Enacting revenge may further damage a relationship that an individual would have desired to repair (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Boon, Alibhai, & Deveau, 2011; Boon et al., 2009) or the avenger may never be able to fully progress 9 past the initial transgression, even upon exacting revenge (Carlsmith, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). Since revenge is such an influential behavior in a relationship and its outcomes appear to be counterintuitive and paradoxical, there remains much to be gained from additional scholarly research on this construct. In the following section the conceptual frameworks of revenge for study one is identified and relevant variables are reviewed to begin probing the murky process of revenge engagement. 10 CHAPTER TWO STUDY PART ONE Researchers have utilized a number of different conceptual frames to explain why victims become motivated to inflict suffering on their significant others. Initially, Horney (1948) posited that revenge was a natural, albeit personally destructive urge that simply caused people to want to see others endure pain and suffering for their misdeeds. For many years, the two most commonly utilized frameworks for explaining revenge motives were social exchange theory (SET; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and the altruistic punishment perspective (see Rasmussen, 2013 and Schumann & Ross, 2010 for extensive lists of studies for both). A new theory recently developed (the theory of revenge process; Yoshimura & Boon, 2018) will be explained for the second part of this study. Social Exchange Theory Social exchange theory (SET, Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) suggests that relationships consist of a structure of economic exchanges. In other words, partners, involved in a relationship of their own volition, constantly weigh the costs and benefits of being in that relationship. Costs and benefits are subject to each partner’s conceptualization and can take on any form (e.g., physical, emotional, or financial). An essential facet of SET is that a relationship only succeeds if the benefits outweigh the costs; however, this is not limited solely to a single partner’s own cost/benefit balance. In a relationship, it is possible for individuals to ultimately gain benefits through enduring costs that benefit their partner (e.g., individuals spend money on a nice gift for their partner but seeing their partner happy about the gift makes the individual happy; Stafford, 2008). Central to equity theory (Adams, 1965), a subset of SET, is the assumption that perceived cost/benefit balances should be equal between partners, or a relationship could be at risk of 11 failing. If a partner feels that their ratio of costs/benefits is not comparable to their partner’s, they are receiving unequal rewards from third parties, or that their relationship outcomes are dissimilar to others in similar relationships, they are likely to see the relationship as inequitable. Experiencing inequity leads to emotional distress, which often manifests as anger or guilt (Sprecher, 2001). Through the frame of SET, revenge makes sense as a behavior enacted to restore equality within a relationship; a person was wronged so the relationship was thrown out of balance, but by making the partner suffer for that transgression, the individual can distribute justice and restore the relationship to its original state. However, some people may focus less on the equity within a relationship and more upon the transgressor. In these instances, the altruistic punishment perspective is a useful framework to examine revenge behaviors. Altruistic Punishment Perspective The altruistic punishment perspective suggests that revenge motivation stems from a desire to correct socially undesirable behavior and prevent future transgressions. Evolutionary social psychologists (e.g., de Quervain et al., 2004; Fehr & Gachter, 2002) use this viewpoint and emphasize the re-establishment of self-worth through the punishment and teaching of moral lessons. Also important to this viewpoint is the notion that revenge serves a socially constructive function. By punishing those who transgress against others, future deviance is curbed for fear of retaliation. On an individual level, this acts as a defensive mechanism where a transgressor is less likely to act out against another because of the risk associated with the vengeful actions (Schumann & Ross, 2010). Using this perspective, researchers focus on the satisfaction and cooperative influences of revenge. For example, de Quervain and colleagues (2004) used neural imaging techniques to 12 illustrate the high level of satisfaction individuals experience when seeking vengeance on those who destructively deviate from social norms and expectations. This level of satisfaction supports the idea that vengeance plays a strong role in the evolution of human cooperation (Fehr & Gachter, 2002). While this viewpoint employs much more of a social justice/punitive motive compared to the restoration of equity motive of SET, both still include suffering on the transgressor’s part as the ultimate means to their respective ends. However, overlooked in both perspectives is the role that emotion may play in the revenge process. Emotions and Revenge Given that many scholars define emotion as a physiologically arousing reaction (Berscheid, 1983; Sheperd & Wild, 2014; Strongman, 2003), it makes sense to consider the role emotions play in reaction to a transgression in a close relationship. Nabi (1999; 2010) argues studying emotions from a discrete perspective can provide a better understanding of how specific emotions relate to communicative, behavioral outcomes. Instead of focusing on general, broad categorizations of emotions (i.e., a dimensional perspective), studying emotions as discrete with uniquely predictive impacts on communicative outcomes allows for the development of better designed interventions to the emotional experiences (Nabi, 2003; Nabi, 2010). Additionally, Shen and Dillard (2007) explain most primary emotions have an action tendency; meaning any discrete emotion will not only be valenced and serve as a guide for goal orientation, but will motivate a behavioral response. Each primary emotion has a unique action tendency (i.e., behavioral response) associated with it given contextual conditions (Shen & Bigsby, 2010; Shen & Dillard, 2007). Two emotions commonly examined in relation to revenge are hurt and anger (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero; Wang et al., 2018; Yoshimura, 2007). In this section hurt and anger will be articulated as distinct components with differential outcomes in the revenge process as 13 per the discrete emotions perspective (Nabi, 2010), and the assumption each emotion will have a behavioral outcome (Shen & Dillard, 2007). Hurt. Much of the revenge literature suggests that experiencing hurt at the hands of a relational partner is a strong predictor of engaging in vengeful behaviors (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Boon et al., 2009). Hurt has been defined as the degree to which a behavior causes an individual to feel emotional pain (Vangelisti, 1994), often in response to perceptions of being devalued (Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, 2005). Commonly, hurt is the result of an individual feeling rejected by a relational partner or feeling that relational expectations were violated (Jones & Burdette, 1994). Hurt has been shown to have a number of negative outcomes, such as developing a negative self-image and feeling powerless (Feeney, 2004), personal devaluation (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006), and even feelings of pain, both emotional (Dillon, Timulak, & Greenberg, 2018; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansel, & Evans, 1998) and physical (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Fung & Alden, 2017). When individuals are rejected by close relational partners, they experience hurt because the transgression signals that their partners do not feel the same level of closeness within the relationship (Jones & Burdette, 1994). Hurt then could potentially lend itself toward relationally restorative behaviors after experiencing a transgression, if the individuals desire to maintain their close relationships. Other research, however, suggests hurt may not be predictive of relationally restorative behaviors. For example, Miczo, Flood, and Fitzgerald (2018) found hurt to be negatively correlated with confronting a transgressor in a prosocial manner. While these findings challenge the relationally restorative motivational influence of hurt, there is no suggestion hurt as a unique construct would inherently lead to vengeful behaviors (as per Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Boon 14 et al., 2009). Therefore, it is unclear exactly how hurt would function with relation to revenge and transgression response. Anger. Anger is a primary human emotion (Ekman, Sorenson, & Friesen, 1969) and occurs when individuals are prevented from achieving goals (Berscheid, 1983; Lazarus, 1991) or feel that they have been wronged (Harre & Parrott, 1996). Similar to hurt in relationships, anger often follows violations of relational expectations, agreements, or relational devaluation (Jones & Burdette, 1994; Harre & Parrott, 1996). However, whereas hurt is characterized by feelings of pain and sorrow, anger tends to result in aggressive behaviors such as fighting or harming the transgressor (Lemay, Overall, & Clark, 2012). This aggressive nature of anger can lead to relationally destructive behavior, like revenge, in response to relational transgression. The anger activism model (AAM; Turner, 2007) provides a sound basis for the communicative influence anger can have. Based on Nabi’s (2010) discrete emotions perspective, the model states that when anger is experienced an individual will act to rectify the anger- inducing situation, given they have the ability to do so. While predominantly used to study responses to persuasive messages (e.g., Ilakkuvan, Turner, Cantrell, Hair, & Vallone, 2017), the AAM establishes a link between experiencing anger and communicative behavioral outcomes. Building from the AAM, when individuals are angered by the betrayal of their partner, they may see vengeance as an efficacious option for resolving their feelings of anger. For example, experiencing anger following a transgression could stem from a loss of power individuals feel they had over their relational partners (Lemay et al., 2012); therefore, wronged individuals may subsequently prioritize controlling and changing the behaviors of their transgressing partners. Research by Dillard, Meczkowski, and Yang (2018) found when participants were put into a defensive state, they were much more likely to react to persuasive stimuli. Dillard and 15 colleagues argue that a defensive state is one in which a person must react (as opposed to actively seeking a goal), therefore causing stronger emotive responses. Additionally, Kim, Dillard, and Smith (2019) found that emotional responses to advice about medical practices predicted behavioral intention to follow said advice. Specifically, Kim and colleagues found anger was the most consistently predicative emotion for non-compliant behaviors. Yan, Dillard, and Shen (2012), also found anger to be strongly predictive of approaching behaviors following a persuasive message. All of these studies support the idea experiencing anger would lead to seeking revenge as they all found the action tendency of anger to be attacking or rejecting the anger-inducing stimulus. Conceptualizing hurt and anger as two discrete emotions with conflicting relational outcomes begs the question of why they often have the same relationally beneficial (e.g., Sanford & Rowatt, 2004) or relationally detrimental (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006) outcomes. The answer can be explained using SET. Distinguishing hurt from anger. From the SET framework, the measure of costs and rewards within a relationship is not necessarily just about equality between partners, but also about maintaining the relationship. To hurt one’s partner also hurts the relationship. Relational partners who experience closeness are more likely to value their relationships and are more likely to feel that damaging or losing the relationship would be a drastic loss (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). The closer the relationship, the more likely a victim of relational betrayal is to experience feelings of hurt and anger (Afifi, Falato, & Weiner, 2001; Ferrara & Levine, 2009). As such, it is possible experiencing strong feelings of hurt could offset relationally destructive behaviors motivated by feelings of anger (Lemay et al., 2012). While feelings of anger may occur, if individuals experience strong feelings of hurt, to avoid further damage to, or loss of, the relationship they will endeavor to engage in relationally restorative behaviors. Alternatively, if 16 hurt results in aversion to confronting a transgressing partner (Miczo et al., 2018), then feelings of anger may be over-ridden by a desire to avoid confronting the issue. In either case, even though hurt and anger were positively correlated, they influenced the same outcome. Hurt and anger have been shown to have a consistently strong positive correlation across a variety of relationship studies (e.g., Fine & Olson, 1997; Sanford & Rowatt, 2004), and as a result often are assumed to have the same outcomes when experienced in romantic relationships. But these potential explanations could address how hurt and anger are unique constructs yet still influence similar outcomes. Instances where an individual does engage in relationally destructive behaviors are instances where anger overrides or outweighs the feelings of hurt. Anger encourages simplistic and immediate thought processes, which can result in a loss of focus on long-term relational goals (Lemay et al., 2012; Tiedens & Linton, 2001). When individuals feel high levels of anger they often focus on dealing with the immediate threat from the angry emotions and emphasize fighting, harming, and conquering the transgressor as a solution to satiate their anger (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Yovetich & Rusbult, 1994). While anger is often difficult to sustain over long periods of time, Wang and colleagues (2018) have found that rumination on anger-inducing events can revive feelings of anger over longer periods of time. As a construct, anger embodies much of what establishes revenge as a unique behavioral construct. There is strong emphasis on prioritizing harm to the transgressor at the cost of other relational goals. Based on this understanding of anger, the unclear nature of the relationship between hurt and engaging in revenge and restorative behaviors (Lemay et al., 2012; Miczo et al., 2018), and how these two emotions are connected to relational closeness (Afifi, Falato, & Weiner, 2001; Ferrara & Levine, 2009), the following hypotheses and research questions can be posited. 17 Emotion and Relational Closeness H1: Anger will have a positive relationship with communicating revenge. H2: Anger will have a negative relationship with relational restoration. RQ1: Does hurt have a relationship with communicating revenge? RQ2: Does hurt have a relationship with relational restoration? H3a: Closeness will have a positive relationship with feelings of anger. H3b: Closeness will have a positive relationship with feelings of hurt. Emotional Regulation and Management Another construct that may play an influential role in determining the likelihood of revenge behavior engagement is emotional regulation. Emotional regulation is an individual’s ability to override one set of emotional responses with that of another incompatible set of emotional responses. In their literature review of emotional regulation, Tice and Bratslavsky (2000) outlined how emotional regulation is a unique form of self-regulation (i.e., self-control); a general construct having to do with one’s overall ability to substitute a short-term goal with a more pertinent and incompatible long-term goal. What makes emotional regulation unique is its ability to influence and undermine other self-control tasks. That is, other regulatory tasks such as engaging in healthy behaviors, avoiding procrastination, and maintaining a happy relationship all can be disrupted or overshadowed by immediate emotional regulation issues (Ferrari, 1991; Gross, 1999; Gross & John, 2003; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Tice, Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001; Williams, Morelli, Ong, & Zaki, 2018). Whereas emotion regulation is focused on individuals’ abilities to balance both short- and long-term emotional goals with other types of goals, the concept of emotion management is more focused on individuals’ abilities to understand and manage the emotions they experience 18 (Salovey et al., 1995). Given the action tendencies of emotions (Turner, 2007; Shen & Dillard, 2007), the ability to effectively manage one’s emotions might preclude the necessity to balance emotive responses with other types of goals. As such, emotion management may provide a more succinct explanation as to why people seek revenge than emotion regulation. Considered an authority on emotional intelligence, and having created the Mayer- Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2014), Salovey and colleagues (1995) also developed the Trait Meta-Mood Scale to measure emotion management. Emotion management is a process consisting of three different unidimensional constructs that all contribute to an individual’s emotion management ability. The first construct laid out by Salovey and colleagues (1995) is the ability to attend to emotions and individual experiences; referring to the ability of an individual to acknowledge their emotions and address their cause. The second construct is the ability to clearly distinguish between experienced emotions; referring to the ability of an individual to identify the different, discrete emotions they are experiencing. The third construct is the ability to engage in negative mood repair; referring to the ability of an individual to effectively identify strategies to improve a negative mood state brought on by negative emotions. Individuals with strong emotion management abilities, as a result of high scores in each of the aforementioned constructs, are also better able to empathize with and understand emotional states of others (Hodgson & Wertheim, 2007). Therefore, if individuals are skilled at attending to their emotions, distinguishing between the emotions they experience, and handling their experience of negative emotions, they should be able to effectively regulate negative emotions and prevent them from engaging in behaviors which counter other, long-term goals (i.e., relationship goals). 19 Taking inspiration from Boon and colleagues’ (2017) findings, emotion management potentially offers a useful explanation for why people choose not to engage in revenge behaviors. While Boon and colleagues did not look specifically at emotion management, they did find reflecting on the morality and relational impact of vengeful actions did reduce the likelihood of revenge seeking against a romantic partner. As the first study to look specifically at the relationship between emotion management and revenge, the current study posits that an individual with strong emotion management skills will likely be more able to critically reflect on their emotional responses and adequately weigh the potential costs and benefits of revenge behavior. However, if an individual has lower emotion management skills and experiences extreme negative emotions, their inability to regulate those negative emotions could potentially cause them to again lose sight of the “long term” goals (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000; Boon & Yoshimura, 2016). A need to deal with the negative emotions at the expense of their relational stability and quality takes over. Given these arguments, it is reasonable to assume individuals who have low emotion management skills would also be more likely to engage in revenge behaviors than those with high emotion management skills; leading to the following hypothesis: H4a: Ability to attend to emotions will have a negative relationship with communication of revenge. H4b: Ability to distinguish between emotions will have a negative relationship with communication of revenge. H4c: Ability to repair negative mood states will have a negative relationship with communication of revenge. How emotion management influences relationally restorative behavior engagement, however, is less clear. Researchers have explored the role of various negative emotions in the 20 relationship restorations process (e.g., Ren & Gray, 2009; Sells, Beckenbach, & Patrick, 2009). However how the ability of individuals to effectively manage those emotions impacts the restoration process has been relatively under-considered. Would individuals with low emotion management simply not engage in relationally restorative behaviors, to avoid further emotional pain? Would those individuals aggressively seek repair with their partner, to end the negative emotions as soon as possible? Would the reactions differ if the individuals had high emotion management? In a first step toward addressing these questions, the following research question is posed: RQ3a: Does the ability to attend to emotions have a relationship with relationship restoration? RQ3b: Does the ability to distinguish between emotions have a relationship with relationship restoration? RQ3c: Does the ability to repair negative mood states have a relationship with relationship restoration? Forgiveness Another trait theorized to be related to whether vengeance occurs is the tendency to forgive. In their handbook on conflict resolution, Deutsch and Coleman (2000) clearly link the concepts of forgiveness and revenge by defining forgiveness (in part) as the act of giving up a desire for revenge. Beyond Deutsch and Coleman, a large body of literature has investigated the influence tendency to forgive has on reducing revenge (e.g., Brown, 2003; Zhang, Oetzel, Ting- Toomey, & Zhang, 2015), however the relationship appears to be rather nuanced, if not inconsistent (e.g., Wang et al., 2018). The method of measuring revenge in studies focusing on forgiveness as a predictor could potentially be influencing the findings. Many forgiveness 21 studies (e.g., Bradfield & Aquino, 1999; Brown, 2004; Gerlsma & Lugtmeyer, 2018) measure revenge using the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992) which measures general attitudes toward revenge, not actual engagement in revenge. As mentioned previously, desire for revenge is an inconsistent predictor for actual engagement in revenge (Crombag et al., 2003), therefore, measuring the tendency to forgive of individuals who actually engage in revenge behaviors might be more informative. At a basic level it makes intuitive sense a person who is inclined to forgive an offending partner, would then be less inclined to attempt exacting revenge on said partner. Because of the connection between forgiveness and revenge, this final hypothesis is posed: H5: Tendency to forgive will have a negative relationship with communicating revenge. Methodology Participants. This study consisted of a convenience sample (N = 151) of participants enrolled in communication courses at a large, public university in the Midwest. Of the initial sample, 76 participants were from undergraduate communication courses, and 75 were from master-level communication courses for business students. This selection of younger and slightly older participants was intentional because the study wanted to examine the revenge process within a sample similar to those commonly used in other interpersonal revenge studies (see review of studies in Yoshimura & Boon, 2018). The average age of the undergraduate participants was 19.97, SD = 1.22; and the average age of the graduate students was 22.55, SD = 1.04. The sex distribution among undergraduates was M = 24 and F = 52. The sex distribution among graduates was M = 26 and F = 48, with one participant choosing not to disclose their sex. One hundred and thirteen participants stated that they had experienced betrayal in a close relationship (M = 30, F = 83). As the hypotheses and research questions of this study are 22 concerned with reactions to relationship betrayal, all analyses were conducted using the subset of participants who had experienced betrayal (N = 113). Of the participants who reported experiencing betrayal, 91 identified as White/European, 16 as Asian, 10 as Black/African, four as Middle Eastern, and three as Hispanic/Latinx (participants could select more than one ethnicity they identified with). Procedures. Undergraduate participants were recruited through the university’s Communication Department’s research website, while the business graduate students were recruited through in-class solicitation. All participants were screened for participation eligibility and directed to a Qualtrics questionnaire that included the IRB approved consent form. After agreeing to the study parameters, participants were asked to complete the questionnaire itself, which includes a series of open-ended questions and scaled measures. Measures. The questionnaire consisted primarily of open-ended, recall questions about experienced revenge in a close relationship. In addition to the revenge questions, there were also measures for relational closeness, experienced anger and hurt, the participant’s emotion management abilities, and tendency to forgive. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the “R” programing language for statistical analyses (R Core Team, 2013) was conducted to ensure internal validity using maximum likelihood estimates based on the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Items yielding substantial error were removed, and scales were summed and averaged for subsequent analyses. The mean scores and alpha reliabilities for all variables are included in Table 6. There were also various demographic measures. Relationship information. Participants were asked to recall a close relationship in which a friend or romantic partner “betrayed your relationship by letting you down or violating your 23 trust or expectations.” The use of recall techniques is a common means for elicitation of relational experience (e.g., Boon et al., 2009; Boon et al., 2017; Yoshimura et al., 2013). This question acted as a screening device, with participants who were unable to recall such an experience being directed to the final portion of the questionnaire containing demographic measures. Participants who could recall an appropriate instance were asked to identify the nature of the relationship in which the betrayal occurred typing in the relationship label of their choice. If participants could recall more than one appropriate instance, they were asked to recount the most “vivid or memorable” instance. Additionally, upon confirming that they could recall an appropriate instance of betrayal for a close relationship, participants were asked to provide more detailed information about the relationship recounted. Questions asked whether the participants were currently in the relationship. If participants answered “yes,” they were asked how long they had been in the relationship. If participants answered “no,” they were asked how long ago the relationship ended and how long the relationship lasted. Closeness prior to transgression. Immediately following the relationship recall, participants were asked to complete the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS; Dibble, Levine, & Park, 2012) for the relationship they recalled. Participants were explicitly instructed to respond based on their relationship prior to the transgression. The measure consists of 12 items consisting of items like, “My relationship with my ___ was close,” and, “My ___ and I had a strong connection.” Participants were asked to respond to each statement using a Likert- type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After conducting a CFA on the measure five items showed internal validity resulting in a CFI = .99, RMSEA = .07, 95% CI [-.01, .18], with satisfactory factor loadings (all between .59 and .80) and no excessively large 24 remaining residuals (as per acceptable standards established by Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). This 5-item scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .82. Transgression event. Participants were asked to describe their partner’s behavior that let them down or violated their expectations or trust. The participants were given an open text entry box with no word or time limit to allow maximal opportunity to recall in detail what happened. Revenge. Participants were then asked to describe their response to their partner’s betrayal. The participants were given an open text entry box with no word or time limit.. A follow-up question asked if the participants could remember any other details about how they responded. They were then asked if they could recall any behaviors or actions that they wanted to engage in but did not. If a participant responded that they did refrain from engaging in a desired behavior, that participant was given an additional text entry box to explain what they had wanted to do, and why they did not actually act out that action. The average word length for responses was about 43 words describing the participant’s actions and looked similar to this example response from the data set: I confronted her about it when I got home, showed her the picture my friend had sent me, and broke up with her after expressing my disgust and sense of betrayal, basically just trying to make her feel awful for the pain she had caused me. Emotion measures. Immediately following the transgression recall, participants were asked to respond to two five-item measures; one measuring experienced hurt at the time of the transgression and the other measuring experienced anger at the time of the transgression. These measures consisted of items like, “To what extent did you feel hurt as a result of your partner’s actions?” and, “To what extent did you feel angry as a result of your partner’s actions?” and used 7-point scales that range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). After conducting a CFA on the 25 scales, one hurt item and one anger item were removed. The remaining eight items (four hurt, four anger) created a two-factor model with a CFI = .92, RMSEA = .12, 95% CI [.07, .17], and with satisfactory factor loadings (between .50 and .74 for hurt, and between .64 and .90 for anger) and no excessively large remaining residuals (standards as per Hair et al., 2010). While the RMSEA was still large and no further items were possible to remove, the reliabilities for the hurt and anger scales were acceptable at Cronbach alphas of .76 and .89 respectively. The items for hurt and anger were randomized along with 12 other items measuring moods such as sadness, fear, and surprise. Emotion management. Participants were then asked to fill out the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey et al., 1995). This was a 30-item measure evaluating participants’ ability to manage and understand their emotions. Consistent with the original TMMS, the measure consisted of three unidimensional subscales. The first subscale measured attention to feelings (a sample item is, “I believe in acting from the heart,” and a negative item is, “People would be better off if they felt less and thought more”). The second measured clarity in discrimination of feelings (a sample item is, “I am often aware of my feelings on a matter,” and a negative item is, “I can never tell how I feel”). The third measured mood repair (an example item is, “I try to think good thoughts no matter how bad I feel,” and a negative item is, “When I’m upset I realize that the ‘good things in life’ are illusions”). Items used a seven-point scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This TMMS has been shown to have strong convergent and divergent validity, as well as acceptable reliability across the three subscales with Cronbach alphas between .81 to .86 for Attention, .83 to .88 for Clarity, and .72 to .82 for Repair (Hodgson & Wertheim, 2007; Salovey et al., 1995; Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002). 26 After conducting a CFA on the three dimensional TMMS scale, five items from the attention to feelings subscale were removed, seven items from the clarity in discrimination subscale were removed, and two items from the mood repair subscale were removed due to low factor loadings. These items confirmed the three-factor model of the original scale with a CFI = .90, RMSEA = .09, 95% CI [.06, .11]. There were satisfactory factor loadings (between .60 and .80 for attention to feelings, between .51 and .75 for clarity of distinguishing, and between .54 and .83 for mood repair) and no excessively large remaining residuals (standards as per Hair et al., 2010) for each of the unidimensional subscales. Cronbach’s alphas were.89 for the attention to emotions scale, .75 for the clarity in distinguishing scale, and .75 for the mood repair scale. Tendency to forgive. The final scale the participants completed was the Tendency to Forgive scale developed by Brown (2003). This scale measured the participants’ tendency to forgive others that wronged them. Sample items from this scale included: (1) I tend to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings; and (2) If someone wrongs me, I often think about it a lot afterwards. Participants responded to these items using a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Because this scale only had four items, it was not possible to remove items to test for increased internal validity. The four-item scale had a CFI = .92, RMSEA = .16, 95% CI [.03, .32]. While the CFI was acceptable, the RMSEA and its 95% CI were exceedingly large (standards as per Hair et al., 2010). The large RMSEA was potentially influenced by the second item in the scale which only had a factor loading of .30 while the other three items were between .60 and .71. Additionally, the second item had the highest residuals, with one exceeding the 95% CI upper bound by over .50. The Cronbach’s 27 alpha for the scale was .65; however, removing the second item would have only increased reliability by .04. Demographics. Demographic questions positioned at the end of the questionnaire solicited information about participants’ age, sex, and ethnicity. Coding. Coding of the open-ended questions probing how the participants responded to their partner’s betrayal was done by two trained, independent coders using a codebook designed for this study. Coders treated each response as a single unit, which represented a participant’s complete reply to one open-ended question, with responses ranging from a single word answer, to a clause, to several sentences. Coders coded for the presence or absence of both revenge behaviors and restorative behaviors, meaning that neither of the coding categories were mutually exclusive; as such, each response received a code of either “1” (behavior present), or “0” (behavior absent) for both revenge and restorative behaviors. Intercoder reliability between the two trained coders was assessed with Cohen’s kappa (per recommendations in Bakeman & Gottman, 1997) based on their coding of 61 responses from the data set (54% of the total responses). After four rounds of coding, in which any discrepancies were discussed and amended, coders reached a Cohen’s kappa of .90 and a percent agreement of 95%. The remaining 52 responses from the data set were then divided in half and coded independently by the two coders. The criteria for the coding category for revenge behaviors was based on any mention of a behavior that attacked the other person and aimed to hurt or make the other person feel bad. The initial behavior list used to identify the presence of revenge behaviors drew from the typology of revenge behaviors created by Yoshimura and colleagues (2013). Further refinement of the coding categories was done using an iterative inductive approach (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997), 28 which identified additional behaviors present within the data. The two trained coders, as well as the principle investigator, independently read and re-read a subset of the data (the 61 responses) and identified behaviors that exemplified revenge attempts. After 4 rounds of independently coding the data and joint discussion the final refinements were made. Coders used the following coding structure to code for revenge behaviors. Table 1 Revenge Coding Scheme Revenge Engaged in Revenge Code 1 No Revenge 0 Description Any communicative act that attacks the transgressor and aims to hurt or make the transgressor feel bad No acts aimed at hurting transgressor Example start new relationships, cutoff contact, destroy partner’s belongings, spread rumors about partner, yell at or attack partner, break up, try to make the partner feel guilty The criteria for the coding category of restorative behaviors was based on any mention of a behavior that worked to restore the relationship with the other person. The behavioral list and refinement of the category was done entirely through an iterative induction approach, following the same process as described for the revenge category refinement. Coders used the following coding structure to code for relational restoration. 29 Table 2 Restoration Coding Scheme Relation Restoration Code Engaged in Restoration 1 No Restoration 0 Proposed Models Description Any communicative act works to restore or continue the relationship with the transgressor No acts aimed at restoring relationship Example forgives the partner, pretends betrayal never happened, works to move past the betrayal, explains feelings (non- aggressively), seeks out partner to discuss relationship (non- aggressively) Model for revenge seeking. People who experience a transgression in a close relationship will experience feelings of hurt and anger. Those feelings of anger will increase the likelihood the victim will engage in revenge behaviors toward their transgressor. It is unclear, however, how the feelings of hurt will influence, if at all, the decision to engage in revenge behaviors. If the victim has strong emotion management skills and a high tendency to forgive, these traits should decrease the likelihood of the victim opting to seek revenge. See Figure 1. Model for relational restoration seeking. People who experience a transgression in a close relationship will experience feelings of hurt and anger. Those feelings of anger will decrease the likelihood the victim will engage in relationally restorative behaviors. It is unclear, however, how the feelings of hurt, as well as emotion management skills, will influence, if at all, the decision to engage in relationally restorative behaviors. See Figure 2. 30 Results Among the participants who experienced betrayal in a close relationship, 61 were betrayed by a close romantic partner, 51 were betrayed by a close friend, and one did not specify the nature of the relationship. Thirty-six of the betrayed participants stated that they were still in a relationship with the partner who betrayed them, while 47 of the 77 betrayed participants who were no longer in a relationship with the partner who betrayed them reported they have since entered a new close relationship of the same nature with someone else. In response to the initial relational betrayal by their partner, 48 participants engaged only in a form of revenge behavior, and 23 engaged only in a form of relationship restorative behavior, and 23 engaged in forms of both revenge and restorative behaviors. Nineteen participants stated they had been betrayed but either provided no explanation of their response to the betrayal or did not describe a response beyond an emotional state (e.g., “I was in shock” or “I just cried”), and were therefore removed from the analyses. Bivariate correlation analyses tested for potential influences of sex and ethnicity on revenge and restorative behaviors, however no significant effects were found. Thus, sex and ethnicity did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the logistic regression equation (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Results are provided in Table 7’s correlation matrix. Independent variables (i.e., anger, hurt, the three emotion management scales, and tendency to forgive) were first mean-centered to correct for multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Factors influencing revenge and restorative behaviors. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to test whether anger (H1 and H2), hurt (RQ1 and RQ2), and emotion management (H4 and RQ3) would be related to engagement in revenge or restoration. Results are reported in Table 8 and 9. 31 Hypothesis 1 was significant with anger, B = .32, SE = .19, p < .05, Odds Ratio = 1.38, being positively related to revenge. Anger did not, however, relate to engagement in restoration, B = -.23, p = .21, Odds Ratio = .80. The relationship of hurt with revenge, B = .16, p = .35, Odds Ratio = 1.17, and restoration, B = .07, p = .65, Odds Ratio = 1.08, suggest there is no relationship between hurt and either type of behavior. Emotion management was shown to have no significant relationship with revenge for (H4a) attention to emotions, B = .39, p = .13, Odds Ratio = 1.48; (H4b) clarity of distinguishing emotions, B = -.31, p = .20, Odds Ratio = .73; or (H4c) negative mood repair ability, B = -.16, p = .51, Odds Ratio = .85. Emotion management was also shown to have no significant relationship with restoration through (RQ3a) attention to emotions, B = .44, p = .09, Odds Ratio = 1.55; (RQ3b) clarity of distinguishing emotions, B = .03, p = .90, Odds Ratio = 1.03; or (RQ3c) negative mood repair ability, B = .07, p = .78, Odds Ratio = 1.07.Additionally, forgiveness was tested for a relationship with revenge (H5), however, this too resulted in a non-significant finding, B = .26, p = .24, Odds Ratio = 1.29. Relational closeness influencing emotions. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test whether relational closeness prior to experiencing betrayal would be related to experienced anger (H3a) and hurt (H3b). The results for anger, F (15, 93) = .80, p = .68, and hurt, F (15, 95) = .93, p = .54, were both non-significant. These results suggest that relational closeness did not have a relationship on the emotions experienced following relational betrayal. Discussion The goal of study one was to examine the role that anger plays in revenge and the extent to which inability to manage negative emotion results in enactment of revenge. However, it is important to recognize the validity issues present in the measures for emotion management and tendency to forgive discussed more fully in the limitations section. 32 The results of this study suggested anger was positively associated with revenge. This finding further supports the literature establishing anger as a relationally destructive behavior and reifies the link between anger and engagement in revenge behaviors (e.g., Boon & Yoshimura, 2016; Rusbult et al., 1991; Yoshimura, 2007a; Yoshimura & Boon, 2018). However, no other factors examined in this study were shown to be associated with revenge, and no factors emerged as having significant associations with relational restoration. While no formal hypotheses or research questions were posed concerning the relationship between betrayal responses and the status of participants’ relationships with their transgressor, chi-square tests investigated whether revenge and restorative behaviors had differing relationships with relationship status. These findings sought to establish consistency with previous research looking at the impact of vengeful and restorative behaviors on relationship status (e.g., Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Boon, Alibhai, & Deveau, 2011; Boon et al., 2009). The chi-square test for revenge showed participants who sought revenge against their transgressing partner were less likely to still be in a relationship with their transgressor, χ2(1, N = 108) = 6.28, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .24, which is consistent with the relationally destructive nature of revenge (Yoshimura, 2007b). However, the chi-square test for restoration showed no significant difference in relationship status with the transgressor whether the participant engaged in restorative behaviors or not, χ2(1, N = 108) = 1.55, p = .21. There were no relationships found between emotion management skills across the three unidimensional subscales and the engagement in revenge (H4) or restoration (RQ3). This potentially suggests whether a person has high or low emotion management skills, they are just as likely to seek revenge as anybody else. Alternatively, this could suggest the necessity of refining the measurement of the revenge behaviors coded in this study. 33 Relational closeness was also not found to have a significant relationship with either feelings of anger or hurt following a betrayal. These findings fail to show support for the claim that as a relationship grows closer, the more intense the emotional damage becomes when a partner betrays the other partner in that relationship (e.g., Lemay et al., 2012). Lastly, the relationship between tendency to forgive and revenge was not supported. This is a peculiar result as previous studies have shown a negative relationship between these two concepts (e.g., Brown, 2004; Yoshimura et al., 2013; Yoshimura & Boon, 2018). Initial Limitations Designing the study around self-report memory-recall measures resulted in potential limitations. It is possible that participants were unable to recall fully their feelings or actions at the time of the betrayal if the event happened in the distant past. This also means that their memory of the event is likely biased by their own perspectives, further obscuring any objective interpretation of the events. While this is a limitation, it is also a necessity for studying the topics of revenge and betrayal in close relationships. It would be unethical, or at the very least inefficient, to design studies that induced these events in a participants’ own close relationships. As such, self-report memory-recall measures are one of the best ways to gather rich data on the topic of revenge. Potential future studies might aim for a long-term design that uses participant journaling as another way to collect information while reducing the possibility of interference from memory issues, similar to Wilton, Sanchez, and Garcia’s (2013) study in which participants continually keep journals to record in detail instances of experiencing discrimination. Alternatively, or in addition, to asking for a recall of previous self-reported enacted revenge, it is possible that using a trait measure of tendency to seek revenge, like Stuckless and Goranson’s (1992) Vengeance Scale, as an independent variable may have been related to hurt, 34 anger, emotion management, and tendency to forgive, in the direction predicted based on relevant literature. However, such assessment was not conducted in the current study, so conclusions are limited to the relationship with self-reported enacted revenge. For the TMMS (measuring emotion management), a satisfactory three-dimensional model as claimed for the original measure was reached only after removing a substantial number of items with low factor loadings from each of the three dimensions. While three unidimensional subscales were able to be maintained, the fact each were cut in half raises concern. If emotion management was indeed a valid construct as presented in Salovey and colleagues (1995), this level of adjustment should not have been necessary. It is possible the original scale was in need of refinement, but this would need further validity confirmation across multiple studies to be sure. Therefore, any findings regarding emotion management discussed should be considered with these potential validity issues in mind. It could quite possibly be the case the construct of emotion management does not truly function in the way the TMMS claims it to. Additionally, given the weak validity statistics and reliability for the tendency to forgive measure in this study, the failure to identify a relationship with revenge behaviors could have been a result of measurement issues. These issues could have resulted in problems properly representing the variable relationships. In the future, using a larger forgiveness measure like the Heartland Forgiveness Scale (Thompson et al., 2005), in addition to, or in place of, the Tendency to Forgive Scale (Brown, 2003) would allow for a more effective validity analysis without being caught in a just defined situation. Another potential issue with the tendency to forgive measure and its lack of correlation with revenge behaviors is tendency to forgive is a trait measure, not a coded behavioral recall measure. It is possible, had a trait revenge tendency scale like the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & 35 Goranson, 1992) been used, a relationship could have been found. Alternatively, coding specifically for actual forgiveness behaviors along with revenge engagement may have proven fruitful. In either case, future studies would benefit from measuring revenge and forgiveness in the same form to fully investigate the relationship. Perceived outcomes of recalled revenge behaviors also were not not measured in this study. Such information about the psychological outcomes of engaging in revenge for both the person enacting revenge and the target of the revenge might have provided an insightful framework for understanding the full revenge engagement event from personal relational betrayal to final post-revenge psychological impact on both parties in the revenge. Implications for Theory As this study has shown, engagement in revenge is positively related with feelings of anger. This finding continues to highlight the important role anger plays in the revenge process. In a relationship that is primed to produce strong feelings of anger following a betrayal, the potential for revenge behaviors to occur is increased. Additionally, as a relationally destructive behavior that leads to further anger, revenge is clearly a lethal threat to close interpersonal relationships. Anger should therefore continue to be a focal point in future studies about revenge. A potential silver lining to these findings, though, is that anger did not prevent to relational restoration. This suggests while anger may lead to increased chances of exacting revenge, it does not preclude the possibility the victim will eventually seek to rebuild or fix their relationship. Interestingly hurt also did not emerge as a correlate of revenge. These findings lend some support to Lemay and colleagues’ (2012) argument hurt and anger are unique constructs, in that anger and hurt did not relate to the same outcome (i.e., revenge). However, hurt was also 36 not associated with relational restoration, which challenges the conception of hurt as a relationally constructive affective response to relational betrayal. It is possible feelings of hurt are diminished in a self-report recall situation. More thought needs to be given to methods of eliciting revenge beyond scenario and recall techniques to more accurately tap dynamic emotions such as hurt in betrayal contexts. Additionally, these findings fail to add support to the claim that anger and hurt are together predictors of revenge behavior posited by Bachman and Guerrero (2006), as well as Boon and colleagues (2009). It seems possible hurt does not play as integral a part in the betrayal response process for victims, or at least not in relationship to direct responses to the transgressor following the betrayal. Perhaps hurt’s role is tied more to seeking support from others outside of the relationship. Many recent studies investigating social support seeking describe hurt and pain as motivators for seeking social support (e.g., High & Crowley, 2018; Wang, Hsei, Assari, Gaskin, & Rost, 2018). Conceiving hurt as a motivator for seeking social support, then, may be more useful than as a motivator for betrayal response. When looking at the relationship between tendency to forgive and revenge, other traits of personality need to be considered. For example, Brown (2004) found that narcissism moderated the relationship between participants’ tendency to forgive and desire for revenge. Future studies looking at the relationship between forgiveness and revenge should also be sure to identify any potential moderating variables that could better explain the relationship. While this study may not have found a relationship between emotion management and engagement in revenge behaviors in general, as Yoshimura (2007; et. al 2013) argued, not all revenge behaviors are created equal. Instead of emotion management informing whether an individual engages in any revenge behavior, perhaps an individual with high emotion 37 management skills would decide to engage in less offensive or damaging forms of revenge than an individual with low emotion management skills. A person with high emotion management skills should be better able to weigh and compare their partner’s betrayal to a potential vengeful retaliation. Emotion management skills would allow an individual to critically reflect on their current feelings, how those feelings align with their long-term relationship goals, and decide which vengeful behavior would best achieve their needs for vengeance without compromising the relationship entirely. Additionally, it would also be possible that a person with high emotion management would be better able to make an informed decision about whether they even wanted to continue the relationship; potentially ending the relationship if they feel it is no longer desirable (and consequentially being coded as vengeance in this study). The first part of this study collapsed revenge into a single category of response. To better investigate the role of emotion management in the revenge process, the second part of this study considers the types of revenge participants engaged in to recode and reanalyze the responses in a more nuanced approach, based on Yoshimura and Boon’s (2018) theory of revenge process (TRP). 38 CHAPTER THREE STUDY PART TWO The theory of revenge process aggregated an extensive body of revenge research conducted by Yoshimura and Boon (2018) to explain why people enact revenge on transgressors with whom they share a close interpersonal relationship. This theory is an excellent complement to SET because it provides a contextualized, detailed explanation of the revenge process beyond SET’s input-output cost/benefit mechanism explaining complex, more nuanced motivations for engaging in different types of revenge in the face of transgressions with different severity and valences. Most importantly, TRP identifies dimensions across which all revenge behaviors can be characterized. In this section, the basic tenets of TRP will be described and used as the basis for additional hypotheses which revisit claims from study one with the aim to better probe the nature and variance of revenge behavior. Theory of Revenge Process Yoshimura and Boon (2018) conceptualized revenge as a three-phase causal process. Each phase in this process connected to, and impacted, the subsequent phase in the process, starting with the event experience phase, then the fantasy/action phase, and ending with the outcome phase. Across these three phases, Yoshimura and Boon posit five propositions to explain how and why a person may proceed through the three phases of the revenge process. Below I address each phase in detail and consider each of the propositions presented in the theory. Event experience phase. Once a transgression has been perceived, a person’s progression in the revenge process begins, and is immediately influenced by the strength of their emotions and the priority of their goals. Pulling from appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991), work on 39 the connection between affective experiences of goal interruption (e.g., Berscheid 1983), as well as the revenge literature, Yoshimura and Boon (2018) state how a person’s experience of emotion is tied to their ability to achieve their goals. If a person perceives negative goal interruption, they are likely to experience negative emotions. This negative affective experience because of goal interruption is the basis for the first proposition of the theory: “revenge inclinations originate in perception of goals intentionally thwarted by others” (p. 94). Yoshimura and Boon state that beyond negative affective experience, a victim must also be able to identify a blameworthy person or entity on whom they can target their vengeance. Otherwise, the negative affective experience would likely manifest as just an affective experience (e.g., just feelings of anger, frustration, or sadness). Finally, Yoshimura and Boon argue that the victim must also think that taking vengeful action against the blameworthy offender would render positive affective or psychological change for the victim. The second proposition also focuses on the impact of emotions and goals in the revenge process. Proposition two claims: “The contents of revenge activity are determinable by the contents of goals and emotions people experience following a perceived offense” (p. 97). Yoshimura and Boon draw from Lazarus (1991) and Frijda’s (1994) concept of action tendency in claiming that “emotions drive individuals to take action in line with a particular interpretation of situations” (Yoshimura & Boon, 2018, p. 96). Therefore, the decision (i.e., motivation) to move forward in the revenge process is dependent on what a person is feeling, and what their goals are. There are not clearly designated levels of emotional, affective experiences, or specific types of goal interruption that would lead to a sufficient level of motivation for revenge behavior in the theory. Instead, TRP emphasizes the contextual and subjective nature of these 40 experiences. Each individual will have their own affective thresholds and contextual hierarchy of goals on which they will base their motivations (consciously or not). Fantasy/action phase. Once a victim has been sufficiently motivated they will progress into the second phase of the revenge process. Yoshimura and Boon (2018) take concerted effort to state pursing revenge can, but does not always, manifest in actual behaviors. This disclaimer highlights the fantasy part of the phase’s name. However, TRP does not specifically identify any variables which would influence a person’s decision or ability to actually engage in revenge behaviors. Instead, the third proposition of TRP states: “acts of revenge are distinguishable by how much they involve approaching and avoiding the offender, and how overt or covert they are” (p. 99). This proposition creates two dimensions along which revenge behaviors can be measured. The avoid/approach dimension conceptualizes revenge behaviors as either oriented toward (approach) or away from (avoid) the offender. For example, behaviors that would fall along the approach end of the continuum would be yelling at or physically attacking the offender or destroying their property. Avoidant behaviors could be not returning or responding to calls or texts, or not inviting the offender to a social event. It is possible for behaviors to fall anywhere along the continuum of the dimension, so vengeful behaviors could include both approaching and avoidant elements. The covert/overt dimension not only has to do with the degree to which a vengeful behavior is overtly noticeable as revenge, but also to the degree the behavior is plausibly deniable as revenge. This dimension is especially concerned with other goals an individual may carry (e.g., the desire to appear socially acceptable, or a good person). While overt behaviors are likely to be clearly noticeable, it is likely difficult to deny vengeful motivations. Conversely, 41 covert goals maybe less recognized as vengeful behaviors, but are also easier to dismiss as unrelated behaviors (potentially allowing the avenger to maintain social face, or another goal). These two dimensions create a typology of revenge behaviors: overt/approach, overt/avoid, covert/approach, and covert/avoid. The first three types of behavior all clearly appear to meet the requirements to be effective communicative messages of revenge because of their clear intent and likelihood to be noticed; however, covert/avoid behaviors run the risk of being ineffective communications of revenge behaviors. If the target never notices the behaviors as vengeful, and the avenger never explicitly states them to be such, it is likely the communication of vengeance will not be effective. Yoshimura and Boon (2018) still argue for the importance of maintaining and studying the covert/avoid behaviors because these behaviors still embody the struggle people may have when trying to balance or negotiate multiple goals in the vengeance process, as well as the managing the negative internal feelings towards the transgressor. Outcome phase. A victim’s progression to the third and final phase of the revenge process is predicated entirely upon whether the person decided to engage in vengeful action in the second phase (as opposed to opting to only fantasize about revenge). If a person does engage in revenge behaviors, there are several possible outcomes. For the avenger themselves, Yoshimura and Boon (2018) outline a number of studies that clearly show a variety of affective and psychological outcomes, ranging from satisfaction and happiness, to regret and sustained anger. However, the avengers are not the only people who experience outcomes following revenge behaviors. Proposition four states: “when recognized, revenge activities affect others’ understanding of, behaviors toward, and inclinations toward relating with avengers” (p. 103). The targeted 42 offender, ideally, should experience some outcome that will change their relationship and understanding of the avenger. For example, offenders that recognize the revenge behavior could see the avenger as a person not to be taken advantage of, to realize the error of their behavior, or express regret or remorse for harming the avenger. However, these potentially pro-social outcomes are not guaranteed, as the transgressor may retaliate against the avenger, or may not recognize the vengeance attempt at all, resulting in a negative judgement of the avenger. Alternatively, the transgressor may then decide to end the relationship due to the lack of kindness and forgiveness from the avenger. Likewise, it is possible for third parties who observe or learn of the vengeful act and interpret the behaviors as new information about the avenger, therefore changing how they view the avenger and how they want to relate to the avenger in the future. Proposition five focuses more on the outcomes for the avenger themselves: “the outcomes of enacting revenge for the avenger vary depending on the perceived outcomes experienced and expressed by the target” (p. 104). This proposition strongly emphasizes the importance of outcomes and goals for the avenger. Perhaps the target offender may change their behavior toward the avenger, but now the offender fears the avenger. If the avenger only wanted to change the behavior, but maintain a positive relationship with the offender, achieving one goal (changing behavior) meant failing to achieve another (maintaining relationship). There are any number of combinations of outcomes and goals that could be considered, but regarding the ability to measure outcome satisfaction, researchers will again have to rely on participants’ self- report of how successful the revenge attempt was. Emotion Management, Forgiveness, and the Dimensions of Revenge Emotion management was shown not to be predictive of engagement in revenge behavior, in general, in study one. However, the two dimensions of revenge posited in 43 proposition three of TRP could potentially prove to be where emotion management can have impact as an explanatory construct. More specifically, emotion management skills could influence the type of revenge behaviors an avenger engages in. If an avenger has strong emotion management skills, they would be more likely to effectively exact revenge because of their ability to clearly identify and manage their emotions and goals, as opposed to an avenger with weaker emotion management. For example, if an avenger with strong emotion management skills seeks to exact revenge, yet avoid negative social judgement, their revenge strategy may be more covert in nature. This would allow them to exact revenge while maintaining deniability if necessary, and potentially mitigating any extreme, long lasting damaging effects. Conversely, a low emotion management avenger may react more overtly because of a weaker ability to clearly interpret and prioritize their emotional goals. An extremely overt revenge behavior leaves little room for deniability or social judgement. Yoshimura and Boon (2018) define overt revenge behaviors as vengeful behaviors which are noticeable to the transgressor and potentially others as well. For example, if an avenger directly tells a transgressor they did not invite the transgressor to an event because of their transgression. Conversely, Yoshimura and Boon define covert revenge as behaviors which maintain an element of plausible deniability, or potential disconnect between the avenger and their vengeful intent. For example, if an avenger tells a transgressor they “forgot” to invite the transgressor to an event. Because emotion management skills should lend themselves to more covert types of revenge behaviors the following hypothesis is posed: H6: Ability to attend to emotions, distinguish between emotions, and repair negative mood states will have a negative relationship with the covert/overt revenge dimension (a 44 lower score on the covert/overt dimension representing more covert behaviors, and a higher score representing more overt behaviors). An important distinction between covert/overt and avoid/approach communication is avoid/approach behaviors communicate revenge in and of themselves. For example, a slap to the face (approach) or spreading rumors (avoid) causes suffering and communicates vengeance as a result. Cover/overt communication on the other hand is communication about the vengeful intent of the avoid/approach behaviors; a type of meta-communication. For example, claiming the slap to the face was because the avenger saw a fly on the offender’s face (covert), or telling the offender the avenger spread the rumor because of the offender’s betrayal (overt). This means the covert/overt dimension can be used to describe the avoid/approach dimension of revenge communication. As a result, covert/overt communication does not have to occur simultaneously with the avoid/approach communicative behavior (e.g., telling the offender they spread the rumor out of vengeance after the offender found out about it). The relationship between emotion management and the avoid/approach dimension of revenge behaviors initially appears less clear than the relationship between emotion management and the covert/overt dimension. However, when considering which end of the continuum would likely allow for more flexibility in judgement, interpretation, and long-term impact, avoiding revenge behaviors seem to make more sense for emotion management. Avoidant behaviors, while just as potentially harmful as approach behaviors, are more indirect in nature. As such, strong emotion management skills would be useful in crafting more nuanced revenge strategies. Comparatively, weak emotion management skills would likely result in more approaching behaviors due to the avenger’s inability to adequately control or direct their emotional goals. To further investigate the communicative aspects of the revenge process, the avoid/approach 45 dimension of revenge can be broken into verbal and nonverbal aspects. Because emotion management skills lend themselves more to avoiding behaviors, the following hypotheses are posed: H7a: Ability to attend to emotions, distinguish between emotions, and repair negative mood states will have a negative relationship with the verbal avoid/approach revenge dimension (a lower score on the avoid/approach dimension representing more avoidant behaviors, and a higher score representing more approaching behaviors). H7b: Ability to attend to emotions, distinguish between emotions, and repair negative mood states will have a negative relationship with the nonverbal avoid/approach revenge dimension (a lower score on the avoid/approach dimension representing more avoidant behaviors, and a higher score representing more approaching behaviors). Interestingly, these hypotheses predict that emotion management skills will positively associate with more covert/avoidant revenge behaviors. According to Yoshimura and Boon (2018), these behaviors are the least effective in communicating revenge. This, however, is highly appropriate for someone who has strong emotion management skills. Covert/avoidant behaviors afford the avenger maximum deniability and the most ability to avoid negative social judgements. This makes sense for an avenger who can clearly evaluate and manage their short- and long-term emotional and social goals. Any of the other three types of revenge limit or restrict the avenger to being clearly identified as a vengeance seeker, potentially compromising other goals. Additionally, covert/avoidant behaviors would also likely be related to an avenger’s tendency to forgive as well. If an avenger intends to forgive their transgressing partner, or has done so already, they are unlikely to opt for a revenge behavior that will potentially cause 46 excessive damage or negative judgement in the future of the relationship (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Engaging in any of the other three types of revenge behavior would increase the possibility of outcomes inconsistent with forgiveness. As such, the following hypotheses are posed: H8a: Tendency to forgive will have a negative relationship with the covert/overt revenge dimension. H8b: Tendency to forgive will have a negative relationship with the verbal avoid/approach revenge dimension. H8c: Tendency to forgive will have a negative relationship with the nonverbal avoid/approach revenge dimension. Methods The sample for the second part of the study consisted of every participant who reported engaging in a revenge behavior (N = 71) from the original round of data collection used in part one of the study. This sample consisted of 48 participants (29 females and 19 males) who reported pure revenge and 23 other participants (20 females and 3 males) who reported both revenge and restoration behaviors. Looking specifically at the nature of the revenge behaviors, each case was coded along three dimensions: covert/overt, verbal avoid/approach, and nonverbal avoid/approach revenge behaviors. Coding. Coding of the open-ended responses containing revenge behaviors was completed by two trained, independent coders using a codebook designed for this study. These two coders were not the same two used to code the original round of data used for the first part of the study. Just like in the first part of the study, coders treated each response as a single unit. Because none of the coding categories were mutually exclusive, each full episode of revenge 47 received a code of 1, 2, or 3 for each of the three coding categories (i.e., a code of 1, 2, or 3 for verbal avoid/approach; 1, 2, or 3 for nonverbal avoid/approach; and 1, 2, or 3 covert/overt). Because all responses contained instances of revenge, there was no need for a zero code. Intercoder reliability between the two trained coders was assessed with Cohen’s kappa (per recommendations in Bakeman & Gottman, 1997) based on their coding of the 71 responses from the data set. Through six rounds of coding, coders reached a Cohen’s kappa of .70 and a percent agreement of 80%. Any discrepancies or disagreements during the coding process were addressed and amended, resulting in 100% agreement on the final coding for the data set. The coding criteria for each category are explained below. Covert/overt revenge communication. The covert/overt coding category focused on the explicitness of the vengeful communication (i.e., does the avenger explicitly communicate they are exacting revenge on the offender). Yoshimura and Boon (2018) explain while explicitly stating vengeful intentions to the offender can clearly establish the avenger’s motives, doing so can leave the avenger open to counter-retaliation or negative evaluations by others. As such Yoshimura and Boon, in the TRP, define covert communication of revenge as communication which affords the avenger a degree of “plausible deniability” that could allow them to disconnect from the vengeful intent of their behavior; whereas overt communication of revenge explicitly states the avenger’s vengeful intent. For example, if an avenger tells an offender they simply “forgot” to invite the offender to a party when in fact they intentionally did not invite the offender because of the betrayal (an avoidant communicative behavior), this would be covert communication of revenge because the avenger is denying vengeful intent in their failure to invite the offender. Conversely, if an avenger explicitly tells the offender they did not invite the offender to the party because of the 48 offender’s betrayal (an approach communicative behavior), this would be overt communication of revenge because it explicitly states the vengeful intent of the lack of an invitation. Again, vengeful response to a betrayal can also include both covert and overt elements, such as if the avenger initially states they “forgot” to invite the offender, but then later in private away from peers reveals to the offender they did not invite the offender because of the betrayal. Because the communication of revenge can include elements of both overt and covert communication, they are not mutually exclusive of each other (this is reflected and explained in the codes used below). The category of covert/overt revenge communication was not broken into verbal/nonverbal categories for two reasons. First, the dimension is already clearly focused on the communicative elements of the revenge process because it emphasizes the role of implicitness and explicitness in communicating revenge. Second, overt communication of revenge is almost exclusively conveyed through the use of explicit verbal communication. While some behaviors could potentially convey revenge overtly nonverbally without the presence of verbal communication, these situations often rely on extensive contextual constraints the data set does not probe. For example, an avenger simply slapping an offender in the face upon discovering the betrayal in front of an audience of people who knew about the betrayal could constitute overt nonverbal communication of revenge without a verbal component. However, in the data set there is no explicitly communicated revenge intent (i.e., overt) without digital, linguistic verbal expression. Covert revenge could potentially include only nonverbal aspects, but key distinctions often depend on verbal characterizations of the meaning of behaviors and actions (e.g., explaining they did not invite the offender because they “forgot”). Each case was coded according to the coding scheme immediately below. 49 Table 3 Covert/Overt Coding Scheme Type of Revenge Code Description Covert 1 Only revenge behavior which would allow the avenger a degree of “plausible deniability” that could allow them to disconnect from the vengeful intent of their behavior present Covert & Overt Overt 2 3 Both covert and overt communication present Only mention of a revenge behavior that is explicit in intent present Example “forgetting” a commitment with the offender; “not realizing” the offender didn’t like a type of gift; “accidentally” breaking the offender’s favorite collectible; “unintentionally” revealing an embarrassing secret about the offender to others (see covert and overt individual examples) Any instance in which the avenger clearly communicates the revenge is a result of the offender’s betrayal (e.g., “you deserve this”; “this is because of what you did to me”; “you had this coming”; etc.) Avoid/approach revenge communication. The avoid/approach coding categories focused on the orientation of the vengeful communication toward or away from the offender (i.e., whether the revenge communication is directed at the offender or not). Yoshimura and Boon (2018) explain while revenge itself is typically seen as an approaching coping behavior because it is focused on the offender, many revenge behaviors involve communication which completely avoids the offender (i.e., the actual behavior intended to communicate revenge does not directly involve the offender). For example, an avenger can intentionally not send an invitation for a party to an offender, which would be considered avoidant as there is no communication directed at the offender but in the avenger’s mind they are depriving the offender of valued contact and inclusion. Conversely, an avenger can tell the offender they are not inviting the offender to the party, which would be approach as the communication is clearly directed at the offender. The avenger has made it clear to the offender they are being denied 50 inclusion in a social event. Additionally, the avenger can initially not send an invitation to the party, then later tell the offender they purposely did not invite the offender, which would be both avoidant and approach. Because the communication of revenge can include elements of both avoid and approach communication, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. Verbal avoid/approach. This coding category included any avoid/approach communication of revenge which is communicated verbally. Verbal communication in this case is defined as communicating meaning digitally with language (Andersen, 2009). Digital communication uses arbitrary codes (like language) to convey meaning as either present or absent. When verbal avoid/approach communication of revenge is present in a case, the case was coded according to the coding scheme immediately below. Table 4 Verbal Avoid/Approach Coding Scheme Type of Verbal Revenge Avoid Avoid & Approach Approach Code Description Example 1 2 3 Only avoidant revenge which communicates meaning digitally with language present Both avoid and approach communication present Only approach revenge which communicates meaning digitally with language present speaks intimately with people other than offender; spreads rumors about the offender; shares secrets about the offender with others (see avoid and approach individual examples) insults offender; confronts offender about betrayal; directly acknowledges offender and their betrayal; explicitly tells offender consequences of the betrayal; not necessarily overt; public or private Nonverbal avoid/approach. This coding category included any avoid/approach communication of revenge which is communicated nonverbally. Nonverbal communication in this case is defined as communicating meaning analogically without language (Andersen, 2009). Analogic communication has direct, nonarbitrary, intrinsic connection to what it represents and 51 can convey meaning in degrees and values beyond presence/absence. When nonverbal avoid/approach communication of revenge was present in a case, the case was coded according to the coding scheme immediately below. Table 5 Nonverbal Avoid/Approach Coding Scheme Code Description Example Type of Nonverbal Revenge Avoid 1 Only avoidant revenge which communicates meaning analogically without language present doesn’t respond to offender’s text or calls; doesn’t invite offender to social event; doesn’t share important information; doesn’t sit next to or look at offender in social settings; has sex with someone other than offender (see avoid and approach individual examples) damages offender’s property; physically attacks offender; screams at offender; uses aggressive body positioning toward offender Avoid & Approach 2 Approach 3 Both avoid and approach communication present Only approach revenge which communicates meaning analogically without language present Results Within the covert/overt dimension, 18 participants engaged in only covert revenge behaviors, six participants engaged in both covert and overt revenge behaviors, and 44 participants engaged in only overt revenge behaviors. When participants engaged in verbal avoid/approach behaviors, two participants engaged in only avoidant verbal behaviors, two participants engaged in both avoidant and approaching behaviors, and 42 participants engaged in solely approaching verbal revenge behaviors. When participants engaged in nonverbal avoid/approach behaviors, 29 engaged in only avoidant nonverbal behaviors, four engaged in both avoidant and approaching behaviors, and 13 engaged in solely approaching nonverbal 52 behaviors. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 10, and a contingency table for the coding categories is provided in Table 11. Bivariate correlations were conducted to test for the effects of sex and ethnicity on the dependent variables to determine whether they could be included in the regression equation (Cohen et al., 2003). However there was no effect on verbal avoid/approach, nonverbal avoid/approach, or covert/overt revenge (see Table 12 for results). Ordinary least squares regression analyses were conducted using the same mean-centered independent variables from Part One to test each hypothesis; results are reported in Table 13. Emotion management, forgiveness, and revenge behaviors. Ordinary least squares regression analyses were conducted to examine whether emotion management and tendency to forgive would impact engagement in covert or overt (H6), verbal avoidant or approaching (H7a), and nonverbal avoidant or approaching (H7b) revenge behaviors. The results produced no significant models. The overall model for covert/overt behaviors was not significant [F(4, 57) = .48, R2 = .03, p = .75]. The values for each of the three dimensions of emotion management with covert/overt behaviors included: β = .19, p = .20, for attending to emotions; β = .01, p = .98, for clarity in distinguishing; and β = -.10, p = .50, for mood repair. The overall model for verbal avoid/approach behaviors was also not significant [F(4, 38) = 2.02, p = .11, R2 = .18]. The values for each of the three dimensions of emotion management with verbal avoid/approach included: β = .25, p = .15, for attending to emotions; β = .22, p = .20, for clarity in distinguishing; and β = -.31, p = .07, for mood repair. The overall model for nonverbal avoid/approach was not significant [F(4, 37) = .92, p = .46, R2 = .01]. The values for each of the three dimensions of emotion management with nonverbal avoid/approach behavior included: β = .10, p = .60, for attending to emotions; β 53 = ..02, p = .89, for clarity in distinguishing; and β = .-.24, p = .81, for mood repair.. All results suggest no dimension of emotion management has an influential relationship with the engagement in different types of revenge behaviors. Therefore, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were not supported. Tendency to forgive and engagement in covert/overt (H8a), verbal avoid/approach (H8b), and nonverbal avoid/approach (H8c) revenge behaviors. Results suggest tendency to forgive has no influential impact on engagement in covert/overt behaviors, F(4, 57) = .48, R2 = .03, β = .11, p = .46; or verbal avoid/approach behaviors, F(4, 38) = 2.02, R2 = .18, p = .42. However, results did suggest tendency to forgive has an influential relationship, F(4, 37) = .92, R2 = .10, β = .34, p < .01, with engagement in nonverbal approach behaviors. This finding suggests if an individual has a high tendency to forgive, they will be more likely to nonverbally communicate their revenge directly toward the transgressor (i.e., approaching). Hypothesis 8c predicted high tendency to forgive would be related to nonverbal revenge directed away from, or around, the transgressor (i.e., avoidant); as a result, H8c was not supported. Discussion The goal of the second part of this study was to investigate if specifying the nature of the revenge behavior could possibly explain the lack of influence emotional regulation and tendency to forgive had on engagement in revenge behavior. Again, all findings discussed in this section should be interpreted with the validity concerns for the TMMS and Tendency to Forgive Scale laid out in part one of this study. Results suggest the findings from part one of the study are accurate: there appears to be no connection between a person’s emotion management ability and tendency to forgive, and their likelihood to engage in vengeful behaviors of any particular nature. The only exception was 54 nonverbal avoid/approach revenge behaviors. The regression results suggested, contrary to the hypothesis, the higher a person’s tendency to forgive, the more likely they were to engage in nonverbal revenge behaviors that directly approached the transgressor. It is difficult to explain why approaching nonverbal revenge behaviors would be a more appealing option for those avengers who are more inclined to forgive their transgressors. It may be possible, given the instinctual aspects of nonverbal communicative behavior (Andersen, 2009), avengers feel direct nonverbal vengeance satiates a need for “balancing the scales” a la SET. Perhaps, the approaching nonverbal behaviors make the avenger feel they have addressed the transgression which would facilitate a willingness to forgive a transgressor. However, this does not adequately explain why approaching verbal or overt revenge does not satiate the same need. Perhaps, the high context, implicit nature of nonverbal behaviors (Andersen, 2009) allow a degree of deniability of intent as Yoshimura and Boon (2018) claim. It is also possible that direct verbal behavior overtly addressing revenge for betrayal runs contrary to authentic public and private expression of forgiveness. Such overt verbal approach revenge behavior likely “burns the bridge” to forgiveness. This relationship between more direct expressions of revenge and forgiveness needs further investigation. Assuming this finding is not an artifact of the Tendency to Forgive Scale’s validity issues, further investigation is required to fully understand this finding. While part one of this study lays out options for addressing the issues with the measurement of tendency to forgive, the discussion in part two offers options for consideration regarding emotion management. The first option would be to conduct additional studies using the TMMS to further test its validity using CFAs and other criterion-based measures of validity (e.g., concurrent or predictive). It is possible the altered model found in this study is consistently 55 valid; however, no research beyond this study supports this yet. A second option would be to retest the TMMS with a larger sample of revenge engagement. In part one, and especially part two, the sample sizes were less than ideal for achieving high levels of statistical power (Cohen, 1988). Increasing the sample size could result in a more accurate representation of revenge communication frequency, and might therefore better correlate with emotion management. A third option would be to reconsider the concept of emotional regulation as an alternative to emotion management. Emotion management was originally selected as the more relevant concept due to its explicit focus on the ability to identify and understand the emotions an individual was experiencing. As per Nabi’s (2010) discrete emotion perspective, the assumption was if a person was better able to identify, understand, and manage their discrete emotions, they may then be better able to manage their communicative outcomes as a result of said discrete emotions. However, refocusing the process as one of goal acquisition emotional regulation could offer more insight (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). As the AAM (Turner, 2007) suggests, building on Berscheid’s (1983) and Lazarus’s (1991) conceptualization of anger as an emotive response to goal achievement obstruction, reactions to anger-inducing events (e.g., relational betrayal) are goal-motivated. In the case of revenge, vengeance is seen as the most efficacious option for dealing with the transgressor’s betrayal. An individual may not be able to undo the betrayal, but they may feel they have the power to get even and thus seek revenge. Measuring an individual’s trait emotional regulation, a construct looking specifically at emotions and goal acquisition (Tice & Bratslaysky, 2000), may better tap into this concept. Another potentially explanatory area of investigation for future research is that of revenge entitlement. Revenge entitlement is defined as a tendency to protect one’s rights in response to a violation from others, usually via reciprocation of insults or harm (Zemojtel-Piotrowska et al., 56 2015). While a relatively new concept in its own right, studies looking at similar concepts (e.g., Brewer, Hunt, James, & Abell, 2015; Sheppard & Boon, 2012) have found a connection between an individual’s belief they are entitled or owed revenge and their likelihood of seeking revenge (measured using hypothetical situation responses and the Vengeance Scale). Again, looking at revenge through the lens of SET, the concept of revenge entitlement makes sense as an explanation for actively seeking revenge, regardless of emotion management skills. If an individual feels they are entitled to revenge as a way to restore balance in the relationship, their ability to manage their emotions effectively may be irrelevant; or in the case of the repairing a negative mood state dimension, an apt option for doing so. The concept of revenge entitlement also works well with the AAM. If an individual is betrayed they experience anger. When considering their options for addressing the activated anger state, if they feel entitled to revenge, they may identify revenge as the most efficacious option for satiating their anger. Given the variety of explanations yet fully investigated, the mechanism(s) behind revenge engagement is still a viable area of exploration in interpersonal communication research. Implications for the Theory of Revenge Process The results of the second part of the study do little to support the idea emotion management and forgiveness should be incorporated into a formal theory of revenge communication. However, chi-square analyses looking at the types of revenge behavior most frequently engaged in do provide additional information to aid in TRP’s development. Namely, the results suggest clear tendencies regarding the dimensions of revenge engagement. While not formally hypothesized, the frequencies of engagement in the different dimensions of revenge behaviors were investigated with a series of chi-square tests. Yoshimura and Boon (2018) did not specify any clear predictions as to which dimensions would be most 57 frequent overall within instances of revenge, so these tests were purely exploratory. Results suggest the following. The majority of revenge behaviors tend to be solely overt in nature [n = 44, χ2(2, N = 68) = 33.30, p < .01]. Verbal revenge behaviors tend to be solely approaching in nature [n = 42, χ2(2, N = 46) = 69.57, p < .01], and nonverbal revenge behaviors tend to be solely avoidant in nature [n = 29, χ2(2, 46) = 20.91, p < .01]. When describing the dimensions of revenge communication, Yoshimura and Boon (2018) simply describe what revenge might look like at opposite ends of both continuums. The theory gives no indication as to which types of revenge might be more or less common. This study lays out clear patterns of preferred revenge behaviors. Looking at the results, in interpersonal relationships, revenge is almost always overt in nature. This suggests when people actually decide to act on vengeful desires, they will likely make their vengeful intent clear to the transgressor. If this trend holds true across future research, it might be more prudent to reconceptualize the dimension of covert/overt revenge communication. If the majority of enacted revenge is overt, then considering the dimension’s continuum to stretch from imagined to enacted revenge could be more useful. A dimension of this nature would focus more on what triggers a person to transition from thinking about revenge to actually engaging in revenge. Additionally, the findings pertaining to the avoidant and approaching nature of revenge behavior strongly suggest a diversification of the dimension is necessary. The results of the chi- square tests clearly show verbal revenge behavior tends to be approaching in nature, whereas nonverbal revenge behavior tends to be avoidant in nature. This suggests, if an act of revenge contains verbal communication, said communication will likely be directed toward the transgressor; however, nonverbal revenge behaviors will likely be communicated away from, or around, the transgressor. There does not appear to be similarity between the directionality of 58 verbal and nonverbal communication of revenge. As a result, maintaining a single dimension which includes both dimensions of communicative behaviors would appear to be useless. Any instance of revenge which includes both verbal and nonverbal elements would likely fall toward the middle point of the avoid/approach continuum (i.e., any revenge behavior which was not purely avoidant or approaching in nature would likely score consistently in the mid-range with little variance). Clearly delineating between the two communicative dimensions would allow for specific exploration of the different kinds of communicative behaviors in the revenge process. Limitations In addition to the previously mentioned limitations in part one of the study, there were other considerable limitations across both parts of this study, the most notable of which had to do with design and coding decisions. First of all, as briefly mentioned in the discussion of part two, the sample size (N = 113), could benefit from an increased number of participants to help with generalizations to larger populations. Particularly regarding the small sample for the second part of the study (N = 71), the lack of statistical power undermines attempts to draw solid conclusions from the data. Additionally, the convenience sampling procedure prevented the use of true probability sampling, again hindering the finding’s direct application outside of the original sample. The coding design in the second part of the study also needs further development. Given this was the first attempt to use Yoshimura and Boon’s (2018) dimensions of revenge behaviors to actually code revenge behaviors, there was very little to build an effective coding scheme around. Most initial codes were built around the dimensions’ descriptions from the TRP, Yoshimura et. al’s (2013) inventory of revenge behaviors, and examples from the dataset itself. 59 Further development, explication, and operationalization of the dimensions would likely help with the accuracy of coding revenge behaviors. Another limitation for this study was participants’ intent and reasoning behind their actions were not fully analyzed or considered. In conjunction with a more nuanced coding scheme for revenge behaviors, it may be possible to better understand the decision-making process that individuals go through regarding revenge engagement if their reasoning and intentions are also examined. A final limitation was this study only focused on the victim’s experience and reaction to the betrayal event. Only considering the victim’s perspective provides a fractured view of the event. Given victims experience of relational betrayal are often biased and can result in overcompensated revenge-seeking (Boon et al., 2009), the actual impact on the relationship may be skewed if the victim is the only one to describe the event. By soliciting accounts from the transgressor of the betrayal event as well, future research could better identify the nature of the betrayal, the role the transgressor played in the response, and how said response impacted the victim’s revenge-seeking. It might also be insightful to repeat this study, focusing on how it felt to be the target of revenge from someone else after the participant enacted relational betrayal to look at revenge from the recipient’s perspective. 60 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSION This study examined the relationships between emotions and behavioral responses to betrayals in close relationships. Results showing relationships between anger and revenge added support to the growing literature on revenge in close relationships. However, the discovery of unsupported relationships between emotion management and revenge, as well as tendency to forgive and revenge add more questions and identifies more areas of exploration regarding the revenge process. Additionally, in attempting to further investigate the different dimensions of revenge, this study discovered clear patterns of preference for the nature of revenge behaviors. In the end, however, there was no clear answer to the question of what is it that drives a person to actually engage in revenge. Does the answer lie in other constructs, or is there simply a need for a more detailed analysis of the constructs covered in this study? Whatever the answer may be, it is clear that we have yet to fully understand what truly drives people to seek revenge. 61 APPENDICES 62 Table 6 APPENDIX A: Statistics Tables Means and Standard Deviations Anger Hurt Relation Attention to Clarity in Mood Tendency to Closeness Emotions Discrimin Repair Forgive Mean 5.62 4.86 5.81 5.15 Standard Deviation 1.23 1.35 CFI RMSEA Cronbach’s Alpha .92 .12 .89 .92 .12 .76 .74 .99 .07 .82 1.07 .90 .09 .89 4.30 1.05 .90 .09 .75 5.18 1.08 .90 .09 .75 3.52 1.13 .92 .16 .65 63 -- Anger -.18 -.14 .28** -.17* -- Hurt -.11 .03 .19* -.07 .51** -- Closeness .14 -.05 Attention .21* -.08 .08 .08 Emotions .11 .20* .20* -- .11 .09 -.03 .17 -- Table 7 Correlation Matrix for Study 1 Sex -- -- Ethnicity .17 Revenge -.10 -.03 -- Restore .02 -.16 -.29** Sex Ethnic Reveng RestorE Ang Hur Close Atten Clar Repa Forgiv Clarity in .02 -.03 -.13 .04 .05 -.09 -.03 .29** -- Discrimin Mood .14 -.10 .04 .11 .02 -.10 .12 .28** .21* -- Repair Forgive .08 .06 .08 .00 -.11 -.09 -.14 -.29* -.06 .33** -- Note. Significant alphas are with asterisks (1-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the p < .05 level. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level 64 Table 8 Binary Logistic Regression Model for Revenge Anger Hurt Attention to Emotions Clarity in Distinguishing Mood Repair Tendency to Forgive B .32* .16 .39 SE .19 .17 .26 Wald χ2 3.03 .87 2.30 N(df) 93(1) 93(1) 93(1) 95%CI .96, 1.99 .84, 1.65 .89,2.45 -.31 .25 1.64 93(1) .45, 1.18 -.16 .26 .25 .22 .44 1.38 93(1) 93(1) .52, 1.38 .84, 1.98 Note. Significant alphas are with asterisks (1-tailed). *Significant at the p < .05 level. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level. All coefficients are standardized Betas. 65 Table 9 Binary Logistic Regression Model for Restoration Anger Hurt Attention to Emotions Clarity in Distinguishing B -.23 .07 .44 SE .18 .16 .26 Wald χ2 1.56 .20 2.81 N(df) 93(1) 93(1) 93(1) 95%CI .56, 1.14 .78, 1.47 .93, 2.60 .03 .23 .02 93(1) .67, 1.60 Mood Repair .07 .24 .08 93(1) .67, 1.69 Note. Significant alphas are with asterisks (1-tailed). *Significant at the p < .05 level. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level. All coefficients are standardized Betas. 66 Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations Covert/ Verbal Nonverb Overt Av/App Av/App Mean 2.38 2.87 1.65 Standard Deviation .88 .45 .90 67 Table 11 Correlation Matrix for Study 2 Sex Ethnicity V. Av/App NV. Cov/Ov Attention Clarity Repair Forgive Sex -- Ethnicity .17 -- Revenge -.10 -.03 V. Av/App -.18 NV. Av/App .05 .14 .10 Av/App -- -- .11 Cov/Overt -.04 -.16 .67** .61** -- Attention .20* -.08 -.27 .14 -.03 -- Emotions Clarity in .02 -.03 .29 -.01 .15 .29** -- Discrimin Mood Repair .14 -.10 .07 -.03 -.02 .28** .21* -- Forgiveness .08 .06 .03 .31* .11 -.29* -.06 .33** -- Note. Significant alphas are with asterisks (1-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the p < .05 level. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level 68 Table 12 Coding Contingency Table Only Covert Both Only Overt or Total or Avoid Approach Verbal Av/App Nonverb Av/App Covert/Overt 2 29 18 2 4 6 42 13 44 46 46 68 69 Table 13 OLS Regression Models Verbal Av/App Nonverbal Covert/Overt Attention to .25 (.06) .10 (.15) .19 (.12) Av/App Emotions Clarity in Distinguishing .22 (.05) .02 (.14) .01 (.11) Mood Repair -.31 (.06) -.05 (.16) -.10 (.12) Tendency to .14 (.05) .34 (.17) .11 (.11) Forgive F R2 2 Radj 2.02 .18 .09 .92 .09 .48 .03 -.01 -.04 Note. Significant alphas are with asterisks (1-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the p < .05 level. **p < .01 level. ***p < .001 level. All coefficients are standardized Betas. Standard errors of coefficients are in parentheses. 70 Figure 1 APPENDIX B: Models Proposed Model for Revenge Seeking Figure 2 Proposed Model for Relational Restoration Seeking 71 APPENDIX C: IRB Approval February 9, 2016 To: Mary I. Bresnahan 470 Comm. Arts & Sci. Bldg. MSU Re: IRB# x16-208e Category: Exempt 2 Approval Date: February 9, 2016 Title: I Don’t Get Mad, I Get Even: Emotions & Betrayal Responses in Close Relationships The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that your project has been deemed as exempt in accordance with federal regulations. The IRB has found that your research project meets the criteria for exempt status and the criteria for the protection of human subjects in exempt research. Under our exempt policy the Principal Investigator assumes the responsibilities for the protection of human subjects in this project as outlined in the assurance letter and exempt educational material. The IRB office has received your signed assurance for exempt research. A copy of this signed agreement is appended for your information and records. Renewals: Exempt protocols do not need to be renewed. If the project is completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure. Revisions: Exempt protocols do not require revisions. However, if changes are made to a protocol that may no longer meet the exempt criteria, a new initial application will be required. Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems, adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects and change the category of review, notify the IRB office promptly. Any complaints from participants regarding the risk and benefits of the project must be reported to the IRB. Follow-up: If your exempt project is not completed and closed after three years, the IRB office will contact you regarding the status of the project and to verify that no changes have occurred that may affect exempt status. Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on any correspondence with the IRB office. Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at IRB@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation. 72 APPENDIX D: Informed Consent Form I Don’t Get Mad, I Get Even: Emotions & Betrayal Responses in Close Relationships Statement of Informed Consent Michigan State University You are being asked to participate in a research study. Before you give your consent to participate, it is important that you read the following information so that you are aware of what you will be asked to do. The purpose of this questionnaire is to examine how you react to betrayal in a close relationship and how your experienced emotions influence your response. This study will involve approximately 100 participants. You must be at least 18 years old to participate. Participation in this study will involve completing a web-based self-report survey. If you choose to complete the survey, it is recommended that you complete it during one sitting. For confidentiality purposes, this web-based survey will not allow you to go back to previously asked questions. The completion of this survey will take no longer than 30 minutes. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name will not be linked to your responses in this survey at any time. Moreover, your questionnaire responses will be kept confidential and in no way will it be viewed by anyone other than the experimenter(s) in this study. The data itself when downloaded will not contain any identifiable information unique to the respondent. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may refuse to answer any particular question and if, for any reason and at any time, you do not wish to continue your participation in the research project just described, you may stop without penalty. There are no foreseeable risks to you as you complete this survey. However, you might reflect on potentially sensitive memories related to being betrayed by someone close to you. If this reflection is troubling to you, please contact the MSU Counseling Center at (517) 355-8270 or via email: counseling@cc.msu.edu. If you have any questions about the research, please contact the following investigators: If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a study participant, are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of the study, or want to find out your rights as a participant you may contact – anonymously, if you wish – the Human Research Protection Program at Michigan State Joshua C. Nelson, MA Department of Communication Michigan State University 443 Communication Arts & Science nelso567@msu.edu Mary Bresnahan, PhD Department of Communication Michigan State University 555 Communication Arts & Science bresnah1@msu.edu 73 University (Olds Hall, 408 West Circle Drive, Room 207, East Lansing, MI 48824) at (517) 355-2180 or via email: irb@ora.msu.edu. Please take your time in completing this survey, while answering questions honestly. Thank you in advance for your participation. 74 Relationship Information: APPENDIX E: Scales & Measures 1. Have you ever been in a close relationship with a friend or romantic partner were that friend or partner betrayed your relationship by letting you down, or violating your trust or expectations? 2. Are you still in this relationship? Demographics: 1. What is your age? 2. What is your sex? 3. What is your ethnicity? Closeness Prior to Transgression (URCS): 4. My partner and I had a strong connection. 5. My partner and I wanted to spend time together. 6. I was sure of my relationship with my partner. 7. My partner was a priority in my life. 8. My partner and I did a lot of things together. Transgression Event: 1. Please describe exactly what your partner did to betray your relationship, let you down, or violate your expectations or trust. Please provide as much detail about the event as you can; including what happened and what your partner said or did. There is no time or word limit, so please be as thorough as possible. 2. Please describe what you said and did in response to your partner’s betrayal. Again, please provide as much detail about your actions as you can. There is not time or word limit, so please be as thorough as possible. 3. Can you think of anything else you said or did in response? 4. Please describe in detail the other things you said or did. Experienced Emotion Measure: Hurt: 1. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt sorrowful. 2. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt devalued. 3. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt hurt. 4. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt injured. 75 5. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt harmed. Anger: 1. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt angry. 2. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt agitated. 3. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt mad. 4. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt enraged. 5. Immediately after my partner’s betrayal I felt upset. Emotion Management (TMMS): Attention to Emotion: 1. People would be better off if they felt less and thought more. (R) 2. I don’t think it’s worth paying attention to your emotions or moods. (R) 3. I don’t usually care much about what I’m feeling. (R) 4. Feelings give direction to life. 5. I believe in acting from the heart. 6. The best way for me to handle my feelings is to experience them to the fullest. 7. One should never be guided by emotions. (R) 8. I never give into my emotions. (R) 9. I pay a lot of attention to how I feel. 10. I don’t pay much attention to my feelings. (R) 11. I often think about me feelings. 12. Feelings are a weakness humans have. (R) 13. It is usually a waste of time to think about your emotions. (R) Clarity in Discrimination: 1. Sometimes I can’t tell what my feelings are. (R) 2. I am rarely confused about how I feel. 3. I can never tell how I feel. (R) 4. My belief and opinions always seem to change depending on how I feel. (R) 5. I am often aware of my feelings on a matter. 6. I am usually confused about how I feel. (R) 7. I feel ease about my emotions. 76 8. I can’t make sense out of my feelings. (R) 9. I am usually very clear about my feelings. 10. I usually know my feelings about a matter. 11. I almost always know exactly how I am feeling. Ability to Repair a Negative Mood: 1. I try to think good thoughts no matter how badly I feel. 2. Although I am sometimes sad, I have a mostly optimistic outlook. 3. When I am upset I realize the “good things in life” are illusions. (R) 4. When I become upset I remind myself of all the pleasures in life. 5. Although I am sometimes happy, I have a mostly pessimistic outlook. (R) 6. No matter how bad I feel, I try to think about pleasant things. Tendency to Forgive (TFS): 1. I then to get over it quickly when someone hurts my feelings. 2. If someone wrongs me, I often think about it a lot afterward. (R) 3. I have a tendency to harbor grudges. (R) 4. When people wrong me, my approach is just to forgive and forget. * (R) = Reverse-coded item * Bold = Item removed from scale for analyses following CFA 77 REFERENCES 78 REFERENCES Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press. Afifi, W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 291-308. doi: 10.1177/0265407501182007 Andersen, P. (2009). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Long Grove, IL; Waveland Press. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943-963. doi: 10.1177/0265407506070476 Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observational interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). NY: Cambridge University Press. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships, (pp. 110-168). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Deveau, V. L. (2011). Reflections on the costs and benefits of exacting revenge in romantic relationships. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 43, 128-137. doi: 10.1037/a0022367 Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2009). Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 747-768. doi: 10.1177/0265407509347926 79 Boon, S. D., Rasmussen, K. R., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2017). Resisting revenge: An investigation of reasons for foregoing revenge in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 24, 474-490. doi: 10.1111/pere.12193 Boon, S. D., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2016). Avengees' perspectives on revenge: Commitment as a predictor and relationship type differences. Personal Relationships, 23, 475-490. doi:10.1111/pere.12138 Bowen, M. (Executive Producer), & Godfrey, W. (Executive Producer). (2011). Revenge [Television series]. Hollywood, CA: American Broadcasting Company. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607-631. doi: 10.1177/014920639902500501 Brewer, G., Hunt, D., James, G., & Abell, L. (2015). Dark Triad traits, infidelity and romantic revenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 122-127. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.007 Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759- 771. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006008 Brown, R. P. (2004). Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 576-584. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.003 Carlsmith, K. M., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1316-1324. doi: 10.1037/a0012165 Cicogna, B. (Executive Producer), Morsella, F. (Producer), & Leone, S. (Director). (1968). Once upon a time in the west [Motion picture]. USA: Paramount Pictures. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Crombag, H., Rassin, E., & Horselenberg, R. (2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 9, 333-344. doi: 10.1080/1068316031000068647 80 Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity, and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255-271. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000206 Dawson, G. (2014, April 3). ‘Revenge porn’ is increasing in the UK, say charities. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/26851276/revenge-porn-is- increasing-in-the-uk-say-charities de Quervain, D. J., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 1254-1258. doi: 10.1126/science.1100735 Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of conflict resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565-572. doi: 10.1037/a0026265 Dillard, J. P., Meczkowski, E., & Yang, C. (2018). Defensive reactions to threatening health messages: Alternative structures and next questions. International Journal of Communication, 12, 973-995. Dillon, A., Timulak, L., & Greenberg, L. S. (2018). Transforming core emotional pain in a course of emotion-focused therapy for depression: A case study. Psychotherapy Research, 28, 406-422. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2016.1233364 Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D., (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264047 Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion. Science, 164, 86-88. doi: 10.1126/science.164.3875.86 Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards integrative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487- 508. DOI: 10.1177/0265407504044844 Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140. doi: 10.1038/415137a 81 Ferrara, M. H., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Can’t live with them or can’t live without them?: The effects of betrayal on relational outcomes in college dating relationships. Communication Quarterly, 57, 187-204. doi: 10.1080/01463370902881734 Fine, M. A., & Olson, K. A. (1997). Anger and hurt in response to provocation: Relationship to psychological adjustment. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 325-344. Fox, M. (2010, May 13). Personal conflicts biggest cause of murders in U.S. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/13/us-deaths-usa- idUSTRE64C53R20100513 Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212-228. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Fung, K., & Alden, L. E. (2017). Once hurt, twice shy: Social pain contributes to social anxiety. Emotion, 17, 231-239. doi: 10.1037/emo0000223 Gerlsma, C., & Lugtmeyer, V. (2018). Offense type as determinant of revenge and forgiveness after victimization: Adolescents’ responses to injustice and aggression. Journal of School Violence, 17, 16-27. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2016.1193741 Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message? Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 840-844. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.001 Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 364-374. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.782 Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 551- 573. doi: 10.1080/026999399379186 Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implication for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Guynn, J. (2015, June 19). Google to remove ‘revenge porn’ from search results. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/19/google-revenge-porn- search-results/28983363/ 82 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hamilton, A. (2018). Is justice best served cold?: A transformative approach to revenge porn. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 25, 1-44. Harre, R., & Parrott, G. P. (Eds.). (1996). The emotions: Social, cultural and biological dimensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. High, A. C., & Crowley, J. L. (2018). Gaps among desired, sought, and received support: Deficits and surpluses in support when coping with taboo marital stressors. Communication Research, 45, 319-338. doi: 10.1177/0093650215626975 Hodgson, L. K., & Wertheim, E. H. (2007). Does good emotion management aid forgiving? Multiple dimensions of empathy, emotion management and forgiveness of self and others. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 931-949. doi: 10.1177/0265407507084191 Homer, Fagles, R., & Knox, B. (1998). The Iliad. London, England: Penguin. Horney, K. (1948). The value of vindictiveness. American Journal of Psychoanlysis, 8, 3-19. doi: 10.1007/BF01871591 Ilakkuvan, V., Turner, M. M., Cantrell, J., Hair, E., & Vallone, D. (2017). The relationship between advertising-induced anger and self-efficacy on persuasive outcomes: A test of the anger activism model using the Truth Campaign. Family and Community Health, 40, 72-80. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000126 Jacoby, S. (1983). Wild justice: The evolution of revenge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Jones, W.H., & Burdette, M.P. (1994). Betrayal in relationships. In A.L. Weber & J.H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships, (pp. 243-262). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Kim, Y., Dillard, J. P., & Smith, R. A. (2019). Communicaing antibiotic stewardship: Emotional responses and their impact on adherence. Health Communication, 2019, 1-11. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1598615 83 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotions and adaptations. New York, NY: Oxford University. Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225-1237. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1225 Lemay, E. P., Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and interpersonal consequences of hurt feelings and anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 982-1006. doi: 10.1037/a0030064 Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2014). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test: Youth research version manual. Toronto, Canada: MHS. McCreery, M. P., & Krach, S. K. (2018). How the human is the catalyst: Personality, aggressive fantasy, and proactive-reactive aggression among users of social media. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 91-95. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.037 McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2013). College students’ revenge goals across friend, romantic partner, and roommate contexts: The role of interpretations and emotions. Social Development, 22, 499-521. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00650.x Miczo, N., Flood, M., & Fitzgerald, J. (2018). Memorable messages and the evaluation of relational transgressions. Southern Communication Journal, 83, 215-228. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2018.1469661 Mitford, A. B. (2012). The 47 Ronin: Japanese tales of vampires, ghosts, and renegade samurai. New York, NY: Fall River Press. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641-666. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.132.5.641 Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change and recall. Communication Theory, 9, 292-320. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00172.x Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224-247. doi: 10.1177/0093650202250881 84 Nabi, R. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research. Communication Monographs, 77, 153-159. doi: 10.1080/03637751003790444 Ohbuchi, K., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1997). Multiple goals and tactical behaviors in social conflicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 2177-2199. doi: 10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1997.tb01647.x Pelegrin, W. (2015, February 25). Revenge porn could soon become a federal crime in the United States. Digital Trends. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/national-revenge-porn-bill-could-be-a-law/ Price, R. (2015, March 16). Facebook has banned revenge porn (FB). The Shawnee News-Star. Retrieved from http://www.news-star.com/article/20150316/BUSINESS/303169994 R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://ww.R-project.org/. Rasmussen, K. (2013). Vengeful decisions: The role of perceived effectiveness and costliness of revenge (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from University of Calgary Theses Repository. (http://hdl.handle.net/11023/899) Rasmussen, K. R., Alibhai, A., Boon, S. D., & Ellard, J. H. (2016). Trust as an explanation for relational differences in revenge. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38, 284-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1215314 Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. The Academy of Management Review, 34, 105-126. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.35713307 Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000202 Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., & Whitney, G. A. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53 Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood 85 Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further explorations using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychology and Health, 17, 611-627. doi: 10.1080/08870440290025812 Sanford, K., & Rowatt, W. C. (2004). When is negative emotion positive for relationships? An investigation of married couples and roommates. Personal Relationships, 11, 329-354. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00086.x Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1193-1205. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x Sells, J. N., Beckenbach, J., & Patrick, S. (2009). Pain and defense versus grace and justice: The relational conflict and restoration model. The Family Journal, 17, 203-212. doi: 10.1177/1066480709337802 Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2010). Behavioral activation/inhibition systems and emotions: A test of valence vs. action tendency hypotheses. Communication Monographs, 77, 1-26. doi: 10.1080/03637750903514268 Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2007). The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34, 433-467. doi: 10.1177/0093650207302787 Sheperd, L., & Wild, J. (2014). Emotion regulation, physiological arousal and PTSD symptoms in trauma-exposed individuals. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45, 360-367. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.03.002 Sheppard, K. E., & Boon, S. D. (2012). Predicting appraisals of romantic revenge: The roles of honesty-humility, agreeableness, and vengefulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 128-132. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.014 Sprecher, S. (2001). A comparison of emotional consequences of and changes in equity over time using global and domain-specific measures of equity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 477-501. doi: 10.1177/0265407501184003 Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories: Calculating the rewards and costs of personal relationships. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in 86 interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives, (pp. 377-389). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Hass, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306-323. doi: 10.1080/03637750009376512 Strongman, K. T. (2003). The psychology of emotion: From everyday life to theory (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Personality, 35, 297-310. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N., Billings, L. S., … Roberts, D. E. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00311.x Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454-458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149-159. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_03 Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 53-67. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53 Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973-988. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. Public Relations Review, 33, 114-119. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.013 87 Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it hurt? The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443-477. doi: 10.1177/0093650205277319 Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723-742. doi:10.1177/0265407505056445. Wang, Q., Bowling, N. A., Tian, Q., Alarcon, G. M., & Kwan, H. K. (2018). Workplace harassment intensity and revenge: Mediation and moderation effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 213-234. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3243-2 Wang, J.-L., Hsieh, H.-F., Assari, S., Gaskin, J., & Rost, D. H. (2018). The protective effects of social support and engagement coping strategy on the relationship between perceived discrimination and psychological distress among Chinese migrant children. Youth & Society, 50, 593-614. doi: 10.1177/0044118X15619804 Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., & Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 224-254. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000132 Wilton, L. S., Sanchez, D. T., & Garcia, J. A. (2013). The stigma of privilege: Racial identity and stigma consciousness among biracial individuals. Race and Social Problems, 5, 41- 56. doi: 10.1007/s12552-012-9083-5 Wright, M. F. (2017). Friends and console-gaming aggression: The role of friendship quality, anger, and revenge planning. Games and Culture, 2017, 1-18. doi: 10.1177/1555412017720554 Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2012). Emotion, motivation, and the persuasive effects of message formatting. Journal of Communication, 62, 682-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2012.01655.x Yoshimura, S. (2007a). Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 87-98. doi: 10.1177/0265407507072592 88 Yoshimura, S. M. (2007b). The communication of revenge: On the viciousness, virtues, and vitality of vengeful behavior in interpersonal relationships. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 277–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Yoshimura, S. M., Anderson, C., Curran, T., & Allen, N. (2013, November). The aspects, boundaries, and limits of interpersonal revenge: The intimate revenge behavior measure. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Washington D.C. Yoshimura, S. M., & Boon, S. D. (2014). Exploring revenge as a feature of family life. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 222-240. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12041 Yoshimura, S. M., & Boon, S. D. (2018). Communicating revenge in interpersonal relationships. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 138-164. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1007 Zemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A., Piotrowski, J. P., Cieciuch, J., Calogero, R. M., Van Hiel, A., Argentero, P., … Wills, E. (2015). Measurement of psychological entitlement in 28 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33 1-34. doi: 10.1027/1015- 5759/a000286 Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Zhang, J. (2015). Making up or getting even? The effects of face concerns, self-construal, and apology on forgiveness, reconciliation, and revenge in the United States and China. Communication Research, 1-22. doi: 10.1177/0093650215607959 89