Emotions,communicative responses,and relational consequences of boundary turbulence

Abstract

Guided by communication privacy management theory and appraisal theories of emotion this study examined how emotions (hurt, anger, and fear) and communicative responses (approach and withdrawal strategies) to boundary turbulence correspond with relational outcomes. A community sample of individuals (N = 273) reported on instances when another person mishandled their private information. Results showed that hurt, anger, fear, distancing, and a combination of anger and distributive responses all corresponded with relational damage, whereas integrative responses and anger were associated with relational improvement. Taken together, our study provides evidence that boundary turbulence does not have to be a negative experience and can actually result in improved relational functioning.

Keywords

Appraisal theory boundary turbulence communication communication privacy management emotion privacy privacy turbulence

After explicitly telling my boyfriend I did not want him to share the details of a sexual assault a few years back with anyone else until I worked through it… I had overheard him telling his best friend while I was asleep in the other room. While he might have been confiding in the friend, who is a very nice, trustworthy individual that I have become friends with, I still felt betrayed. I wanted to be the one to tell other people when I was ready – not have someone speak for me about such sensitive information. (25-year-old female)

Managing private information is a complex process that individuals routinely face. For example, people must balance their desire to reveal and conceal information, decide how much to disclose and to whom, and coordinate expectations with others once information has been shared (Petronio, 2002). According to communication privacy management (CPM) theory, coordinating privacy rules is challenging because of the confusion and missteps inherent in the process (Petronio, 2002). Boundary turbulence refers to a failure in rule coordination between co-owners of private information and can occur because of a variety of reasons, from intentional violations to privacy dilemmas. Petronio argues that boundary turbulence can challenge relationships, but “situations where a management process breaks down help renew the system” (p. 203). Thus, boundary turbulence can present an obstacle that produces distrust or disengagement, or it can be an opportunity for growth as individuals address the turbulence and refine the rules surrounding the shared information.

Despite the attention on boundary turbulence in research (e.g., Afifi, 2003; Afifi & Schrodt, 2003; Hawk, Keijsers, Hale, & Meeus, 2009), previous research has not uncovered the factors that predict whether boundary turbulence leads to positive or negative relational outcomes. Thus, the goal of this article is to examine the relationship between people’s emotional and communicative reactions to boundary turbulence and relational outcomes. Accordingly, in the following sections, we describe CPM and explicate boundary turbulence (Petronio, 2002). Then, drawing from appraisal theories of emotion (Lazarus, 1991), we discuss the role of emotions in people’s enactment of certain communicative behaviors. Finally, we report the results of a survey study that examines how emotions and communication correspond with the positive and negative relational consequences of boundary turbulence.

Communication privacy management (CPM) and boundary turbulence

CPM (Petronio, 2002) specifies a rule management system addressing individuals’ competing desires to reveal and conceal private information. The main tenets of the theory are that individuals and groups perceive ownership over private information and assume control over the management of that information. People use a rule system to govern the metaphorical boundaries around the information and once people reveal their private information to others, the expectation is that these co-owners will adhere to the rule system. If the rule system is not followed there is a potential for boundary turbulence, which is a disruption in the rule coordination process.

Boundary turbulence can result from a variety of situations (Petronio, 2002, 2010). For example, boundary turbulence can occur because of an intentional privacy rule violation, such as when a person betrays a confidence because he or she feels another person has a right to know the information. In addition, individuals can miscalculate the timing of a disclosure, such as a person congratulating a friend’s pregnancy on Facebook before the individual could share the news with her family. Boundary turbulence also might occur because of fuzzy boundaries, which are different perspectives about what is considered as shared or private information. Other situations, such as privacy dilemmas, rule bungling, and gossip, can all cause turbulence in the privacy management system.

Previous research has examined the experience of boundary turbulence in a variety of contexts. For example, Child, Petronio, Agyeman-Budu, and Westermann (2011) found that bloggers’ concerns about issues, such as impression management and relational maintenance prompted changes in their privacy rules. Within the context of healthcare, nurses often have to contend with patients giving them too much jurisdiction over their information, resulting in disclosure predicaments that can compromise nurses’ abilities to solve an impending dilemma or complicate the administration of necessary care (Petronio & Sargent, 2011). In a study of boundary turbulence in the workplace, Snyder and Cornetto (2009) found that when employees perceived e-mail monitoring (a form of turbulence) as common and inappropriate, they had negative reactions to top management. In terms of marital relationships, Steuber and Solomon (2012) studied couples’ disclosures about infertility and found limited support that relational uncertainty corresponded with markers of boundary turbulence between spouses. Hawk et al. (2009) found that adolescents who perceived their parents invading their privacy reported more frequent conflict with parents. Taken together, these studies illustrate that boundary turbulence is an important and common event in many contexts and relationships.

Relatively little is known, however, about the outcomes of and communicative responses to boundary turbulence. In a qualitative study of children’s feelings of being caught between divorced parents, Afifi (2003) found that family members respond to this type of boundary turbulence with either boundary integration or boundary separation. Boundary integration refers to family members’ positive efforts to rebuild appropriate privacy and communication rules and includes open and direct communication or minimization. Boundary separation (Afifi, 2003) refers to the more negative responses to boundary turbulence, in which stepfamilies further separated their communication instead of integrating their privacy rules by over privileging avoidance or engaging in cycles of aggression. These results suggest that there may be more or less positive ways of handling boundary turbulence. Although scholars have acknowledged that turbulence can be problematic or useful in relationships (Petronio, 2002; Petronio & Caughlin, 2006), research has yet to identify what factors correspond with the relational outcomes of boundary turbulence. Thus, we seek to address this gap by examining how peoples’ emotional and communicative responses to boundary turbulence correspond with relational damage or improvement.

The emotional experience of boundary turbulence

Emotions have been implicitly linked to privacy management issues within CPM (Petronio, 2002, 2010) and more directly linked in Stile’s (1987) fever model, which suggests that the emotions serve as a catalyst for disclosure. Petronio (2002, 2010) asserts that situational components, such as emotional needs, can contribute to an individual deciding to revoke privacy rules and disclose in an effort to garner social support. In other words, negative emotions, such as anger, sadness, and grief, may contribute to changes in existing privacy rules (Petronio, 2010). Just as emotions might influence a decision to reveal, emotions might also prompt other communicative behaviors and ultimately shape the experience of turbulence and its subsequent effects on the relationship between the co-owners of the information. Thus, it is important to examine the role of emotions in boundary turbulence because people’s responses to turbulence may have immediate or long-term implications for the partnership. In the following section, we draw from appraisal theories of emotion to hypothesize about people’s emotional and communicative responses to boundary turbulence.

Appraisal theories of emotion

Appraisal theories of emotion focus on how people’s perceptions of situations influence the experience and elicitation of emotions (Lazarus, 1991). As people interact with their environment, they pay attention to things that may be relevant, beneficial, or harmful to their goals and well-being (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Kirby, 2001). These appraisals index the extent to which the current situation is congruent or incongruent with one’s goals and initiate the emotional experience (Smith & Kirby, 2001). Particular appraisals are thought to elicit specific emotions (e.g., Oatley, 1992). In general, positive emotions arise when the situation presents opportunities for achieving one’s goals, whereas negative emotions arise when there is a gap between a person’s desires and the current circumstances. Emotions also have a motivational component, called action tendencies, which prompt people to engage in certain behavioral responses to address the discrepancy between their goals and the current situation (e.g., Roseman & Smith, 2001). In general, then, cognitive judgments elicit emotions, which then prompt people to take action, usually in the form of engagement or disengagement with the environment (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Shure, 1989).

The experience of boundary turbulence is likely to be an emotion-eliciting event. The very nature of boundary turbulence indicates that a person’s private information was not handled according to expectations or rules. Thus, turbulence is an event that has implications for one’s well-being and thus would likely spark the emotion-elicitation process. In other words, when people’s goals for information management are not met, there is a discrepancy between their ideal situation and the current circumstances. According to appraisal theories, people’s judgment of the nature of that discrepancy will result in different emotions being elicited and those emotions will prompt different action tendencies (Lazarus, 1991; Oatley, 1992). Because boundary turbulence occurs when the situation is not aligned with one’s goals for information management, negative emotions should occur. Accordingly, we consider three negative emotions that boundary turbulence might elicit: hurt, anger, and fear.

First, boundary turbulence is likely to elicit hurt, which is a feeling of emotional injury that occurs when one feels relationally devalued or rejected (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). The relevant goal associated with hurt is to be valued by a relational partner (Feeney, 2005); thus, people experience hurt when they feel that another person’s words or actions devalue their relationship in some way (Leary et al., 1998). Betrayal is both a type of boundary turbulence and is also one of the six types of hurtful events identified in previous research (Leary et al., 1998). Thus, boundary turbulence is likely to elicit hurt feelings when the victim feels the privacy violation communicates disregard for the relationship between the victim and the violator.

Anger is another emotion that is likely elicited because of boundary turbulence. Anger arises from the appraisal that an obstacle is interfering with a desired and obtainable goal (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987) or due to a perceived injustice (Lazarus, 2001). During boundary turbulence, the relevant goal is to have one’s private information handled in a manner consistent with his/her expectations and rules. When people judge that another person is hindering their goal for information management, they will likely feel angry and frustrated. For example, Petronio, Sargent, Andea, Reganis, and Cichocki (2004) suggest that patients might feel angry when friends or family act as healthcare advocates and violate the privacy of the patient by disclosing information to healthcare providers.

Finally, fear may be a relevant emotion to boundary turbulence because it occurs when a person appraises a situation as having the potential to lead to an unpleasant outcome, such as loss, rejection, or failure (Shaver et al., 1987). People feel fear when they anticipate that an outcome could be dangerous or harmful to them (Shaver et al., 1987). During boundary turbulence, the private information that is revealed is often risky, with the disclosure potentially having personal (e.g., Afifi, McManus, Steuber, & Coho, 2009), professional (Allen, Coopman, Hart, & Walker, 2007), or medical implications (Petronio, 2002). Thus, the anticipation associated with the unknown outcomes of boundary turbulence, or the uncertainty of whether a similar incident will happen again, might elicit fear. To test the possibility that boundary turbulence elicits hurt, anger, and fear, we propose our first research question:

RQ1: How common are the emotions of hurt, anger, and fear in response to incidents of boundary turbulence?

Action tendencies and communication behaviors

Recall the emotions that prompt people to act, presumably to address the discrepancy between people’s goals and their current circumstances (e.g., Frijda et al., 1989). There are a number of intervening factors that influence whether and how people enact action tendencies, such as judgments about people’s ability to cope with the event (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In general, emotions encourage people to engage with their environment to either take advantage of an opportunity for goal fulfillment or remedy an undesirable situation, or emotions prompt disengagement to withdraw from an adverse situation (Frijda et al., 1989; Shaver et al., 1987). Furthermore, scholars agree that a significant feature of interpersonal relationships is the tendency to approach or avoid others (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). In the next section, we consider both approach and withdrawal communicative behaviors and how anger, hurt, and fear might prompt those reactions according to appraisal theories.

We conceptualize approach strategies in communication as seeking direct information about an issue in either constructive or destructive ways (Feeney, 2004). People can express their feelings and seek explanations, or they can take destructive actions, such as withdrawing, mulling, or voicing anger. Integrative responses refer to direct and cooperative communication, including behaviors such as expressing one’s thoughts or feelings in a calm way, making conciliatory statements, and avoiding blame (e.g., Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). In conflict situations, these behaviors have been perceived as satisfying, appropriate, and effective (Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach, 1994). Distributive responses are also approach behaviors because they are direct, but they are negative and competitive. These behaviors include making accusatory statements, yelling, cursing, and blaming the other person (Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). Not surprisingly, distributive communication in conflict is generally viewed as inappropriate, dissatisfying, and ineffective (Spitzberg et al., 1994). Thus, when people enact approach strategies, they may do so using integrative and/or distributive communicative behaviors.

Withdrawal strategies represent behaviors to evade the issue at hand and also vary in valence, with some behaviors being more neutral and others being more hostile (Sillars et al., 2004). Avoidance behaviors are neutral strategies aimed at keeping distance from the violator, such as hiding one’s feelings or pretending nothing is wrong (e.g., Knobloch & Solomon, 2003). Distance behaviors involve purposefully creating distance between the victim and the violator, such as giving the silent treatment or pulling back from the interaction (e.g., Guerrero et al., 1995). In fact, Afifi (2003) found that stepfamilies respond to boundary turbulence using withdrawal behaviors that were both positive, such as minimization, and negative, such as over privileging avoidance. Next, we use appraisal theories of emotion to hypothesize about the communicative reactions associated with hurt, anger, and fear based on their action tendencies.

Prior theorizing has identified withdrawal as the action tendency connected with hurt, usually in the form of relational distancing (Vangelisti & Young, 2000). Relational distancing functions to protect the victim from future hurt by withdrawing from the source of the hurt. Empirical research, however, shows that people respond to feeling hurt in a number of ways, such as crying, leaving the interaction (Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998), or confronting their partner (Leary & Springer, 2001). Furthermore, Feeney (2004) found that people respond to hurt with both constructive and destructive responses. Thus, in reaction to boundary turbulence, past research suggests that people might respond with either confrontation or withdrawal. We pose a research question to test this possibility.

RQ2: How is hurt associated with approach and withdrawal responses to boundary turbulence?

The action tendency associated with anger is to attack, either by verbal or physical means (Shaver et al., 1987). This action tendency allows people to correct the perceived injustice and achieve their goals (Frijda, 1986). Empirical research supports the theoretical reasoning that anger is linked to approach tendencies. People report that they feel energized and strengthened when feeling angry, ready to approach the target and attempt to rectify the situation (Shaver et al., 1987). Furthermore, Frijda et al. (1989) found that anger was associated with moving against behaviors, such as opposition and aggression. Thus, anger should be associated with engaging in approach behaviors by confronting the violator. Accordingly, our first hypothesis states:

H1: Anger will be positively associated with approach strategies to boundary turbulence.

The action tendency associated with fear is less consistent than anger and tends to vary across circumstances and contexts (e.g., Oatley, 1992). The response to fear can generally be classified as protection to guard against a possible undesirable threat (Frijda et al., 1989), but this can be enacted through either approach or avoidance behaviors, such as fight or flight (e.g., Dillard, 1994). For example, Witte (1998) found that when people had high self-efficacy, fear was associated with a tendency to approach, but when they felt helpless to influence their environment, they tended to withdraw. Thus, when people experience fear in reaction to boundary turbulence, both approach and withdrawal strategies are possible ways to enact protection.

RQ3: How is fear associated with approach and withdrawal responses to boundary turbulence?

Thus far, we utilized appraisal theories of emotion to identify hurt, anger, and fear as emotions that are likely elicited because of boundary turbulence. In addition following from appraisal theories, we discussed the action tendencies associated with those emotions and whether they would prompt people to either approach the target (through integrative or distributive communication strategies) or withdraw from the target (through avoidance or distancing behaviors). Because the larger goal of this study is to identify the factors that contribute to relational outcomes following boundary turbulence, we consider how emotions and communicative behaviors are connected to relational damage or improvement.

The relational consequences of boundary turbulence

Boundary turbulence presents an opportunity to address privacy rules and thus could lead to positive changes in a relationship, but it also represents a relational transgression that could harm a relationship (Afifi, 2003; Petronio, 2002). Because of this possibility, we consider how boundary turbulence could lead to either relational damage or relational improvement. Relational damage is something that causes distrust, worry, and harm in a relationship (e.g., Leary et al., 1998). Research shows that boundary turbulence can cause further separation and conflict between people (e.g., Hawk et al., 2009). On the other hand, relational improvement happens when a relationship is strengthened, enhanced, or the event is considered to be a learning experience. Although boundary turbulence is frustrating, it is a frequent occurrence that presents an opportunity for people to recoordinate their rules and clarify their boundaries (Petronio, 2002); but what factors affect whether boundary turbulence is a harmful or helpful experience for relational partners? We consider the role of emotions and communicative responses next.

Previous research shows that negative emotions are associated with relational harm. For example, intensity of hurt was related to both short- and long-term negative relational consequences (Feeney, 2004; Leary et al., 1998). The extent to which hurtful events were perceived as negative expectancy violations corresponded positively with relationship dissolution (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006). Similarly, anger is associated with a host of negative relational outcomes, such as emotional distance, and a decrease in relational satisfaction (Buss, 1989; Tavris, 1984). Finally, experiencing fear in family relationships is associated with severe depressive symptoms in women (Csoboth, Birkás, & Purebl, 2005). Taken together, these results suggest that feeling hurt, anger, and fear following boundary turbulence could result in relational damage. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Hurt, anger, and fear following an incident of boundary turbulence will be (a) positively associated with relational damage and (b) negatively associated with relational improvement.

Emotions influence people’s actions, but how do these communicative behaviors affect relational outcomes? Approach behaviors, either in the form of integrative or distributive responses, would allow a person to address the boundary turbulence and possibly recoordinate the boundary rules. Research on conflict shows that generally open and direct communication is preferable (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006), and an integrative conflict style is considered the most appropriate and effective (Gross & Guerrero, 2000). Nonetheless, any form of confrontation, positive or negative, might allow the two parties to discuss the incident and resolve it, thus maximizing the potential for relational improvement. Research on conflict shows that although there are circumstances when avoidance is acceptable (Roloff & Ifert, 2000), it is also associated with relational dissatisfaction (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006), leading therapist to recommend confrontation over withdrawal behaviors (Gottman, 1993). We pose our final hypothesis to test the possibility that approach is associated with relational improvement, and withdrawal is associated with relational harm.

H3: (a) Withdrawal strategies (avoidance and distance) will be positively associated with relational damage and (b) approach strategies (integrative and distributive) will be positively associated with relational improvement.

Method

Because the goal of this study is to examine the experience and consequences of boundary turbulence, we wanted to collect the broadest domain of turbulence incidents from a wide array of individuals. Previous research describes the experience of boundary turbulence for specific groups, such as pregnant women (Petronio & Jones, 2006), bloggers (Child, Pearson, & Petronio, 2009), or healthcare advocates (Petronio et al., 2004). In an effort to assess general patterns of behavior related to boundary turbulence, we conducted a survey from a community sample asking individuals to reflect on any time when they felt that another person mishandled their private information. This design allows us to identify features of boundary turbulence that are salient across many contexts.

Participants

Participants were recruited via a university Listserv invitation that went out to all faculty, staff, and students at a large Midwestern university (n = 131, 48%), as well as a Craigslist posting requesting volunteers for a research study. Respondents were told that they would receive a $15 check for participating, which was mailed to them after they completed the survey. In an effort to recruit a diverse sample, we posted on Craigslist sites for cities across the US and got respondents from Philadelphia (n = 25, 9.2%), Chicago (n = 34, 12.5%), Washington, DC (n = 4, 1.5%), New York City (n = 35, 12.8%), Houston (n = 9, 3.3%), San Francisco (n = 13, 4.8%), and Seattle (n = 22, 8.1%).

There were a total of 273 participants, with 61 males (22.3%), 196 females (71.8%), one transgender person (.4%), and 15 people that failed to report their sex (5.5%). People ranged in age from 18 to 66 years (M = 31.96, SD = 11.64). People were identified as Caucasian (n = 194, 71.1%), African American (n = 40, 14.7%), Native American (n = 5, 1.8%), Asian (n = 17, 6.2%), and/or Hispanic (n = 16, 5.9%). The majority of people had completed some college (n = 75, 27.5%), held a 2-year college (n = 23, 8.4%), or 4-year college degree (n = 82, 30%). One person did not complete high school (.4%), 21 people held a high-school diploma (7.7%), 60 people held advanced degrees, such as a MA, PhD, or MD (22%), and 11 people failed to report their education level (4%).

Most of the incidents happened within friendships (n = 103, 37.7%), family relationships (n = 64, 23.4%), or romantic partnerships, which included dating, engaged, and married people (n = 70, 25.6%). A smaller number of incidents occurred between the participant and an acquaintance (n = 27, 9.9%). Nine people did not report the violator in the incident (3.3%).

Procedures

Interested people clicked on a link to an online survey. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years and older and were able to recall an incident of boundary turbulence. We created the following prompt to help them identify an experience of boundary turbulence:

We'd like you to think about your personal relationships (such as family relationships, friendships, or romantic relationships). Has there been a time in one of those relationships when you have felt like some private information was handled poorly by one of your friends, romantic partners, or family members? For example, a close person in your life could have betrayed your confidence, passed along private information about you that you didn't want others to know, shared information related to you that he/she didn't realize you didn't want shared, or many other scenarios.

After participants indicated they had such an event in mind, they responded to a series of open- and closed-ended questions, including measures assessing their relationship type and closeness, as well as emotions, communicative behaviors, and relational outcomes. Participants reported having experienced boundary turbulence related to a variety of topics of private information, including infidelity, health issues, and sexual histories.

Measures

All the measures were evaluated for unidimensionality using confirmatory factor analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). A measurement model with all the measures showed adequate fit, χ ²/df = 2.38, comparative fit index (CFI) = .87, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07. Based on Browne and Cudeck’s (1993) goodness of fit criteria of χ²/df < 3.00, CFI > .90, and RMSEA < .10, the CFI was slightly lower than the criterion, but the remaining measures show a general acceptable pattern of fit.

Closeness

Measure of perceived closeness as indicated in the study by Buchanan, Maccoby, and Dornbush (1991) was used. Subjects indicated how much each statement is characteristic of their relationship with the violator (1 = not at all, 3 = average, and 5 = very much). Eight questions were included in the scale: (a) How interested is this person in the things you do? (b) How openly do you talk with this person about things you might consider personal? (c) How confident are you that this person would help if you had a problem? (d) How close do you feel to this person? (e) How well does this person know what you’re really like? (f) How often does this person express affection or liking for you? (g) How interested is this person in talking to you when you want to talk? and (h) How comfortable do you feel admitting doubts and fears to this person. The eight items were averaged together to form a composite scale for closeness (obtained range: 1–5, M = 3.03, SD = 1.24, and α = .94).

Emotions

Subjects responded to a seven-point scale reporting their experience of different emotions they felt during the episode. To assess hurt, we used items from Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, and Alexander (2005). Subjects rated how hurtful the interaction was (1 = not at all hurtful and 7 = extremely hurtful), to what extent the incident caused them emotional pain (1 = no emotional pain and 7 = extreme emotional pain), and how hurt they felt overall (1 = not at all hurt and 7 = extremely hurt). These items were averaged together to form a reliable measure of hurt (obtained range: 1–7, M = 5.53, SD = 1.50, and α = .95). To measure anger and fear, we modified a scale from Dillard, Kinney, and Cruz (1996). Subjects indicated their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) to items following the stem: “During this episode, I felt…”. For anger, subjects rated their level of annoyance, upset, anger, and frustration (obtained range: 1–7, M = 5.93, SD = 1.33, and α = .83). Fear was represented by three items: feeling afraid, anxious, and hopeless (obtained range: 1–7, M = 3.70, SD = 1.88, and α = .74).

Communicative responses

Because emotions typically prompt people to engage or disengage from the environment (Frijda et al., 1989; Shaver et al., 1987), we measured both approach and withdrawal communication strategies. To represent both the positive and negative ways of enacting approach and avoidance, we measured four communicative responses in total, drawing from both Guerrero et al. (1995) and Knobloch and Solomon (2003). Subjects noted the extent to which they engaged in behaviors after the incident (1 = not at all and 6 = a lot). A measure of integrative behaviors included three items assessing how direct and open people communicated about the event: (a) I explained my feelings to this person, (b) I felt able to say what needed to be said, and (c) I tried to talk about the event and reach an understanding. These items were averaged together to form a reliable measure of integrative behaviors (obtained range: 1–6, M = 3.97, SD = 1.70, and α = .85). The distributive behaviors scale assessed the degree to which subjects communicated about the event in negative ways, such as arguing or yelling. Four items were included to form a composite measure of distributive behaviors (obtained range: 1–6, M = 3.62, SD = 1.70, and α = .88): (a) I vented my frustration to this person, (b) I argued with this person, (c) I yelled or cursed at this person, and (d) I confronted this person.

Two additional scales measured forms of withdrawal. The distance behaviors measure consisted of negative avoidance strategies representing attempts to pull away from the violator. There were three items that formed a reliable measure of distance behaviors (obtained range: 1–6, M = 2.97, SD = 1.73, and α = .85): (a) I stopped talking to this person, (b) I gave this person the silent treatment, and (c) I ignored this person. The avoidance behaviors measure consisted of five items that assessed neutral strategies for evading communication: (a) I wanted to keep the perceptions of this event to myself, (b) I did not want to talk to this person about the event, (c) I pretended nothing happened, (d) I decided I would hide my feelings from this person, and (e) I acted like I didn’t care. The five items comprised the scale for avoidance behaviors (obtained range: 1–6, M = 2.63, SD = 1.43, and α = .83).

Relational consequences

Subjects responded to items beginning with the statement “the following things occurred regarding my relationship with the person who handled my information poorly” (1 = not at all true and 7 = absolutely true). Four items from Leary et al. (1998) measured relational damage following the boundary turbulence: (a) weakened my relationship permanently, (b) made me trust this person less, (c) made me dislike this person, and (d) made me worry this person would hurt me again. The relational damage scale was reliable (obtained range: 1–7, M = 4.70, SD = 1.86, and α = .87). Five additional items that were written for a previous study (McLaren & Solomon, 2008; Unpublished raw data) captured the degree to which the event improved the relationship following boundary turbulence. The items were (a) strengthened my relationship with this person, (b) helped us know each other better, (c) helped us resolved a misunderstanding, (d) taught us how to manage events like these, and (e) brought us closer. These items comprised the measure of relational improvement (obtained range: 1–7, M = 2.60, SD = 1.56, and α = .87).

Results

We began by examining the correlations among the variables used in this study to provide initial insight into the data (see Table 1). Closeness was used as control variable to account for differences in intimacy for participants. It was negatively correlated with hurt and fear, distancing, and relational damage and positively associated with integrative behaviors and relational improvement. In terms of relational consequences, all the emotions were positively correlated with relational damage and anger corresponded negatively with relational improvement. For the communicative responses, distributive and distance behaviors were positively correlated with relational damage and integrative behaviors were positively associated with relational improvement. The correlations reveal preliminary insight into the associations among emotions, communicative responses, and relational consequences.

Table 1.

Correlations among variables.

	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7	V8	V9	V10
V1: Closeness	–
V2: Hurt	−.32***	–
V3: Anger	−.11	.49***	–
V4: Fear	−.20**	.41***	.36***	–
V5: Integrative	.13*	.17***	.10	.04	–
V6: Distributive	−.02	.40***	.36***	.30***	.67***	–
V7: Avoidance	−.07	−.08	−.07	.01	−.66***	−.46**	–
V8: Distance	−.40***	.39***	.29***	.26***	−.17**	.18**	.27***	–
V9: Relational damage	−.62***	.59***	.39***	.38***	−.07	.25***	.11	.59***	–
V10: Relational improvement	.44***	−.07	−.13*	−.00	.30***	.09	−.15*	−.17*	−.40***	–

Note. N = 265.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Next, we ran a two-way multivariate analysis of variance with relationship type and respondent sex as the independent variables, and the rest of the measures as dependent variables. Results showed a significant multivariate effect for relationship type, Wilkes’ Λ = .86, F(24, 693.77) = 1.57, p = .04, partial η² = .05, but no main effect for respondent sex or the interaction between relationship type and respondent sex. The univariate tests revealed significant differences for relationship type and hurt, F(3, 246) = 3.32, p = .02, partial η² = .04, such that family members reported significantly less hurt (M = 5.14, SD = 1.82) than romantic partners (M = 5.91, SD = 1.17) or acquaintances (M = 5.95, SD = 1.49). Furthermore, there were relationship type differences for closeness, F(3, 246) = 2.91, p = .00, partial η² = .03, such that acquaintances were significantly less close (M = 2.00, SD = .98) than friends (M = 3.13, SD = 1.19), family members (M = 3.27, SD = 1.22), or romantic partners (M = 3.19, SD = 1.24). Because of the results of this preliminary analysis and based on previous research suggesting that the privacy decisions are related to closeness (e.g., Golish & Caughlin, 2002), we included relationship type and closeness as control variables in all of our substantive analyses.

To answer the first research question (RQ1), we conducted three one-sample t tests (see Table 2). To address the possibility of increased family-wise error, we used a Bonferonni correction; the adjusted alpha level was .02. Results showed that anger (M = 5.92, SD = 1.33) and hurt (M = 5.53, SD = 1.49) were significantly above the midpoint of the scale (=4.0). Fear was not significantly different from the midpoint (M = 3.70, SD = 1.88). These results suggest that hurt and anger are emotions relevant to experiences of boundary turbulence. On the other hand, fear does not seem to be a salient emotion when people encounter boundary turbulence.

Table 2.

Emotions and communicative responses to boundary turbulence.

	Mean	SD	t(1, 264)
Emotions
Hurt	5.53	1.49	16.69***
***Anger	5.93	1.33	23.59***
***Fear	3.70	1.88	−2.55*

Note. N = 265. The one-sample t-tests compare the mean of each behavior to the midpoint of the scale (=4.0).

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

To test the remaining research questions and hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. To answer H1, RQ2, and RQ3, we examined the association between emotions and communicative responses to boundary turbulence, after controlling for relationship type and closeness. We included each of the four communicative responses (integrative, distributive, distance, and avoidance) as dependent variables in separate regression models. Results showed that all the models were statistically significant (see Table 3). RQ2 queried how hurt was associated with approach and withdrawal behaviors. Results showed that hurt was positively associated with approach strategies, in the form of integrative and distributive behaviors, as well as distancing, a type of withdrawal behavior. Results showed partial support for H1: anger was positively associated with distributive behaviors but not integrative behaviors. Contrary to expectations, anger was also positively associated with distance. To answer RQ3, we examined the effect of fear on the communicative responses, but none of these associations were significant. Taken together, these results show that hurt and anger correspond with both approach behaviors (integrative and distributive) and the withdrawal behavior of distancing in response to boundary turbulence.

Table 3.

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting communicative responses to boundary turbulence from hurt, anger, and fear.

	Communicative responses
	Integrative		Distributive		Avoidance		Distance
Predictor	R ² Δ	β	R ² Δ	β	R ² Δ	β	R ² Δ	β
Step 1	.05**		.03*		.02		.18***
Relationship type		.18**		.17*		−.14		−.16**
Closeness		.10		−.05		−.01		−.36***
Step 2	.04*		.20**		.01		.11***
Hurt		.21**		.27***		−.08		.21**
Anger		.01		.20**		−.07		.12*
Fear		−.06		.11		.06		.11

Note. N = 253.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Finally, we ran two hierarchical regression analyses, with relational damage and relational improvement as the dependent variables, respectively (see Table 4). To control for relationship type and closeness, we entered them on the first step of the model. The second step had the emotion variables, the third step included the communication variables, and the fourth step contained the interaction terms between the emotions and communication variables.

Table 4.

The regression of relational consequences on emotions and communicative responses to boundary turbulence.

Predictor	Relational damage		Relational improvement
	R ² Δ	β	R ² Δ	β
Step 1	.39**		.20***
Relationship type		−.08		.42***
Closeness		−.60***		.08
Step 2	.21**		.03*
Hurt		.33***		.14
Anger		.14**		−.18**
Fear		.12**		.10
Step 3	.05**		.07***
Integrative		−.06		.38**
Distributive		.12		−.17
Avoidance		.05		.03
Distance		.22***		.06
Step 4	.03*		.04
Anger by distributive		1.15**

Note. The 12 possible two-way interactions among the emotion variables (hurt, anger, and fear) and communicative responses variables (integrative, distributive, distance, and avoidance) were included in step 4, but only the significant two-way interaction was reported.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We examined the second step of the regression models to test the role of emotions on relational consequences (H2). Results showed that hurt, anger, and fear were all positively associated with relational damage, as predicted in H2a. Furthermore, anger was inversely associated with relational improvement as expected, but hurt and fear were not significant correlates, providing only partial support for H2b.

The addition of the communication variables in step 3 significantly increased the variability explained in both the models. For relational damage, this effect was driven by the significant and positive association for distance behaviors, which partially supports H3a. Contrary to H3a, avoidance was not significantly associated with relational damage. H3b predicted that approach behaviors (integrative and distributive) are positively associated with relational improvement. We found partial support for this prediction: integrative responses corresponded positively with relational improvement, but distributive behaviors were not a significant predictor.

Although we did not include a hypothesis about the interaction between emotions and communication, we wanted to examine whether the combination of hurt, anger, and fear along with the communication behaviors might be significantly associated with relational consequences. Accordingly, the fourth step of the regression models included interaction terms between the emotions and the communicative responses (i.e., hurt by integrative and anger by distributive). This step was significant only for the model with relational damage as the dependent variable. The effect was driven by a significant interaction between anger and distributive behaviors.

To probe the nature of this interaction, we followed steps outlined by Aiken and West (1991) and mean centered the independent variables and examined the slopes at three levels of distributive behaviors: one SD below the mean, at the mean, and one SD above the mean. Results showed that the positive association between anger and relational consequences was amplified when distributive behaviors were high but minimized when distributive behaviors were low (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Interaction between anger and distributive behaviors predicting relational damage in response to boundary turbulence.

Discussion

The goal of this article was to examine the experience and consequences of boundary turbulence in relationships by drawing from CPM (Petronio, 2002) and appraisal theories of emotion (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). Specifically, we surveyed a community sample to examine the effect of emotions and communicative behaviors on relational consequences. Our results have several implications for the emotional and communicative experience of boundary turbulence as well as factors that correspond with relational damage or improvement.

The impact of emotions on communication in responses to boundary turbulence

This study was the first to our knowledge to examine how emotions are associated with communicative responses to boundary turbulence. We found that anger was the most common emotion reported in response to boundary turbulence. This finding is not surprising considering that people feel anger when they perceive obstacles limiting their ability to meet an otherwise obtainable goal (Shaver et al., 1987). Thus, it seems that people are angry when another person inappropriately handles private information. Based on appraisal theories of emotion, we predicted that anger would be associated with approach strategies. Anger was correlated with distributive behaviors, as expected, but also with distance responses to boundary turbulence. Thus, people who felt angry over the boundary turbulence utilized the potentially destructive features of both the approaches and withdrawal strategies. This is consistent with research that showed both verbal attack and avoidance are prototypical responses to anger (Shaver et al., 1987). Future research could examine other relationship characteristics or situational features that might affect whether people use approach or withdrawal strategies when feeling angry over an incident of boundary turbulence.

People also experienced hurt in response to boundary turbulence. Hurt is an emotion elicited when people feel relationally devalued (Leary et al., 1998). An experience of boundary turbulence might convey that the relationship was not important enough to preserve the parameters of that personal information, and individuals can be hurt by the perceived betrayal. Our results indicated that hurt was associated with integrative and distributive tactics, as well as distance behaviors. This finding is consistent with Bachman and Guerrero’s (2006) observation that intensity of hurt was associated with both destructive and constructive communications. Furthermore, other research shows that the relationship between hurt and relational distancing depends on judgments of intentionality (McLaren & Solomon, 2010). Perhaps if individuals perceive the boundary turbulence to be intentional, the hurt may lead them to distance from that individual, but if they perceive the turbulence to be unintentional, such as with a misunderstanding, it may lead them to confront the individual in an effort to clarify why the incident occurred.

Finally, our results imply that fear may not be as salient an emotion for predicting people’s communicative responses to boundary turbulence. Contrary to expectations, fear was not associated with any of the communicative responses. This is similar to research showing that fear is not consistently linked with a particular action tendency (e.g., Witte, 1998). Perhaps this finding is due to the fact that fear is an emotion that occurs in anticipation of a negative outcome (Shaver et al., 1987), and the outcomes of the boundary turbulence were probably already determined by the time individuals completed the survey. In other words, perhaps fear is more subject to recall biases because of the nature of the emotion. Another possibility is if a person feels afraid, the action tendency of protection might be directed at managing the actual leakage of the information, as opposed to attempting to protect oneself from the relationship with the violator. Future researchers could investigate the characteristics of boundary turbulence that elicit fear and whether people are reacting to fear by managing their information rather than addressing the relationship with the violator.

Boundary turbulence and relational consequences

Although Petronio (2002) stated that boundary turbulence does not need to be viewed as an entirely negative event, much of the research on boundary turbulence highlights the problematic components that coincide with the inability to coordinate privacy rules (Steuber & Solomon, 2012). Our findings are especially noteworthy viewed in this light, because they provide evidence that boundary turbulence can be both a helpful or harmful experience in relationships. Furthermore, our results reveal that emotional and communicative factors associate differently with relational damage and improvement.

Results showed that negative emotions, distance behaviors, and the combination of anger and distributive behaviors were all significant correlates of relational damage, above and beyond the buffering effect of closeness. Perhaps these negative emotions are the indicators of the severity of turbulence and thus are associated with relational harm. The findings also suggest that when people keep their feelings to themselves, boundary turbulence has negative relational consequences. Finally, it seems that anger and negative confrontation behaviors following an incident of boundary turbulence are a particularly damaging combination for relationships. We found that the association between anger and relational damage was strongest when people used high levels of distributive communication. Similarly, other research shows that when marital couples approach conflict instead of avoiding it, expressions of anger had a strong influence on wives’ concurrent satisfaction (Krokoff, 1991).

Our results also revealed factors that correspond with relational improvement. First, anger was inversely associated with relational improvement. Notably, anger is the only emotion that was a significant correlate of both relational harm and improvement. Although we did not measure anger expression, it is possible that the negative association between anger and relational improvement stems from not only feeling less anger but also expressing less anger. In that case, research shows similar results; a lack of anger expression during marital conflict predicted wives’ satisfaction measured 3 years later (Krokoff, 1991). Furthermore, Tavris (1984) suggests that when anger is expressed effectively, it can lead to a number of positive outcomes, such as emotional closeness and understanding.

The results also highlight the importance of direct communication about boundary turbulence for achieving relational improvement. Although CPM asserts that directness in disclosure messages can correspond with relational quality outcomes (Petronio, 2002), no studies to our knowledge have empirically examined how directness about boundary turbulence coincides with relational consequences. Our results showed that the use of integrative strategies was associated with relational improvement. This finding is consistent with other research that shows that open and direct communication about conflict issues can be beneficial for relationships (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006). In other words, boundary turbulence presents a learning opportunity to improve relational functioning, as long as discussions about the violation are handled in an integrative way.

Limitations

The results of this study need to be interpreted in light of the limitations. First, because this was a retrospective survey, responses may be influenced by a recall bias. Unfortunately, we are unable to examine how the length of time since the incident occurred impacted other variables because this was not measured in the survey. Second, although appraisal theories predict that people’s emotions shape their actions, we used a cross-sectional design and are not able to determine the order of emotions and communication. It is possible that people might use behaviors in sequence, such as first distancing themselves from violators and then approaching them. Third, although the study was confidential, it was not anonymous. Given the sensitive nature of private information, this may have influenced the details people provided about the boundary turbulence experience. Finally, despite our efforts to recruit a diverse sample, there were approximately 72% female participants. This may have affected the emotional responses reported, because women tend to report feeling more intensely hurt than men (e.g., Miller & Roloff, 2005). Future research utilizing more of an equal sample could attempt to replicate the results of the current study to corroborate the findings.

Conclusions

This study is the first to our knowledge that examined how emotions and communicative responses to boundary turbulence are associated with relationship consequences. We used a community sample of individuals reporting on times when another person mishandled their private information to test our predictions. Results showed that hurt, anger, fear, distancing, and a combination of anger and distributive responses all correspond with relational damage following an incident of boundary turbulence. On the other hand, anger and integrative responses are associated with relational improvement. Taken together, these results provide evidence that boundary turbulence does not have to be a negative experience and can actually result in improved relational functioning.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Afifi

T. A.

McManus

Steuber

K. R.

Coho

(2009). Verbal avoidance and dissatisfaction in intimate conflict situations. Human Communication Research, 35, 357–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01355.x

Afifi

T. D.

(2003). “Feeling caught” in stepfamilies: Managing boundary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 20, 729–755.

Afifi

T. D.

Schrodt

(2003). “Feeling caught” as a mediator of adolescents’ and young adults’ avoidance and satisfaction with their parents in divorced and non-divorced households. Communication Monographs, 70, 142–173.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen

M. W.

Coopman

S. J.

Hart

J. L.

Walker

K. L.

(2007). Workplace surveillance and managing privacy boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 172–200.

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.

Baxter

L. A.

Montgomery

B. M.

(1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buchanan

C. M.

Maccoby

E. E.

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008–1029.

10.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 735–747.

11.

Caughlin

J. P.

Vangelisti

A. L.

(2006). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. In Oetzel

J. G.

Ting-Toomey

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 129–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Child

Pearson

Petronio

(2009). Blogging, communication, and privacy management: Development of the blogging privacy management measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2079–2094.

13.

Child

Petronio

Agyeman-Badu

E. A.

Westermann

(2011). Blog scrubbing: Exploring triggers that change privacy rules. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2017–2027.

14.

Csoboth

C. T.

Birkás

Purebl

(2005). Living in fear of experiencing physical and sexual abuse is association with severe depressive symptomology among young women. Journal of Women’s Health, 14, 441–448.

15.

Dillard

J. P.

(1994). Rethinking the study of fear appeals: An emotional perspective. Communication Theory, 4, 205–323.

16.

Dillard

J. P.

Kinney

T. A.

Cruz

M. G.

(1996). Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships. Communication Monographs, 63, 105–130.

17.

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.

18.

Feeney

J. A.

(2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00114.x

19.

Frijda

N. H.

(1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.

20.

Frijda

N. H.

Kuipers

ter Schure

(1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.

21.

Gross

M. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 200–226.

22.

Golish

T. D.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2002). I'd rather not talk about it: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 78–106.

23.

Gottman

(1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15.

24.

Guerrero

L. K.

Andersen

P. A.

Jorgensen

P. F.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Eloy

S. V.

(1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270–304.

25.

Hawk

S. T.

Keijsers

Hale

W. W.

Meeus

(2009). Mind your own business! Longitudinal relations between perceived privacy invasion and adolescent–parent conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 511–520.

26.

Hunter

J. E.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 267–320). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

27.

Knobloch

L. K.

Solomon

D. H.

(2003). Responses to changes in relational uncertainty within dating relationships: Emotions and communication strategies. Communication Studies, 54, 282–305.

28.

Krokoff

L. J.

(1991). Communication orientation as a moderator between strong negative affect and marital satisfaction. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 51–65.

29.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 352–367.

30.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

31.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

32.

Leary

M. R.

Springer

(2001). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In Kowalski

R. M.

(Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10365-006

33.

Leary

M. R.

Springer

Negel

Ansell

Evans

(1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237.

34.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

(2010). Appraisal and distancing responses to hurtful messages II: A diary study of dating partners and friends. Communication Research Reports, 27, 193–206.

35.

Miller

C. W.

Roloff

M. E.

(2005). Gender and willingness to confront hurtful messages from romantic partners. Communication Quarterly, 53, 323–337.

36.

Oatley

(1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

38.

Petronio

(2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 175–196.

39.

Petronio

Caughlin

(2006). Communication privacy management theory: Understanding families. In Braithwaite

Baxter

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (pp. 35–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Petronio

Jones

(2006). When “friendly advice” becomes a privacy dilemma for pregnant couples. In Turner

L. H.

West

R. L.

(Eds.), The family communication sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

41.

Petronio

Sargent

(2011). Disclosure predicaments arising during the course of patient care: Nurses’ privacy management. Health Communication, 26, 255–266.

42.

Petronio

Sargent

Andea

Reganis

Cichocki

(2004). Family and friends as healthcare advocates: Dilemmas of confidentiality and privacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 33–52.

43.

Roloff

M. E.

Ifert

D. E.

(2000). Conflict management through avoidance: Withholding complaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In Petronio

(Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 151–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Roseman

I. J.

Smith

C. A.

(2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University.

45.

Shaver

Schwartz

Kirson

O’Connor

(1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.

46.

Sillars

Canary

D. J.

Tafoya

(2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of family relationships. In Vangelisti

A. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 413–446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

47.

Smith

C. A.

Kirby

L. D.

(2001). Affect and cognitive appraisal: From content to process models. In Forgas

(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 75–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

48.

Snyder

J. L.

Cornetto

K. M.

(2009). Employee perceptions of e-mail monitoring from a boundary management perspective. Communication Studies, 60, 476–492.

49.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Canary

D. J.

Cupach

W. R.

(1994). A competence-based approach to the study of interpersonal conflict. In Cahn

D. D.

(Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 183–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2012). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and privacy boundary turbulence: Explaining spousal discrepancies in infertility disclosures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 3–27.

51.

Stiles

W. B.

(1987). “I have to talk to somebody”: A fever model of disclosure. In Derlega

V. J.

Berg

J. H.

(Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 257–282). New York: Plenum Press.

52.

Tavris

(1984). On the wisdom of counting to ten: Personal and social dangers of anger expression. In Shaver

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 170–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

53.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Crumley

L. P.

(1998). Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs, 65, 173–196.

54.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Young

S. L.

(2000). When words hurt: The effect of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 393–424.

55.

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

56.

Witte

(1998). Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Andersen

P. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 423–450). New York, NY: Academic.