Interpersonal Transgressions

Perhaps fewer situations require strategic conflict management more than when someone commits a transgression against a partner. Transgressions can cause con­flict even though not all conflict involves transgressions (Metts, 1994).

The Nature of Transgressions

Transgressions refer to behaviors that disrupt the stability of a relationship because they violate rules for appropriate relationship conduct (Metts, 1994). These rules can be either implicit or explicit; both types assume that people in a relation­ship have some degree of understanding of the purpose and activities of their relationship (Roloff & Cloven, 1994). Metts added that rules fall into two cat­egories. Social rules are rather general, but they still prescribe choices related to behavior, attributions, and interpretations of a partner’s behavior. Violations of these prescriptive rules often lead to negative consequences for the rule violator (e.g., interrupting, yelling obscenities, mocking a person). Relationship rules con­nect more specifically to rules adopted within a specific relationship (e.g., rules regarding monogamy, schedules, etc.). Partners develop these rules as part of the ongoing process of developing their relationship.

Serious violations of rules can lead to the end of the relationship even the first time they occur (Roloff & Cloven, 1994), whereas less serious violations can be handled in ways that save and perhaps solidify the relationship.

Types of Transgressions

Transgressions exist on a continuum from annoying (e.g., your son lying about not having an extra scoop of ice cream) to those serious enough to threaten the existence of the relationship (e.g., your partner lying about not going out with a former lover) (Jones, Moore, Schratter, & Negel, 2001). They can be actions that people do that are blameworthy (e.g., drinking and driving) or a lack of action that needed to be done (e.g., forgetting your mother’s birthday) (Metts, 1994). Transgressions can be intentional or unintentional. Following the ideas of attribution theory (Chapter 9), intentional transgressions are perceived as more negative (Emmers-Sommer, 2003), and the victim’s perception of negativity is greater than the perpetrator’s (Kowalski, Walker, Wilkenson, Queen, & Sharpe, 2003). Metts (1994) adds that intentional transgressions are frequently committed as efforts to end the relationship. In romantic involvements, the most frequently identified transgressions are sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, and deception. In all close relationships rejection, hurt, jealousy, and betrayal are also common types, with infidelity and betrayal being the most devastating in romantic involve­ments (Jones et al., 2001; Emmers & Canary, 1996).

In response to the related term unfaithfulness, Metts (1994) found that trans­gressions included violating a confidence, violating the privacy of the relationship, forgetting or changing plans, forgetting special occasions, emotional attachment to a former partner, having sex with a former partner, not reciprocating statements of affection, lack of trust, breaking a significant promise, physical abuse, lack of support in times of need, unfair comparison with former relationship.

Consequences of Transgressions

Violations of both social and relational rules lead to a variety of consequences for the relationship. Transgressions have such negative effects on relationships because they are perceived as devaluing the relationship; victims feel that the transgressors no longer value them and/or the relationships as they had previ­ously. Transgressions such as betrayal, deception, and infidelity violate the expec­tations for continued trust and commitment (Jones et al., 2001). Betrayals also upset the power balance in a relationship and consequently cause “victims” to feel less powerful and to think that the “perpetrators” have put themselves much higher than the partner and their valued association. Victims then respond in ways designed to restore the power balance (Fitness, 2001).

When people experience transgressions, they react in a variety of ways. Guer­rero and Andersen (1998) found the following communicative responses to jealousy in the perception of unfaithfulness:

• distributive communication: all four of direct fighting categories;

• active distancing: both of the indirect fighting categories;

• counter jealousy: trying to make the other person jealous in return;

• guilt induction: making the partner feel low for the transgression;

• violence toward the transgressor, hitting, shoving, and more severe acts of vio­lence, such as threatening with a weapon, using a weapon; and

• violence toward objects: punching a wall, throwing things.

In addition to the above reactions to transgressions, people might offer accounts or excuses, justifications, denial, refusal, and concessions (including full apologies) for their behavior. We cover accounts for various types of transgression in the fol­lowing chapters. At this point, we indicate that generally admissions of wrongdo­ing, promises not to engage in the transgression again, and offers of remediation are much more effective than denial of the transgression, refusal of the partner to confront us, and weak excuses that the transgression was out of the perpetrator’s control (e.g., “I was drunk, so I didn’t know that I slept with her. Besides you are the one I love”).

If we experience anger toward the transgressor, we are likely to confront him or her (Fitness, 2001); because of our righteous indignation we want to seek revenge (Fincham & Beach, 2002). People sometimes believe that revenge will help restore the power balance that has shifted in the direction of the transgres­sor (Fitness, 2001). If people experience hate, they tend to withdraw in order to avoid interaction with the perpetrator. The third reaction, jealousy, is more com­plex and can lead to fear of losing the partner, depression, and/or anger (Guerrero & LaValley, 2006).

Hoyt and colleagues (2005) view transgression responses similarly but from a perspective grounded in understandings of forgiveness. They relate victims’ responses to three interpersonal motivations that reflect three motivations of for­giveness. They label these motivations as increased motivation to avoid the per­petrators, increased motivation to avenge the hurt, and decreased goodwill or less motivation to be benevolent toward perpetrators. The greater these motivations, the less likely victims are to forgive the transgression.

Whatever their reactions, victims of transgressions feel increased vulnerabil­ity (Vangelisti, 2001). Victims find themselves watching the relationship partner more closely because they fear future transgressions (Jones et al., 2001).

Using an alternative approach, Roloff and Cloven (1994) consider dealing with transgressions from the perspective of relationship maintenance, which they define as “the individual or joint approaches intimates take to limit the relational harm that may result from prior or future conflicts and transgressions” (p. 27). They present five strategies people can use to deal with transgressions in close relationships. First, people can engage in retribution by punishing the perpetrator. Second, reformulation allows victims to change their understanding of the rules of the relationship so that the behavior is no longer seen as a transgression. Third, prevention involves taking action to stop future violations of the broken rule. Fourth, people can minimize the behavior so they see the behavior differently by eliminating the negative parts. Finally, they can use relational justification to focus on reasons they have for staying in the relationship. Using relational justification shifts people’s attention from the transgression to the benefits they perceive they gain from the relationship. These strategies might change the behavior of the per­petrator so transgressions become less hurtful and likely in the future.

Interpersonal transgressions lead to conflict that involves hurt feelings, resent­ment, and attributions of blame (Hoyt et al., 2005). How victims react to trans­gressions affects how the conflict progresses. If victims feel hurt and angry, they may seek revenge. If they pursue this action, their behavior then turns the perpe­trator into a victim.

Victims do not react in a vacuum, however; the transgressor’s actions after the transgression can also affect the future of the relationship. Transgressors can experience guilt, especially if the transgression affects their partners in ways that threaten vital emotional bonds (Jones et al., 1995). Transgressors who uninten­tionally hurt their partners tend to experience more guilt than those who have greater intention (Mongeau & Hale, 1990). Guilt and remorse may then lead to apologies, to convey regret, help manage the situation, and lead to forgiveness by the victim (Fitness, 2001; see also Chapter 15). Sincere apologies might help because they convey regret, help control the partners’ attributions of intent and cause, and demonstrate concern for the future (Metts, 1994).

Types of communication transgressors use to seek forgiveness also affect how the victims view the relationship after a transgression (see Chapter 15). Kelley and Waldron (2005) identified five types. We list them here.

• First, explicit acknowledgement includes apology and statements of remorse. These statements convey that the victim has no responsibility for what occurred and may legitimize victims’ initial negative responses. This type of communication is used extensively.

• Nonverbal assurances: these behaviors help convey the sincerity of the perpe­trators’ regret and are also used extensively.

• Explanation, the third type of communication, is used to reduce uncertainty and to help victims make sense of what occurred.

• Compensation refers to efforts that involve persistence, efforts by the trans­gressors to follow the requests of the victims, and the use of resources to somehow “pay back” the victims. These behaviors provide the type of effort victims may need to see to believe the perpetrators’ statements of remorse and to believe they want to save the relationship.

• Humor, the fifth type, was not reported very often. Although humorous comments may have some effect to lighten the mood and help reframe the transgression, they may also be viewed as a failure to acknowledge fully the seriousness of what occurred.

Kelley and Waldron conclude that these types of communication affect what happens after a transgression. Also, transgressors react differently depending on the type of transgression they committed. If transgressors violate a social rule, they more likely experience embarrassment; if they violate a relational rule, they more likely experience guilt. If transgressors experience embarrassment, they then need to take steps to repair their own face. If, however, they experience guilt, they need to repair the face of their partners and their relationships (Emmers-Sommer, 2003).

Peoples’ efforts to manage transgressions, however, are affected by their per­ceptions of what happened (Chapter 9). Both victims and perpetrators present biased, self-serving interpretations of what occurred (Kearns & Fincham, 2005). Not surprisingly, perpetrators tend to downplay their responsibility and to see their behavior as caused by factors that are external to elements of their personality (e.g., unreliable, a sleeze). Conversely, victims, tend to exaggerate the severity of the transgression and indicate not understanding the perpetrators’ motives (Kearns & Fincham, 2005). Additionally, perpetrators tend to justify their behavior, over­look the negative effects on their victims, view themselves more positively than does the victim, and see their relationship as suffering less damage (Cameron, Ross, & Holmes, 2002).

Transgressions do not automatically destroy relationships; people can limit the damage and decide to repair the harm done to the relationship. If a victim’s initial reaction involves hurt and detachment, then time, the behavior of the transgres­sors, and effort by both people can lead to repair rather than termination. Of course, an important factor concerns the victim’s commitment to the relationship. Ifvictims are generally satisfied and committed to the relationship, they will inter­pret the behavior in the most positive way possible under the circumstances; the transgression becomes the impetus to become more mindful of their relationship and of their desire to remain in it (Roloff, Soule, & Carey, 2001). Additionally, the violation of an implicit rule may lead to discussion that reveals that the two people had different expectations regarding that part of the relationship. There­fore, the partners can discuss, reevaluate the legitimacy and importance of the rule, and then state the rule explicitly in a way that reflects their reconsideration of it (Metts, 1994).

Paramount in managing transgressions is whether one forgives the perpetra­tor (see Chapter 15 for a more developed discussion of forgiveness). The desire to forgive is most often the opposite of one’s initial response to a transgression. People’s first reaction is to punish the transgressor and to reinforce the rules of the relationship; forgiveness, in contrast, releases the desire for revenge and allows the victim to heal and move on. The desire to forgive is related to one’s level of commitment, the victim’s desire to continue in the relationship. High levels of commitment influence people to forgive to maintain what they have and value (Finkel et al., 2002).

Forgiveness connects to characteristics of the transgression, primarily the type and the severity (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Waldron and Kelley identified several types of forgiveness. Conditional forgiveness concerns how victims set conditions under which they will forgive the perpetrator and work to rebuild damaged trust and respect. This response, though, often reflects a weakened relationship; people possibly choose this response to temporarily salvage a relationship even though complete repair does not appear likely.

Waldron and Kelley also identified four other types of forgiveness messages. Explicit statements of forgiveness are the most obvious (“Do not worry about this—I forgive you”). Discussion of the transgression is not a form of forgiveness, but it helps lay the groundwork for future forgiveness once victims understand more what happened (“I understand that you did not know I am committed to you. If we are going anywhere, then we need to make a commitment [to each other] now”).

In an indirect manner, people can convey their forgiveness. Minimizing mes­sages represents attempts to reduce the impact of the transgression (“I know you were drunk, and that’s why you hurt me”). Finally, people can engage in non­verbal forgiveness, through head nods, eye contact and other behaviors. Be aware that nonverbal communication of forgiveness is the least direct and most ambigu­ous (Waldron & Kelley, 2005).

Conclusion 5.1: People tolerate a partner’s transgression to the extent they are com­mitted to the relationship.

Conclusion 5.2: Direct communication of transgressions include explicit statements, discussion of what occurred, and conditional forgiveness; minimizing the severity of the transgressions and nonverbal signs of forgiveness are indirect forms of forgiveness communication.

Suggestion 5.1: To the extent the relationship is important to you, clarify what you think are severe transgressions.

Suggestion 5.2: Decide to forgive or not to forgive. If you forgive, then express your forgiveness directly and clearly, negotiate future behaviors, and reduce rumination as much as possible.