Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

After exploring the types of hurtful messages that exist, Anita Vangelisti and Linda Crumley investigated
the reactions individuals have to hurtful messages. 25 The results of Vangelisti’s and Crumley’s
investigation revealed three broad categories of reactions: active verbal responses, acquiescent responses,
and invulnerable responses.
Active verbal responses involve attacking the other, defending the self, and asking for an explanation.
Suppose that you and a romantic partner go to friends for dinner. Upon entering the home, you take
off your shoes. Your romantic partner poses a hurtful question, such as “what is wrong with you? What
kind of guest takes off their shoes?” An active verbal response that attacks the other is “nothing is wrong
with me. What’s wrong with you, you idiot? Everybody knows wearing street shoes bring in germs and
allergens.” Alternatively, one might respond by saying, “nothing is wrong with me. It is perfectly normal
to take one’s shoes off when entering another person’s home.” Finally, one might ask for an explanation,
such as “Why do you think there is something wrong with me?”
Acquiescent responses involve crying, conceding, or apologizing. This type of response demonstrates
that the message is hurtful or that the recipient believes they have engaged in some wrongdoing. For
example, if a friend says, “I never want to see you again,” a conceding response might be, “that’s fine. I
won’t bother you anymore.” Alternatively, an apologetic response is, “I am so sorry. Is there something I
can do to change your mind?”
Finally, hurtful messages can result in invulnerable responses. We have all heard the phrase “sticks
and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.” This phrase, while not true, does
demonstrate a desire to demonstrate invulnerability. Reactions of invulnerability range from ignoring the
message to laughing. Recall the example from the directive message earlier in which one of the coauthors
was told not to call the boyfriend’s house. Although the coauthor felt that the message was disrespectful,
the response was to laugh. The boyfriend was told that his “directive” was ridiculous and that if she was
going to be used as an excuse, then he should be smart enough to let her in on that little secret unless he
was lying to her, too.
Key Takeaways
• Because it is considered taboo to ask one’s relational partner about the nature of
the relationship, one or both relational partners may use secret tests.
• Inherent characteristics of the Internet may facilitate infidelity.
• Emotional infidelity is particularly challenging because relationship partners may
not agree on what constitutes infidelity.
• Hurtful messages are a part of the human experience, but they can be avoided by
becoming aware of the types of messages that exist.
Exercises
• Review the types of secret tests. For each type, provide an example from your own
life in which you have engaged in the secret test or observed a friend doing so. For
each example, state whether you believe the secret test was helpful or harmful and
why.
507
Interpersonal Communication