(1.5-2.5 pages) summary of a published article
abdulmajeed M alotaibi
2008_2.pdf
This article was downloaded by: [Southeast Missouri State University] On: 06 April 2014, At: 17:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Monographs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20
The Creation of Defensiveness in Social Interaction II: A Model of Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples Jennifer A. H. Becker , Barbara Ellevold & Glen H. Stamp Published online: 25 Mar 2008.
To cite this article: Jennifer A. H. Becker , Barbara Ellevold & Glen H. Stamp (2008) The Creation of Defensiveness in Social Interaction II: A Model of Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples, Communication Monographs, 75:1, 86-110, DOI: 10.1080/03637750701885415
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750701885415
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
The Creation of Defensiveness in Social Interaction II: A Model of Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples Jennifer A. H. Becker, Barbara Ellevold, & Glen H. Stamp
This investigation extends the work of Stamp, Vangelisti, and Daly (1992) and others by
explicating the multifaceted process of defensive communication among romantic
couples. Qualitative data were derived from self-reports about a distinct episode of
defensive communication in individual interviews, as well as direct analysis of couples’
communication in joint interviews. The proposed theoretical model reflects a more
comprehensive, holistic, and precise framework that accounts for the triggers, core
episode, outcomes, and contexts of defensive communication. The detailed model, which
draws attention to interactive and person-centered features of defensive communication,
is illustrated through the narrative account of one couple. Eleven data-based postulates
are offered to fuel and focus subsequent investigations.
Keywords: Defensive Communication; Grounded Theory; Romantic Couples
Defensive communication is common, if not pervasive, and can stimulate pivotal and
potentially devastating events for individuals and relationships (Stamp, Vangelisti, &
Daly, 1992). Partners engaged in a defensive communication episode feel increased
sensitivity (Stamp et al., 1992) and more readily engage in conflict (Gottman, 1993).
Noting the tendency to reciprocate defensiveness, Baker (1980) stated, ‘‘Defensiveness
Jennifer A. H. Becker (PhD, University of Oklahoma) is a Lecturer in the Department of Communication and
Journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Barbara Ellevold (MS, Illinois State University) is a
doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Glen H.
Stamp (PhD, University of Texas-Austin) is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies
at Ball State University. A previous version of this manuscript was presented to the Interpersonal
Communication Division for the annual meeting of the National Communication Association in Chicago,
November 14�17, 2007. Correspondence to: Jennifer A. H. Becker, 3836 Lever, Eau Claire, WI 54701. Tel: 1-715- 514-0991; E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 0363-7751 (print)/ISSN 1479-5787 (online) # 2008 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03637750701885415
Communication Monographs
Vol. 75, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 86�110
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
becomes a phenomenon readily observable by others and they, sensing defensiveness,
often react in a like manner. The communicators thus become involved in a
destructive, self-perpetuating cycle’’ (p. 36). Moreover, as the frequency and duration
of defensive communication increases over time, partners may be unable to reverse
destructive cycles. Defensive communication can negatively influence relational affect
(Jaderlund & Waldron, 1994; Stamp et al., 1992) and relational quality and
satisfaction (Gottman, 1993; Knee, Lonsbary, Canevello, & Patrick, 2005). Addition-
ally, Gottman (1993, 1994) has shown that defensiveness is one of the ‘‘four horsemen
of the apocalypse’’ heralding the end of marital relationships. Given the many and
varied damages wreaked by defensive communication, communication theorists and
practitioners alike would do well to better understand these dynamics.
Stamp et al. (1992) investigated the experience of defensiveness in interpersonal
interactions and developed a four-pronged model of defensiveness and a correspond-
ing 27-item scale. Stamp et al.’s four-pronged model of defensiveness specifies the
components or dimensions of defensiveness. However, researchers have yet to explore
the nature of the components themselves, as well as interrelationships among the
components. Stamp et al. and other investigations (e.g., Becker, Halbesleben, &
O’Hair, 2005) have used quantitative methods that do not afford insight into
personal experiences and understandings of defensive communication. Qualitative
methods are ideal for evoking a rich, detailed picture that characterizes the
phenomenon under investigation in a comprehensive, holistic, and meaningful
manner. Additionally, concept explication can yield greater precision in the definition
of concepts, such as the components of defensiveness, and it ‘‘can strengthen the ties
among theory, observation, and research,’’ producing fuller and more valid under-
standing of the phenomenon (Chaffee, 1991, p. 2). Given the importance of defensive
communication and the value of theory and model explication, a qualitative
investigation that further explores the four-pronged model of defensiveness is
warranted. Therefore, this study seeks to understand the process of defensive
communication in romantic relationships.
According to Stamp et al.’s (1992) model, defensive communication involves a self-
perceived flaw that an individual refuses to admit to another person, a sensitivity to
that flaw, and an attack by another person that focuses on the flaw. Defensiveness is
elicited by, and expressed through, communication, as ‘‘it cannot occur in the
absence of social interaction’’ (p. 177). Stamp et al. argued that their model, unlike
previous work, captures how defensiveness is communicatively generated and
manifested. Through a review of past empirical research and theory, their model
integrates features of psychodynamic theory and Gibb’s (1961) defensive climate
conceptualization.
The origin of psychodynamic theory usually is credited to Freud (1914/1957), who
believed that unconscious forces, or defense mechanisms, motivate people to reduce
anxiety or guilt. Psychodynamic theorists conceptualize defensiveness as a trait-based
tendency to protect one’s self from threat. For example, Nelson and Horowitz (2001)
found that compared to nondefensive participants, defensive participants were less
competent in recounting sad memories. Nelson and Horowitz argued that defensive
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 87
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
individuals utilize an ‘‘automatic self-protective cognitive maneuver by which
individuals can comply with a task demand to ‘tell about’ an unpleasant memory
without ‘reliving it’’’ (p. 307). Moreover, psychodynamic theorists often examine how
defensiveness is related to other elements of personality. For example, defensiveness is
linked to attachment style, with insecurely attached individuals more defensive than
those who are securely attached (Dankowski, 2001; Leak & Parsons, 2001).
Communication scholars have also utilized a conceptualization that privileges the
psychological aspects of defensiveness. For example, Futch and Edwards (1999)
examined the effects of defensiveness, sense of humor, and gender on the
interpretation of ambiguous messages.
The majority of research elucidating the concepts of self-perceived flaw and
sensitivity to that flaw has focused on defense mechanisms (e.g., Cramer, 1988) and
strategies to protect the self (e.g., Waln, 1982) to the neglect of examinations of the
nature of the self-perceived flaw about which one is sensitive. Baker (1980) hinted
that self-perceived flaws may reflect fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudes, and
that sensitivity is heightened by fear of changing and the perceived importance of the
flaw under scrutiny. Gordon (1988) argued that defensiveness is characterized by
tension, discomfort, accelerated physiological reactions, feeling gripped by the
situation, a desire to lash out, feeling of estrangement, and mental confusion. These
feelings may be associated with sensitivity to the self-perceived flaw. Research is
needed to clarify the nature and relationship of the self-perceived flaw and sensitivity
components of Stamp et al.’s (1992) model.
The other dominant strand of research, initially developed by Gibb (1961), suggests
that defensiveness ‘‘is a response to threat-evoking communication which attacks and
identifies a flaw within the other’’ (Stamp et al., 1992, p. 180). From this perspective,
defensiveness embodies an individual’s state (Alexander, 1973; Rozema, 1986), and is
defined as ‘‘behavior that occurs when an individual perceives threat or anticipates
threat in the group’’ (Gibb, 1961, p. 141). A defensive ‘‘climate’’ is characterized by
‘‘defensive communicators [who] send off multiple value, motive, and affect cues, but
also . . . distort what they receive’’ (p. 142). Gibb articulated six two-dimensional categories reflective of defensive and supportive climates. Respectively, these categories
are: (a) evaluative versus descriptive communication, (b) control versus problem
orientation, (c) strategic versus spontaneous communication, (d) neutrality versus
empathy, (e) superiority versus equality, and (f ) certainty versus provisionalism.
Gibb’s (1961) work has influenced subsequent research focused on interactional
elements of defensive communication. In an investigation of family systems,
Alexander (1973) found that sons’ aggression is positively related to mothers’
defensiveness. Rozema (1986) found that defensiveness is associated with parent and
child reluctance to discuss sexually related issues. Eadie’s (1982) findings supported
Gibb’s postulates that strategic communication evokes defensiveness and that
successful persuasion ‘‘shift[s] the climate in a supportive direction’’ (p. 163).
Compared to the other components of defensiveness, as articulated by Stamp et al.
(1992), attack has received considerable theoretical and empirical investigation.
Many researchers (e.g., Barton, Alexander, & Turner, 1988; Robbins, Alexander, &
88 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Turner, 2000; Waldron, Turner, Alexander, & Barton, 1993) have employed Gibb’s six
categories to explicate the forms of attack. Additionally, Barton et al. (1988) reported
that competitive contexts induce defensiveness, particularly among families with
delinquent youth. Robbins et al. (2000) described defensive statements as reflecting
criticism, blame, and disagreement. Gottman (1994) argued that defensiveness
communicates denial of responsibility or blame. According to Gottman, ‘‘yes-but’’
statements, cross-complaining, rubber man/woman, and countercriticism/counter-
attack are manifestations of defensiveness. However, he considers initial criticism/
attack and defensiveness as independent components in his cascade model of
relationship dissolution. Clearly, more research is needed to define the attack
component with greater precision and to link it to other components of Stamp et al.’s
model.
Finally, little research has investigated the component of other-perceived flaw.
Research related to other-perceived flaw shows that defensive communication by an
individual facilitates defensive communication by a spouse (Gottman, 1994) and
family members (Robbins et al., 2000). However, detailed investigations of how
others’ recognition of one’s flaw is associated with attack and other components of
defensiveness are lacking.
Psychodynamic theory and Gibb’s (1961) work offer unique perspectives on
defensiveness. Through an integration of two seemingly opposed bodies of literature,
Stamp et al.’s (1992) model provides parsimony to the conceptualization of
defensiveness. Drawing upon psychodynamic theory, Stamp et al.’s model includes
the components of a self-perceived flaw about which an individual is self-protective
due to a sensitivity about that flaw. However, previous work has neglected
examination of the nature of the self-perceived flaw about which one is sensitive.
Reflecting upon Gibb’s work, Stamp et al.’s model includes the components of an
attack by another person who perceives and focuses on that flaw. Past research has not
investigated how to best conceptualize the attack component, how it is linked to
other components of defensive communication, and how other-perceived flaw is
manifested in defensive communication. Therefore, this study was aimed at
elucidating the components of defensive communication and how these components
work together.
RQ1: What are the components of defensive communication?
RQ2: How do the components of defensive communication operate together?
Though heuristic, previous literature does not capture the type of detail and
nuance that is necessary for a comprehensive view of the experience and expression of
defensiveness, nor a precise understanding of its constituent components. This study
explored the complex process of defensive communication, as reflected by the
understandings and perspectives of romantic partners and from direct analysis of
romantic partners’ communication with each other. In particular, this study was
designed to explicate the multiple components of defensive communication in
greater detail.
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 89
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
RQ3: What are the contextual conditions of defensive communication? RQ4: What triggers defensive communication? RQ5: What are the features of the core (or peak) of defensive communication? RQ6: What are the outcomes of defensive communication?
The ultimate goal of this study was to develop a more holistic and sophisticated
model of the process of defensive communication.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited through the university setting as well as networking
within the community. Approximately 50 participants completed a screening survey
about a naturally-occurring conversation in which they became defensive. The
screening survey was used to identify individuals who had recently experienced highly
defensive communication with their dating or marital partner and were willing to be
interviewed about it with their partner. From these screening surveys, participants
who were sufficiently defensive were contacted for interviews. Ten romantically
involved heterosexual couples participated in in-depth interviews. Five of these
couples were in serious dating relationships; the other five were married. A total of 30
interviews were conducted: 10 individual interviews with males, 10 individual
interviews with females, and 10 joint interviews with couples. The individual and
joint interviews averaged 20 minutes in length.
The length of dating couples’ relationships ranged from 6 to 48 months (M�26.1, SD�19.2), whereas the length of married couples’ relationships ranged from 15 to 78 months (M�42.0, SD�23.6). The men ranged from 19 to 31 years (M�23.9, SD�4.2) while the women ranged from 18 to 27 years (M�21.1, SD�2.6). The sample included seven white couples, one Korean married couple, one African-
American dating couple, and one married couple with an African man and a white
woman. Of the men, one held a high school diploma, four were college students, two
held college degrees, one held a graduate degree, and two had dropped out of college.
Of the women, one held a high school diploma, seven were college students, and two
held college degrees.
Instruments
Screening survey. Two open-ended questions directed participants to describe in
detail a conversation in which they had become defensive, and then to write out the
conversation in a script format (i.e., he/she said . . . I said . . .). Furthermore, the 27- item instrument developed by Stamp et al. (1992) was employed to measure the
intensity of defensive communication. From the open-ended questions and 27-item
scale, the researchers identified participants whose responses indicated that they were
highly defensive in a conversation with their romantic partner. The researchers
recruited these participants and their partners to participate in in-depth interviews.
Interview schedules. Two slightly different interview schedules were developed: one
for the individual interview and one for the couple interview. This technique has
90 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
been used by Stamp (1994), who outlined three reasons he obtained interview data
from both the individual and couple: ‘‘First, the individual interviews could be
compared and contrasted with one another. Second, individual interviews allowed
respondents the opportunity to talk about their individual experiences. Third, couple
interviews provided the opportunity to collect ‘interactional data’’’ (p. 92).
Consistent with Institutional Review Board (IRB) regulations, participants were
informed they might experience slight discomfort when discussing a past defensive
communication episode, but such discomfort would probably be no greater than what
they would experience in normal daily life. They were also informed that they could
discontinue participation at any time without penalty. To encourage trust and candid
self-disclosure, the interviewer tried to minimize threat by conveying sensitivity,
openness, and respect (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Additionally, the interviewer
conveyed that her interest in defensive communication was like that of a student, one
who wanted to learn from the experts (i.e., interviewees) in the matter at hand.
The interview schedules were active (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) and semi-
structured (Hermanowicz, 2002) to encourage participants to reveal data necessary to
answer the research questions. To begin, participants described the evolution of their
relationship and their perspective regarding the conversation in which at least one
member of the couple became defensive (as reported on the screening survey). For
example, in both types of interviews, participants were asked, ‘‘Please describe what
happened in that conversation in as much detail as possible. Tell it like a story, and
start at the beginning.’’ Depending upon the completeness of participants’ responses,
follow-up probes included, ‘‘What led up to the interaction? Was this a recurring
theme? Why did you/your partner become defensive? What was it about the
situation/topic that provoked defensiveness? How did you feel during this situation?’’
Additional questions were designed to probe as to how the four dimensions of
defensive communication (self-perceived flaw, sensitivity, attack, and other-perceived
flaw) documented by Stamp et al. (1992) were manifested, if at all, in participants’
conversation. To provide closure, interviews concluded with a question about how
the issue discussed in the conversation was resolved.
Analysis of the Data
All of the interviews were transcribed with the cumulative length of the 30 interviews
totaling 108 single-spaced pages. The researchers then employed a qualitative
thematic analytic procedure which was influenced, in part, by the grounded theory
approach (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Although traditional approaches to grounded theory have advocated that
categories and theory objectively emerge from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),
more recent formulations (re)envision qualitative research in ways that allow for the
use of extant theory in data analysis, the position of the analyst in shaping the
themes, as well as privileging the voice of both researcher and participant. For
example, Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000) promote a reflexive methodology involving
‘‘a well reasoned logic in interacting with the empirical material [with] rigorous
techniques for processing the data’’ (p. 7) while realizing that ‘‘method cannot be
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 91
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
disengaged from theory and other elements of pre-understanding’’ (p. 8). The current
study builds upon preexisting theoretical work by Stamp et al. (1992). Using Stamp
et al.’s framework as a starting point, the analysis of the data allowed for the inductive
development and reformulation of categories and the refinement of a theoretical
model of defensive communication. In addition, the research was dialogic (Bakhtin,
1981), involving mutuality of voice from both participant and researcher. Like Frank
(2005), the researchers’ intent in this investigation was ‘‘to offer an account of how
researcher and participant came together in some shared time and space’’ (p. 968) in
order to advance knowledge about defensive communication.
The researchers began analysis of the data by carefully and repeatedly reading and
listening to the interviews. They relied upon the individual interview data to analyze
participants’ personal experiences and understandings of an episode of defensive
communication with their romantic partner. Although the joint interview data was
useful in revealing participants’ insights, the researchers also relied upon the joint
interview data for direct examination of defensive communication between the
romantic partners. Through the procedure of open coding, the researchers
conceptualized and developed categories that grouped, labeled, and summarized
particular acts of communication in the data. Specifically, each researcher prepared
analytical memos to capture insights and reflections. They shared and discussed these
analytical memos with each other and compared them to the data. They developed a
coding manual with thick descriptions of the categories, as well as examples of the
categories from each interview. Thus, throughout open coding, the researchers
systematically compared and contrasted categories, and with attention to how well
data supported or refuted categories, they continually refined them. They were
particularly mindful of how to best represent the components of defensive
communication, as well as what contributed to, and resulted from, defensive
communication, and the context of defensive communication. Finally, through the
procedure of axial coding, the researchers worked on making coherent and sensible
connections between these categories, which became the key concepts in an enlarged
theoretical model of defensive communication. They used negative cases to search for
other plausible explanations and, in some cases, debunk tentative conclusions.
Diagramming relationships between the data was using in achieving visual and
conceptual clarity.
The researchers were satisfied with the model when they reached theoretical
saturation (e.g., the category structure was stable) and each category could be
supported with multiple exemplars. Cresswell (1997) described eight procedures for
verifying the soundness of qualitative research claims, and he recommended that
researchers employ at least two procedures. In this study, the researchers used four of
Cresswell’s procedures to ensure credibility of the final model: triangulation (i.e.,
triangulation of investigators and data*self-report and direct observation of interaction), negative case analysis, self reflexivity and theoretical sensitivity, and
thick description.
92 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Findings
The theoretical model is visually depicted in Figure 1. The figure reflects the main
components involved in defensive communication among romantic dyads (queried
in RQ1). The figure also represents the general processual movement and
interrelationships among model components (queried in RQ2). Essentially, the
figure represents the triggers, core, outcomes, and context of defensive communica-
tion, and therefore is a parsimonious visual depiction of the model. The complete
theoretical model contains a number of additional densely interrelated subcategories,
which will be explained further in the text that follows.
The new theoretical model is a more comprehensive yet precise expansion and
explication of Stamp et al.’s (1992) model. Similar to Stamp et al.’s model, the model
includes the categories of sensitivity and other-perceived flaw. Additionally, the model
includes the categories of perception of flaw central to the self, which is an extension of
Stamp et al.’s category of self-perceived flaw, and threat, which incorporates Stamp et
al.’s category of attack as well as additional subcategories. The model contributes to
the literature in four ways: (a) It presents a holistic framework that summarizes the
context and events that precede and follow defensive communication, (b) it presents
detailed and nuanced descriptions of the multiple events that comprise defensive
communication, (c) it highlights the processual and fluid nature among the events
that comprise defensive communication, and (d) it draws attention to both
interactional and person-centered features of defensive communication. To understand
the process of defensive communication, each component of the model will be
explained in turn, beginning with an explication of the contexts that color romantic
partners’ communication. In addition, the narrative accounts of one of the married
couples, Emily and Andrew, are provided to illustrate a specific experience within the
parameters of the model.
Contexts of Defensive Communication
Context refers to the broader set of conditions in which the phenomenon occurs
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In response to RQ3, which asked about contextual
conditions, the data revealed that four contextual conditions underlie defensive
communication: perception of flaw central to self, situational difficulties, emotion,
and relational concerns.
Perception of flaw central to self. The first contextual condition that influenced
defensive communication was the perception of one or more flaws central to one’s
self. As Emily indicated, ‘‘The one who’s being defensive is usually the one who’s kind
of insecure about something’’ (10:I:W:127�128).1 The perception of one or more flaws central to the self often yields influence throughout the entire process of
defensive communication. Once romantic partners have entered a defensive
communication episode, the perception of flaws central to the self seems to
exacerbate sensitivity and reactions to perceived threats directed towards the self,
thus creating a context ripe for the perpetuation of defensive communication.
Although Stamp et al. (1992) claimed that self-perceived flaws are unacknowledged
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 93
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
A Theoretical Model of Defensive Communication
Contexts of Defensive Communication: Perception of Flaw Central to Self
Situational Difficulties Emotions : Dejection- and Agitation -Related
Relational Concerns : Identity and Uncertainty
Triggers of Defensive Communication: Lack of Supportive
Communication
Lack of communi-
cative sharing
Lack of communi-
cative warmth
Inattentive- ness
Core Defensive Communication
Episode
P2 communicates in a way that P1 perceives threat
from P2 (Threat)
P1 perceives that P2 views
a flaw in P1 (Other-Perceived
Flaw)
P1 becomes more sensitive about
flaw central to self (Sensitivity)
P1 communicates in a way that P2
perceives counter threat
from P1 (Threat)
P2 perceives that P1 views
a flaw in P2 (Other-Perceived
Flaw)
P2 becomes more sensitive about flaw central to
self (Sensitivity)
Apologetic communi-
cation
Partner- centered
preventative communi-
cation
Meta- communi-
cation
Avoidance
Outcomes of Defensive
Communication: Relational Repair
Strategies
P1 = first partner; P2 = second partner; Subcategories of Threat include Attack, Avoidance, and Indifferent Justification
Figure 1 A theoretical model of defensive communication among romantic couples.
9 4
J. A
. H
. B
eck er
et a
l.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
(particularly in less intimate relationships), the data at hand revealed that awareness
of, and willingness to, admit one’s flaws fluctuates throughout romantic partners’
interactions. Although partners are unlikely to admit their personal flaws during a
defensive communication episode, it is not unusual for them to admit flaws to their
partner after the defensive communication episode, as part of relational repair.
Unlike Stamp et al.’s (1992) concept of self-perceived flaw, the data suggest that
individuals are sensitive about their own flaws as well as the flaws of others close to
them. For example, Marie was sensitive about her dad’s character flaws, and Laura was
sensitive about her mother’s choice of meat and the lifestyle it reflected. Both
participants internalized their parents’ blemished characters and actions as reflective
of their own. Thus, the label of flaw central to the self reflects conceptual enlargement
of Stamp et al.’s category of self-perceived flaw.
Situational difficulties. Another condition that underlies the entire process of
defensive communication is the category of situational difficulties. Situational
difficulties stemmed from preexisting negative feelings toward the partner or
situation, and complexities of particular settings. Participants reported residual
negative affect from previous conflict that intensified defensive communication. For
instance, Hope and Todd, a married couple, often experienced defensive interactions
when Hope was driving, as Todd felt that Hope was a poor driver. Due to carried-
over hard feelings from previous arguments, defensive communication erupted
whenever the couple traveled together. Additionally, participants noted that
particular settings sometimes evoked unpleasant memories of previous conflict and
reactivated a defensive communication episode. Sometimes the activities that were
occasioned, or expected, within a particular setting increased the likelihood of
defensive communication. For example, Brianna and Nick, a dating couple, attended
a party with potential romantic rivals. They reported that their consumption of
alcohol in a psychologically-threatening setting worsened the situation and
contributed to defensive communication.
Emotion. The type and intensity of emotions experienced and expressed by
romantic partners also contextualizes the process of defensive communication. The
data revealed that participants experienced either dejection-related emotions (e.g.,
feeling hurt, sad, and depressed) or agitation-related emotions (e.g., fear, anger, and
anxiety). Although both combinations of emotion contextualized the core elements
of defensive communication, dejection-related emotions are intensified when a
perceived flaw that is central to the self becomes salient, while agitation-related
emotions are intensified when a threat to self becomes salient. Experiencing
dejection-related emotions due to her perceived flaw, Marie shared, ‘‘After he said
no to that, I felt hurt and misunderstood and um . . . I felt like he, my feelings weren’t
important to him and it was difficult. I just felt like . . . my needs weren’t being met’’
(8:I:W:53�54). In contrast, Nick felt agitation-related emotions when feeling threatened by his girlfriend. He stated:
When she got mad at me because I wanted to say hi to one my friends who is a girl,
just one, I immediately got defensive because I for so long have been tolerant and
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 95
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
have put up with her. At that moment she didn’t trust me one inch and I couldn’t tolerate it. So we started yelling on the dance floor and I left her again, and as soon as I went outside I was so mad and all my friends could tell I was pissed . . . I was so mad, I mean I was almost crying. (2:I:B:229�240)
Although participants shared a variety of emotions that impacted the defensive
communication situation, the type and intensity of emotion clearly contextualized
the interaction.
Given that strong emotions can often cause intractability between romantic
partners (Retzinger, 1991) and lead to increased conflict, the role of emotions in
defensive communication is not unexpected. In fact, unresolved conflicts often
trigger recurring emotional responses that frame future interactions (Gayle & Preiss,
1998). As an underlying force in the defensive process, participants experienced and
expressed a variety of negative emotions that fostered defensive communication.
Some participants reported and demonstrated difficulty in expressing their emotions
to their romantic partner, which seemed to escalate the experience of the emotion.
Indeed, Mongrain (2003) reported that if romantic partners experience conflict over,
and inhibit display of, emotional expression, they may experience less harmonious
communication and less positivity in the relationship.
Relational concerns. The final contextual condition influencing the process of
defensive communication is relational concerns, which comprises romantic partners’
underlying anxiety about the relationship. The two main relational concerns pertain to
uncertainty and identity. Participants in dating relationships expressed concerns about
relational uncertainty that often colored the process of defensive communication. For
example, Christy and Derek, a dating couple, experienced defensiveness when Derek
joked about her dating someone else.
D: Um, we went [to the restaurant] and we go out to eat a lot, but it had been a week or two weeks since we were even there. And then umm, we sat in this one booth and we sat in this booth once before but it was like maybe a month ago. We sit down and she was like we sat in the same seat. So she got a little nickname from me and I chuckled and I was like you must be getting me confused with one of your other ones because we didn’t even come here yesterday let alone sitting in this booth.
I: How do you feel you were approaching the situation when talking with her? D: Umm, in a light joking manner because we I mean, we were just hanging out
at that time. I mean I knew how she felt about me and vice versa but that is as deep as it went. I mean if she was with someone else, there was nothing I could say or do about that. So it was mostly in a joking manner.
I: Did you suspect that maybe she had been there with someone else? D: Yeah. She is smart, okay? And I can understand that there is some knuckle head
who can’t remember this or that, who we were sitting at a table and we got the same table that we were sitting in yesterday. I mean I don’t think that I had even her the day before you know, and that is what makes me think that maybe it was. (5:I:B:147�172)
Uncertainty often resulted from jealousy about the partner’s fidelity or interest in
another person, threats of relationship termination, lack of relational maintenance, or
unclear relational status.
96 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
In contrast, married participants reported concerns about their relational identities
that shaped defensive communication. Marital participants’ concerns centered on
their individual role as a wife or a husband, and were shaped by fears about fulfilling
their role or expectations for their partner’s identity as a husband or wife. As Megan
stated, ‘‘I’m a Christian and I know that I need to respect him as my husband . . . I
also feel like a husband really needs to be a good, you know needs to look out for the
good of the family’’ (9:I:W:213�216). Megan’s concern over marital roles contextua- lized their defensive situation, as she felt conflicting feelings about their proper
relational identities and financial management. Similarly, Laura felt increasing
pressure in her relational identity as her living situation changed. She shared, ‘‘My
mother-in-law comes to live with us and it’s not exactly 100% comfortable in the
house. Like, I always have to make sure that I get up early and make sure that I’m
always being a good daughter-in-law, being a good wife, and I feel like I have to live
like, under her watchful eye’’ (7:I:W:83�86). In this situation, Laura’s responses were influenced by her fears about fulfilling her own and her mother-in-law’s expectations.
Triggers of Defensive Communication: Lack of Supportive Communication
Defensive communication cannot occur in absence of social interaction, as it must be
elicited (Gibb, 1961; Stamp et al., 1992). In response to RQ4, which inquired about
contributing factors, the data showed that defensive communication is triggered by
communication that lacks, or is perceived to lack, a supportive tone or content.
Specifically, defensive communication occurred when one or both romantic partners
failed to communicate warmth, failed to communicatively share, or failed to award
attention to the other. These triggers were interrelated; such that most couples had
more than one concomitantly precede their defensive communication episode. The
dotted lines connecting the three triggers in Figure 1 illustrate the possibility of their
cooccurrence.
Lack of communicative warmth. A lack of communicative warmth can spark
defensive communication. When individuals do not express care, kindness, and
affection, but are instead cold, critical, and rejecting toward their partners, defensive
communication can unfold. When Jamal e-mailed his wife Megan, a personal
financial officer, asking her to look up information about a car he liked, she replied
with a sterile response in the hopes that Jamal would not pursue purchasing the car.
Jamal and Megan identified their impersonal e-mails (especially Megan’s distant
response), contextualized by their history of tense exchanges about money and
decision making, as setting the stage for an episode of defensive communication.
Lack of communicative sharing. A lack of communicative sharing is another variant
that can trigger defensive communication. For example, Shawn described how his
wife Marie wanted them to stop by her dad’s house without giving Shawn advance
notice. Shawn felt that Marie once again ‘‘sprung’’ a request upon him, and he
resented her tendency to conceal her wishes until action was required. The data
showed that most couples remarked or demonstrated that a lack of openness
contributed to defensive communication.
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 97
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Inattentiveness. The final type of trigger of defensive communication is inatten-
tiveness. When an individual feels that his/her partner is not listening or paying
attention, that individual tends to feel unsupported and disconfirmed. When Stacy
and her boyfriend Brian were on Spring break, Stacy felt disappointed that Brian
ignored her and paid attention to his friends. The other two types of trigger were
relevant to Stacy and Brian as well. Brian was reluctant to confer with Stacy in
deciding how to spend his time; he felt that since they were not yet married, he
should be able to do as he pleased. Stacy felt as though Brian was inconsiderate and
evasive.
Essentially, a lack of communicative warmth, a lack of communicative sharing, and
inattentiveness comprise communicative behaviors that show a low degree of
minding in a close relationship. These communicative deficiencies may facilitate
feelings of instability and distance between romantic partners rather than creating
feelings of stability and closeness (Harvey & Weber, 2002). The data revealed that a
lack of supportive communication among one, or more commonly both, of the
partners set in motion the core categories of defensive communication, or a defensive
communication episode. The term episode does not mean that defensive commu-
nication is always bookended by clear, tidy, or discrete beginnings and endings.
However, the data show that certain categories (threat, other-perceived flaw, and
sensitivity) comprise the essence of defensive communication. A defensive commu-
nication episode transpires when these categories are present and dominant in social
interaction.
Core of Defensive Communication: The Defensive Communication Episode
RQ5 asked about the features of the core, or peak, of defensive communication.
Essentially, a defensive communication episode occurs when an individual interprets
a message from his/her romantic partner as threatening. Specifically, the individual
perceives that the partner’s threat focuses on a flaw, central to the self, about which he
or she is sensitive. In an effort to restore or achieve good feelings about the self, the
individual communicatively shifts the threat from the self to the partner, thereby
promoting an interactional cycle of defensive communication.
Threat. Threat is the interactive strategy that romantic partners use to recognize
and enact defensive communication. Perception of threat is the foundation of
defensive communication. Individuals are unlikely to become entangled in defensive
communication unless they perceive they are in some danger, be it psychological,
interpersonal, physical, or another form. Moreover, if they feel threatened,
individuals are inclined to proffer counterthreats. There are three manifestations of
threat: (a) attack, (b) avoidance, and (c) indifferent justification.
Stamp et al. (1992) originally conceived of an attack as the only means of threat in
defensive communication. They referred to Gibb’s (1961) six dimensions and
Alexander’s (1973) description of punishing verbal and nonverbal behaviors to
explain how attacks operate in defensive situations. The data show that attack often
involves a projection of aggressively articulated blame toward the partner. Compared
to typical interactions, the attacking partner is perceived to be unusually forceful in
98 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
assigning fault to the other partner. Attack is manifested by communication that is
direct, dominating, and focused on one’s own interest at the expense of the other. For
example, Laura and her husband Ian described how Ian’s attack spurred defensive
communication:
L: Basically, I was in the kitchen and I was cutting the meat. And like getting off
the grease and stuff like, the fat, and he walked in and like, poked it. And you’re
like, ‘‘Why’d your mom,’’ in Korean, you said, ‘‘It’s not going to be very good
meat. It’s cheap. Why did your mother buy this meat?’’ Do you remember that?
I: Yeah.
L: And then I was like, ‘‘It’s not bad meat, you know, it’s good meat.’’ I was
thinking, ‘‘Here we go again, you always criticize my mom.’’
I: I told you, I don’t like her style. (7:J:H/W:369�375)
After repeated interactions in which Ian made disparaging comments about Laura’s
parents to her, Laura had developed sensitivity to criticism of her parents. Therefore,
even though Ian’s attack was not directly toward Laura, because she had internalized
her parents’ flaws as her own, Laura reported feeling attacked.
Although attack is a primary means of communicating threat, it is not the only
means. Avoidance can be a more subtle yet poisonous activity that leads to perception
of threat. During avoidance, one or both partners actively attempt to evade a
defensive communication episode through physical and emotional withdrawal from
the situation. Physical withdrawal is typically exemplified by leaving a tense situation,
thereby temporarily eliminating the possibility of an explosive exchange. Emotional
withdrawal is demonstrated by stonewalling, including blank affect, restricted body
movement, and lack of responsiveness to the partner. Together, physical and
emotional withdrawal can be a lethal combination, as participants described how
‘‘walking away’’ exacerbates perceptions of threat and the intensity of their emotions,
making subsequent attacks especially hurtful. For example, avoidance was key in
communicating threat in one particular episode of defensive communication between
Brianna and Nick. Two conditions, pervasive uncertainty about their dating
relationship, as well as the influence of alcohol, contextualized this couple’s
interactions at a late night party. Brianna and Nick each felt particularly threatened
when the other interacted with potential romantic rivals. They reciprocally distanced
themselves from each other until Brianna accusingly attacked Nick, saying, ‘‘You can
stop talking about me now.’’ She said, ‘‘I have never seen him that pissed off before in
my life. I was just like ‘uh oh.’’’ (2:I:G:90�92). Thus, avoidance by one partner often leads to a perception of threat by the other partner.
The third means of threat is indifferent justification. Indifferent justification
involves an account for one’s actions without demonstrated concern for the partner;
it is threatening because of the implications (such as loss of face) for the partner. For
example, while Shawn was driving, he refused Marie’s request for them to visit her
dad. He explained to her, ‘‘We don’t have time, I’m tired, and I want to go home’’
(8:I:H:140�141). To complicate matters, Shawn disliked Marie’s dad as well as Marie’s habit of ‘‘springing things’’ on him. Marie felt threatened by Shawn’s explanation
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 99
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
because he did not appear to care about her wishes, and she felt that Shawn’s implicit
rejection of her dad was a rejection of her as well.
Other-perceived flaw. Stamp et al. (1992) defined other-perceived flaw as resulting
from an attack focused on an ‘‘area or issue that the attacker perceives as a flaw in the
other’’ (p. 180). Consistent with Stamp et al.’s model, the data showed that other-
perceived flaw occurs when individuals perceive that their threatening partner focuses
on a flaw central to the individual’s self. In other words, when individuals feel
threatened by the partner, they perceive that their partner’s threat is localized on a
sensitive self-flaw. The other-perceived flaw can be either action based (focused on the
actions of a romantic partner) or character based (focused on the character of a
romantic partner).
The participants’ accounts and exchanges show that the degree to which the
partner clearly demonstrates the other-perceived flaw varies. In some cases (usually
through attack), threatening partners overtly reveal their focus on a flaw. As Hope
shared:
We get in the car, and before we even pull out on Broadway, it’s like, ‘‘What are you
doing!’’, ‘‘What, you just pulled out in front on traffic! That light was yellow!’’ And
I’m just like, ‘‘Uh, let me drive the way I want to drive. I’m not going to kill
anybody I’m being safe . . . He’s like, ‘‘Well I hope you don’t drive like that all the time! You drive like a crazy person!’’ (6:I:W:132�136)
In other cases (usually through avoidance and indifferent justification), other-
perceived flaw is communicated more covertly. Continuing with the earlier example,
Shawn did not explicitly attack Marie or her dad. Marie relied upon her past
conversations with Shawn to infer that Shawn perceived her dad, and therefore
herself, to be flawed. In his individual interview, Shawn admitted that he knew his
justifications would be threatening to Marie because they indicated disapproval of her
dad’s lifestyle.
The data suggest that awareness and intentionality of the other-perceived flaw
varies. All participants seemed at least somewhat mindful that threatening
communication demonstrated that the partner focused on a sensitive issue of the
other partner. Additionally, participants who admitted threatening partners often
mitigated admissions by saying that they had done so unintentionally. For example,
Andrew explained, ‘‘[It] seems like when things like that happen to me it’s like I
might say something or do something unknowingly that causes her to be offended’’
(10:I:H:214�215). Sensitivity. Sensitivity occurred when individuals felt threatened by the partner and
believed that the partner was honing in on a flaw central to themselves. Similar to
Stamp et al.’s (1992) original conceptualization of sensitivity, the data showed that
sensitivity accumulated through repeated negative interactions but became most
salient in the heat of a defensive communication episode. Highlighting the role of
perception and metaperception, Stamp et al. emphasized that sensitivities develop
through interactions with others in response to perceptions of the way people see
others seeing them.
100 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Sensitivity seems to be related to the intensity of the threat and opaqueness of
other-perceived flaw. The more intense the threat and the more clearly it revealed an
other-perceived flaw, the more likely an individual was to feel sensitive. Sensitivity is
related to the experience of hurt feelings. In individual accounts and joint interviews,
participants often described and demonstrated feeling hurt as part of being sensitive.
Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, and Evans (1998) found that the intensity of hurt
feelings is associated with perceived devaluation of the relationship, or relational
threat. In a subsequent study of perceived causes of hurt feelings, Vangelisti, Young,
Carpenter-Theune, and Alexander (2005) investigated eight explanations that people
report as causing their hurt feelings. Seven of their explanations (relational
denigration, humiliation, verbal/nonverbal aggression, intrinsic flaw, ill-conceived
humor, mistaken intent, and discouragement) are related to feeling threatened, and
one (intrinsic flaw) is explicitly linked to other-perceived flaw.
For example, Jessica and Mark communicated defensively after Mark kept Jessica
waiting while she was crunched for time (a situational difficulty that contextualized
their interaction). Jessica described, ‘‘I got very very angry. . . . I basically let loose’’ (1:J:G:252�253). In their joint interview, Jessica recounted:
When he came out and I started yelling at him . . . he started, you know, with the past, and he was saying, ‘‘Well, you do this and you do that’’ and it was like he was verbally slamming me. Saying, this and this and that and using all the ‘‘you’’ terms. Instead of saying ‘‘I am sorry that it took so long’’ and being polite and nice about it, he basically just ripped into me and made me feel horrible. He made me feel horrible because of the challenge I had and I couldn’t do things. (1:J:G:269�273)
To Jessica, Mark’s counterattacks were searing and focused on her flaws. Mark’s verbal
aggression amplified Jessica’s sensitivity of her own flaws and hurt her feelings. Not
surprisingly, Jessica and Mark reported cyclical engagement in the core processes of
defensive communication, where each perceived threat from the other focused on a
flaw central to the self about which each was sensitive. The next section focuses on the
outcomes of defensive communication episodes.
Outcomes of Defensive Communication: Relational Repair Strategies
In response to RQ6, which asked about the outcomes of defensive communication,
the data showed that partners use relational repair strategies to mitigate damage to
the relationship and to restore positive feelings between the partners. Specifically,
participants used metacommunication, apologetic communication, partner-centered
preventative communication, and avoidance as relational repair strategies following
defensive interactions. To restore positive feelings towards the partner, participants
often used a combination of these strategies in communicative exchanges following
the episode.
Metacommunication. Metacommunication typically entails directly communicating
about the defensive communication episode. Participants indicated that this type of
repair strategy was essential for conflict resolution, although some couples discussed
taking time to cool off and reflect before engaging in metacommunication.
Metacommunication involved discussing how the defensive episode occurred
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 101
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
(including misunderstandings), and how partners felt and communicated during the
episode. As Andrew shared, ‘‘Um usually when something like that happens it just
takes a lot of talking through. Maybe even going back to um kind of replaying it. . . . It’s just talking it out and figuring out what the real issue is. . . . Talking it out is definitely important’’ (10:I:H:272�281). During met-communication partners may engage in supportive communication by indicating that they understand the other’s
perspective, relating common experiences, forgiving each other, engaging in intimacy
behaviors, using humor, and using topical communication rather than accusing
communication.
Apologetic communication. Apologetic communication is typically defined as one
person claiming responsibility for the commission of a possible offense (Robinson,
2004, 2006). The data revealed that this was a common relational repair strategy
employed by participants following a defensive communication episode. They often
apologized and admitted wrong-doing upon seeing a hurt partner. Christy described
how Derek ‘‘noticed that I was upset and he basically said he was sorry and that he
didn’t mean to implicate anything’’ (5:I:G:61�62). For some couples, apologies were also utilized to mitigate the conflict and to defuse future defensive interactions. An
indirect apology, or acknowledgement of culpability, may also be used for repair
purposes. For instance, Laura shared that, ‘‘He didn’t apologize later on, but later on
he admitted ‘I shouldn’t have criticized that [the meat], you know, cause it was
good’’’ (7:I:W:100�101). Partner-centered preventative communication. While metacommunication involves
discussion of a past defensive communication, partner-centered preventative
communication is a relational repair strategy that focuses on the prevention of
future defensive communication. These two strategies often occur in tandem. As
couples mind their relationship (Harvey & Weber, 2002), they use knowledge about
their partner to develop maintenance and repair strategies that are customized to the
partner and the situation at hand. Jessica discussed how partner-centered pre-
ventative communication, in combination with metacommunication, improved the
outcomes of her defensive communication episode with Mark. She explained, ‘‘We
decided that we both made mistakes. We both impeded on each other’s time, so to
speak, we decided that we are going to instead of getting hot about it next time, we
are going to get the other person’s attention and say ‘Hey this is happening again, we
need to stop this’ or ‘I need to go, to find a ride home or something’’’ (1:I:G:138� 142). In this example, Jessica and Mark identified openness and forgiveness as key
values they wanted to demonstrate in order to avoid and abbreviate future conflicts.
The data showed that partner-centered preventative communication fosters feelings
of relational closeness, respect, and security and may potentially reduce future
episodes of defensive communication.
Avoidance. The final relational repair strategy that emerged from the data was the
use of avoidance to resolve the situation. Once they have exited the defensive
communication episode, partners may physically or verbally evade metacommunica-
tion of the episode. Partners may avoid signifiers, such as a certain shirt or type of
food, that they associate with the episode. Although avoidance in close relationships
102 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
is sometimes conceptualized as a negative communicative strategy, the data showed
that avoidance could be used as a positive repair strategy. In particular, once the
defensive communicated episode has concluded, a brief period of withdrawal can
provide a couple with time to regain composure and clarify their thoughts and
feelings, and more calmly engage in metacommunication about the episode. For
instance, Nick and Brianna took some time apart to think about the situation before
discussing what occurred. As Nick conveyed, ‘‘I think we let all our major emotions
out that night, all the screaming and yelling. And then we let it fester in our minds for
a while, you know so we could think of some other things to talk about. But when we
did talk about the other things we weren’t so loud and vocal about it. So we basically
talked about it until we came to an understanding’’ (2:I:B:271�274). However, long- term avoidance without closure or resolution seemed to precipitate subsequent
defensive communication episodes. As an illustration, Megan stated:
The problem, the fact still remains that this is bound to happen again with something else. . . . I think that one reason it’s not resolved is because a lot of times we don’t talk about it after the problem subsides, because we don’t want to talk about it because we hate fighting. And we really do love each other and you know so it just brings up a lot of feelings that we don’t want to face or whatever.
(9:I:W:404�413)
In this example, Megan recognized that continued avoidance would delay yet
stimulate future defensive communication episodes.
Emily and Andrew’s Defensive Communication
To more fully illustrate the model of defensive communication, the specific
experience of one couple, Emily and Andrew, is highlighted. As a ‘‘case study,’’ their
experience is intended to be both representative of defensive communication, while at
the same time, uniquely their own (Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1994). The
narrative account of Emily and Andrew’s defensive interaction is therefore
‘‘sufficiently unique to evoke comparisons and sufficiently universal to evoke
identification’’ (Bochner, 1994, p. 33).
Emily and Andrew were each 21 years old, had known each other for 3½ years, and
had been married for 7 months. Both were college seniors at a Midwestern university.
The defensive communication episode occurred during a dinner, as explained by
Emily:
I was cooking dinner and he came home . . . so I was trying to make meatloaf and um, so then he came he came home after he took a shower and stuff and we sat down to eat. Then I asked him if he liked it and he said, um he paused and said that he, or he didn’t say anything and I immediately took it as he didn’t like it. (10:I:W:57�64)
From Emily’s perspective, the initial pausing and lack of response by her husband was
interpreted by her to be a critical reaction to the dinner that she had made. Sensing
her reaction, Andrew then said that the dinner was ‘‘fine’’ but this was too little and
too late for Emily. She stated, ‘‘Then he was like, ‘Yeah it’s fine’ but he was just trying
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 103
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
to appease me, he wasn’t telling me the whole truth and so I got . . . upset’’
(10:I:W:64�65). Andrew’s perception of the interaction corroborated Emily’s, though he was able to
account for his initial reaction (or lack of same):
Emily made dinner and I came home. Sat down for dinner and sometimes she’ll ask me questions and um I’ll think about it for just a second just because I wasn’t thinking about that before. I told her before this, but just think about it, yeah I like that or just take a second to think. I don’t know I . . . it’s just something that I do and so I think she took offense to that. Um I . . . seems like when things like that happen to me it’s like I might say something or do something unknowingly that causes her to be offended. Maybe she thought I was being hurtful to her. (10:I:H:210�215)
Emily’s feelings were indeed hurt ‘‘like he was telling me I did a bad job’’ though she
did agree with him upon later reflection that ‘‘he wasn’t really trying to hurt my
feelings’’ (10:I:W:101�102;10:J:W:378�379). There were a number of contextual aspects contributing to the defensiveness
experienced by Emily. She acknowledged that she was ‘‘trying to make good meals’’
but, at the same time, also had a flaw central to her self of not being a very good cook
and that this meal in particular ‘‘didn’t taste very good, I knew it didn’t because it was
kind of mushy.’’ The salience of this flaw was heightened because it was important for
her, as a newlywed, to ‘‘be all wife-like by cooking dinner.’’ As a result, she was
particularly sensitive about this situation as she ‘‘realized it probably wasn’t really
about the meatloaf, it was more about me feeling like I was a good enough wife and a
good enough partner for him’’ (10:I:W:74�106). His lack of enthusiasm, therefore, only reinforced her perceived inadequacy as a cook and a wife.
As newlyweds, both of them acknowledged other situational difficulties contribut-
ing to the miscommunication that was at the heart of this interaction. Part of the
reason for the problem was ‘‘we were kind of, I guess, new’’ (10:I:W:111)
acknowledged Emily, while Andrew indicated that interactions like this one ‘‘can
be confusing especially when you’re first married’’ (10:I:H:263�264). Andrew realized that situations like this one were not that uncommon for them, but that they have
‘‘gotten better just to recognize situations like this where there is no real problem’’
(10:J:H:371).
As Emily became defensive during this interaction, she responded to Andrew that
perhaps the dinner would have been better if ‘‘she had more help’’ around the house.
As a result of this comment, Andrew then became defensive as he thought that Emily
was ‘‘attacking him’’ and his efficacy as a husband and his ‘‘feelings became hurt’’ as a
result. This ‘‘additional issue’’ of spousal duties were based on relational concerns
since, according to Emily, they ‘‘were just kind of in the midst of like figuring out
who’s roles were what and who’s doing what’’ in their marriage (10:J:W:386�388). The trigger for Emily’s defensiveness was a lack of supportive communication due
to a perceived lack of warmth and attentiveness from Andrew. Emily believed that
Andrew would acknowledge the effort she was putting forth. Rather than an initial
nonresponse (Andrew’s pausing) followed by a noncommittal ‘‘this is fine,’’ her
104 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
‘‘expectations’’ were much higher because she was expecting him to say, ‘‘Oh this is
the best meal ever! You’re such a great wife!’’ (10:J:W:341). What she received,
however, was a lack of open communication as ‘‘he was just trying to appease me and
he wasn’t telling me the whole truth’’ (10:I:W:65). The trigger for Andrew’s
defensiveness was the lack of supportive communication due to Emily’s perceived
lack of communication warmth and attention. Andrew indicated, when she said ‘‘she
needed more help around the house,’’ that ‘‘made me feel hurt,’’ and ‘‘I took it as an
attack on me’’ (10:I:H:231�248). RQ2 inquired as to how the components of defensive communication operate
together. Although the visual model (see Figure 1) and previous explanations of
interrelationships among components provide insight into RQ2, the case study of
Emily and Andrew provides additional illustration of the components of defensive
communication in action. As a result of contextual elements as well as initial triggers,
the couple’s core defensive communication episode unfolded in the following way:
Emily felt initially threatened by Andrew’s lack of response about her cooking. She
perceived that Andrew viewed her as being an inadequate wife, and therefore flawed.
Emily became more sensitive about this flaw, as she also perceived this flaw in herself.
In defense of herself, Emily then stated to Andrew that she could use more help
around the house, initiating a counter threat to him. Andrew perceived that Emily
saw his lack of help as a flaw in him as a husband. Andrew, realizing there may be
some truth to the statement, became more sensitive to this self-perceived flaw as a
husband. As a result, a conflict episode ensued as they ‘‘fought’’ and ‘‘continued to
both be defensive’’ during the interaction.
For Andrew and Emily, the initial outcome was a positive one through
metacommunication and apology. As Andrew said:
So starting to go back and talk it out and explain what you meant just takes a little
time, but talking it out is definitely important. And um say if there is anything that is said hurtfully that definitely needs to be taken care of, and um if I say something
to Emily that wasn’t that wasn’t right to say to her that wasn’t, that shouldn’t have
been said then I definitely need to talk to her. I apologize and try to set things right and admit where I’m wrong if I said something that was hurtful like that.
(10:I:H:280�284)
Conclusion
This study explores the complex process of defensive communication and explicates
the components of defensive communication in relation to each other. The proposed
theoretical model provides a comprehensive, yet precise, expansion of Stamp et al.’s
(1992) model of defensive interactions. In addition, the new model contributes to
knowledge about defensive communication in four ways. First, this model is a holistic
and action-oriented framework focusing on the context in which defensive
communication occurs, as well as the triggers that precede, and the outcomes that
follow, a defensive interaction. Past research has not fully explored the interrelated
facets of defensive communication, particularly as it occurs processually and within
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 105
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
overarching contexts. This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding
by highlighting interrelationships and overlapping contexts in the process of
defensive communication. Second, the model provides more breadth and depth
through the identification and more detailed explanation of additional components.
Third, the model conceptualizes defensiveness not as a singular event but as a
communicative process that is fluid in nature. Finally, the model focuses on both the
interactional and person-centered aspects of defensive encounters, particularly by
highlighting the reciprocal nature of the components within the core defensive
communication episode as well as the overall process.
The proposed model necessitates a revision in the way defensive communication is
regarded. Although often considered a negative relational event, the data revealed that
relational benefits to defensive communication sometimes led to subsequent
supportive communication and feelings of heightened closeness between romantic
partners. Thus, defensive communication should not be conceptualized as solely
negative, as it may precipitate positive relational outcomes. Armed with knowledge
from the present research, practitioners might help distressed couples identify and
build upon the relational benefits of past defensive communication while avoiding its
destructive elements.
The proposed theoretical model unlocks many possibilities for future research. The
inductive expansion of a deductively-generated four-pronged model (Stamp et al.,
1992) provides unparalleled texture. However, future research should test the
expanded model with additional data and methods. To aid forthcoming investiga-
tions, the researchers offer 11 testable postulates that reflect components and
processes in the model. 2
The postulates were derived through the open and axial
coding processes. Although connections among model components are illustrated in
the Findings section and in Figure 1, the postulates further clarify and highlight
interrelationships that reveal movement within the model.
The context, or preexisting conditions within the self, interaction, or relationship,
influences defensive communication. One contextual condition is a perception of one
or more flaws central to the self. The salience of these core flaws seem to contribute to
the degree of sensitivity to the flaw as well as the perceived threat by the partner. In
addition, residual negative affect from ongoing conflict appears to be connected to
the occurrence of defensive interactions. As such, the following postulates are
proposed:
Postulate 1: As the perception of a flaw central to the self increases, so does the sensitivity to that flaw.
Postulate 2: As the perception of a flaw central to the self increases, so does perceived threat.
Postulate 3: Residual negative affect from unresolved conflict increases the potential for a defensive communication episode.
Context also involves the emotions experienced and expressed by partners as well as
relational concerns. Within this sample, the type of emotion experienced seemed
differentially influenced by the perception of a flaw central to the self or perception of
threat to the self. In addition, the type of relationship (dating or marriage) appeared
106 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
to be linked to different relationship concerns (identity or uncertainty). This suggests
the following four postulates:
Postulate 4: As a perceived flaw central to the self increases, so does the
occurrence of dejection-related emotions (e.g., feeling hurt, sad, and
depressed).
Postulate 5: As the perception of threat to self increases, so does the occurrence
of agitation-related emotions (e.g., fear, anger, and anxiety).
Postulate 6: For marital partners, relational identity concerns (rather than
relational uncertainty concerns) are more likely to be associated
with defensive communication.
Postulate 7: For dating partners, relational uncertainty concerns (rather than
relational identity concerns) are more likely to be associated with
defensive communication.
As noted, some of the participants identified multiple triggers while others
identified a key one. As such, it seems that the occurrence of multiple triggers (such
as a lack of attention, sharing, and warmth) coincides with heightened perceptions of
threat, other-perceived flaw, and sensitivity, leading to the following postulate:
Postulate 8: In comparison to communication characterized by a single trigger,
communication marked by a multiple triggers is associated with
heightened perceptions of threat, other-perceived flaw, and sensitivity.
A lack of supportive communication in the dimensions of warmth, sharing, and
attentiveness triggered a defensive communication episode among romantic partners.
Subsequently, as relational repair, partners engaged in metacommunication, partner-
centered preventative communication, apologetic communication, and avoidance.
The type of trigger appears to be associated with the type of relational repair strategy,
or outcome, of a defensive communication episode. For example, if one or both
partners withhold thoughts and feelings, those partners are less likely to engage in
metacommunication. Similarly, if one or both partners are cold and aloof toward
each other, apologetic communication is unlikely while avoidance seems more likely.
Finally, if a defensive communication episode is triggered by inattentiveness, partner-
centered preventative communication is unlikely to be employed as a relational repair
strategy. Therefore, the following postulates are proposed:
Postulate 9: Communication marked by a lack of sharing is negatively
associated with the relational repair strategy of
metacommunication.
Postulate 10: Communication marked by a lack of warmth is negatively
associated with the relational repair strategy of apologetic
communication but positively associated with the relational repair
strategy of avoidance.
Postulate 11: Communication marked by a lack of
attention is negatively associated with the relational repair strategy
of partner-centered preventative communication.
This study contributes to knowledge about defensive communication by extending
Stamp et al.’s (1992) four-pronged model of defensiveness. The qualitative, inductive
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 107
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
exploration at hand provides theoretical advancement of Stamp et al.’s quantitative,
deductive investigation. Eleven data-derived postulates were proposed to stimulate
further refinement of the proposed model. Thus, this study builds on previous work
on defensive communication and serves as an impetus for future inquiry on this
important topic.
Notes
[1] Pseudonyms were used and transcripts were given a couple code (1 through 10) to preserve
anonymity and so that direct quotations could be matched to the corresponding participant.
As a result, direct quotations are followed by a numerical code, with the first number
representing the specific couple; the second letter indicating whether the interview was
individual (I) or joint (J); the third letter indicating whether the participant was a husband
(H), wife (W), boyfriend (B), or girlfriend (G); and the fourth number(s) indicating the
specific line number(s) on the transcript.
[2] For examples of qualitative communication research that developed conceptual models and
articulated testable postulates, see Becker and Stamp (2005), Browning (1978), and Stamp
(1999, 2004).
References
Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communications in family systems. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 35, 613�617. Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, A. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baker, W. H. (1980). Defensiveness in communication: Its causes, effects, and cures. Journal of
Business Communication, 17, 33�43. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.). Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Barton, C., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (1988). Defensive communications in normal and
delinquent families: The impact of context and family role. Journal of Family Psychology, 1,
390�405. Becker, J. A. H., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & O’Hair, H. D. (2005). Defensive communication and
burnout in the workplace: The mediating role of leader�member exchange. Communication Research Reports, 22, 143�150.
Becker, J. A. H., & Stamp, G. H. (2005). Impression management in chat rooms: A grounded theory
model. Communication Studies, 56, 243�260. Bochner, A. P. (1994). Perspectives on inquiry II: Theories and stories. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 21�41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Browning, L. D. (1978). A grounded organizational communication theory derived from qualitative
data. Communication Monographs, 45, 93�109. Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cramer, P. (1988). The defense mechanism inventory: A review of research and discussion of the
scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 142�164. Cresswell, J. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dankowski, M. E. (2001). Pulling on the heart strings: An emotionally focused approach to family
life cycle transitions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 177�187.
108 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Eadie, W. F. (1982). Defensive communication revisited: A critical examination of Gibb’s theory.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 163�177. Frank, A. W. (2005). What is dialogic research, and why should we do it? Qualitative Health
Research, 15, 964�974. Freud, S. (1957). The complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 14. London: Hogarth.
(Original work published 1914)
Futch, A., & Edwards, R. (1999). The effects of sense of humor, defensiveness, and gender on the
interpretation of ambiguous messages. Communication Quarterly, 47, 80�97. Gayle, B., & Preiss, R. (1998). Assessing emotionality in organizational conflicts. Management
Communication Quarterly, 12, 280�303. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141�148. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gordon, R. D. (1988). The differences between feeling defensive and feeling understood. Journal of
Business Communication, 25, 53�64. Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7,
57�75. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital
outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Harvey, J. H., & Weber, A. L. (2002). Odyssey of the heart: Close relationships in the 21st century (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hermanowitz, J. S. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative
Sociology, 25, 479�499. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jaderlund, N. S., & Waldron, H. B. (1994). Mood states associated with induced defensiveness.
Journal of College Student Development, 35, 129�134. Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and conflict in
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 997�1009. Leak, G. K., & Parsons, C. J. (2001). The susceptibility of three attachment style measures to socially
desirable responding. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 21�30. 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. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and
analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mongrain, M. (2003). Conflict over emotional expression: Implications for interpersonal
communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 545�555. Nelson, K. L., & Horowitz, L. M. (2001). Narrative structure in recounted sad memories. Discourse
Processes, 31, 307�324. Retzinger, S. (1991). Violent emotions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (2000). Disrupting defensive family interactions in
family therapy with delinquent adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 688�701. Robinson, J. D. (2004). The sequential organization of ‘‘explicit’’ apologies in naturally occurring
English. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 291�330. Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational
repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137�161. Rozema, H. J. (1986). Defensive communication climate as a barrier to sex education in the home.
Family Relations, 35, 531�537. Stamp, G. H. (1994). The appropriation of the parental role through communication during the
transition to parenthood. Communication Monographs, 61, 89�112. Stamp, G. H. (1999). A qualitatively constructed interpersonal communication model: A grounded
theory analysis. Human Communication Research, 25, 531�547.
Defensive Communication among Romantic Couples 109
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
Stamp, G. H. (2004). Theories of family relationships and a family relationships theoretical model.
In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 1�30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stamp, G. H., Vangelisti, A. L., & Daly, J. A. (1992). The creation of defensiveness in social
interaction. Communication Quarterly, 40, 177�190. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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. Waldron, H. B., Turner, C. W., Alexander, J. F., & Barton, C. (1993). Coding defensive and
supportive communications: Discriminant validity and subcategory convergence. Journal of
Family Psychology, 7, 197�203. Waln, V. G. (1982). Interpersonal conflict interaction: An examination of verbal defense of self.
Central States Speech Journal, 33, 557�566. Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. P. (1994). Understanding family communication (2nd
ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
110 J. A. H. Becker et al.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
S ou
th ea
st M
is so
ur i
S ta
te U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 17
:5 3
06 A
pr il
2 01
4
