This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 13 November 2014, At: 20:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

Communicating Dislike of Close Friends'Romantic PartnersShuangyue Zhang a & Andy J. Merolla ba Speech Communication Department , Sam Houston StateUniversity , Texas, 77341, USAb School of Communication at The Ohio State University ,Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USAPublished online: 03 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Shuangyue Zhang & Andy J. Merolla (2006) Communicating Dislike ofClose Friends' Romantic Partners, Communication Research Reports, 23:3, 179-186, DOI:10.1080/08824090600796393

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090600796393

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Communicating Dislike of CloseFriends’ Romantic PartnersShuangyue Zhang & Andy J. Merolla

The present study investigated individuals’ disclosure of dislike for their friends’ romantic

partners. Of the 205 participants, 121 communicated their feelings to their friends. Based

on qualitative and quantitative analyses, results indicated that individuals who expressed

their dislike did so primarily to protect their friends’ well-being or because of a perceived

obligation for honesty. Non-disclosure appeared motivated by concern over upsetting the

friend, perceptions the friend was not bothered, or conflict avoidance. Individuals were

most likely to communicate dislike when it involved partner infidelity or upon seeing

their friends experiencing emotional distress. Finally, expressing dislike had significant

effects on both friendship quality and romantic relationship outcomes.

Keywords: Friendship; Romantic Relationship; Dislike of Friends’ Romantic Partners;

Disclosure

Friends play important roles in individuals’ lives throughout the lifespan (Duck,

1991). Argyle, Henderson, and Furnham (1985) contended that for friends to achieve

desired levels of intimacy, self-disclosure, or satisfaction, they must follow a variety of

rules. Yet friendship norms are anything but static (Wiseman, 1986); rather, friends

must constantly balance dialectical tensions between openness and closedness,

expressiveness and protectiveness, and freedom to be independent and the freedom

to be dependent (Rawlins, 1992). The present study explores a common, though

Shuangyue Zhang (PhD, 2005, The Ohio State University) is an assistant professor in the Speech Communi-

cation Department at Sam Houston State University. Andy J. Merolla is a doctoral candidate in the School

of Communication at The Ohio State University. Correspondence to Shuangyue Zhang at the Speech

Communication Department, Sam Houston State University, Box 2299, Huntsville, Texas, 77341, USA;

(Tel.: þ1- 936-294-1835; Fax: þ1-936-294-1336; Email: shuangzhang@shsu.edu) or Andy J. Merolla, School

of Communication, The Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, Ohio,

43210, USA (Tel.: þ1-614-292-5948; Fax: þ1-614-292-2055; E-mail: merolla.1@osu.edu).

A version of this paper was presented at the International Communication Association conference, New York,

2005.

Communication Research Reports

Vol. 23, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 179–186

ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) # 2006 Eastern Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/08824090600796393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

understudied, relational phenomenon rich with dialectical and normative factors:

when individuals dislike a friend’s romantic partner (Wilson, Roloff, & Carey, 1998).

This study has three foci: the individuals’ reasons for expressing and withholding

dislike of a friend’s partner, whether those who expressed versus withheld their dis-

like report similar or dissimilar types of disapproval, and whether expressing dislike

affects friendship and romantic relationship quality and outcomes.

Previous research indicates that both seeking and offering advice to friends con-

cerning romantic relationships is risky (Newell & Stutman, 1991). Friends’ negative

appraisals of each others’ dating partners can lead to negative impression formation,

confidentiality violations, and perceptions of inappropriate support (Goldsmith &

Parks, 1990). Despite the risks involved, asking for and providing opinions about

friends’ romantic relationships is common. This process is likely complicated by

the fact that friends frequently dislike each other’s partners (Wilson et al., 1998).

Wilson and colleagues’ work suggests that disclosing one’s dislike of a friend’s partner

is hurtful because romantic relationships are linked to one’s self-concept, and such a

disclosure might impose on friends’ personal autonomy or privacy (Rawlins, 1992).

Friends, however, often feel obligated to be honest with one another (Duck, 1991)

and are therefore inclined to disclose any dislike of a friend’s partner, despite poten-

tial negative ramifications. Thus, the first question asks:

RQ1: What reasons do individuals have for expressing or withholding dislike ofa friend’s romantic partner?

Types of Dislike of Friends’ Romantic Partners

The second goal is to determine if certain types of dislike promote disclosure among

friends. Wilson et al.’s (1998) respondents reported dislike situated within three

areas: personal characteristics (e.g., appearance), partners’ treatment of friends, and

threats to the friendship (e.g., time monopolization). Although Wilson et al.’s find-

ings are illuminating, finer-grained analysis appears warranted, as the researchers did

not compare the responses of friends who disclosed and those who did not. Thus, the

second question asks:

RQ2: Do disclosers and non-disclosers differ in the types of dislike they had fortheir friends’ partners?

Impact of Disclosure on Friends’ Romantic Relationships and Friendships

Offering advice to friends about romantic relationships can negatively influence the

friends’ romantic relationship and the friendship itself (Goldsmith & Parks, 1990).

Such interference is at the heart of the Duck, Foley, and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) concept

of triangulation, which occurs when external sources interfere with or question the

viability of a relationship. Although interference in the form of negative appraisals

can be problematic, studies show that perceived network support is positively linked

to romantic relationship development and quality (e.g., Parks, Stan, & Eggert, 1983),

180 S. Zhang and A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

suggesting friends’ negative partner appraisals should negatively affect romantic

relationship outcomes.

In contrast, it has been reported that network members’ opposition can actually

increase individuals’ feelings of love (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972). The authors

termed this the Romeo and Juliet effect, which is consistent with Berscheid and

Walster’s (1978) contention that the arousal stemming from negative appraisals

can be confused with love. To examine these contrasting perspectives, the third ques-

tion asks:

RQ3: What impact does expressing dislike have on friends’ romanticrelationships?

Just as expressing dislike may affect the romantic bond, it may also influence the

friendship. Davis and Todd (1985) found that individuals might terminate their

cross-sex friendship if a dating partner does not sanction it, which suggests that indi-

viduals may be inclined to sacrifice friendship for the benefit of a romantic relation-

ship. Moreover, the disclosure of dislike of a friend’s partner could be considered

taboo because it violates a friend’s privacy (Goodwin, 1990). It is equally plausible,

however, that such disclosure fosters closeness among friends, as honest disclosure

symbolizes trust and intimacy within the bond (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley,

2003). Thus, the fourth question asks:

RQ4: What impact does expressing dislike have on the friendship?

Method

Sample and Procedure

A total of 220 undergraduate students were recruited from communication courses at

a large midwestern university. Participants were asked to think of a close friend who

is=was romantically involved with someone the participants do=did not like. The

participants were also told the friend ‘‘may be a current friend or a past friend,

and your friend’s romantic relationship may be ongoing or may have terminated.’’

In total, 205 students qualified for the study. Of the 205 students, 118 were female,

86 were male, and one student did not report gender. Ages ranged from 18 to 43

(M ¼ 22.6). Approximately 67% of the sample was Caucasian (n ¼ 138), 17%

African American (n ¼ 35), 10% Asian (n ¼ 21), and a few Hispanic (n ¼ 3).

Measures

Impact on friendship

Participants who disclosed a dislike reported friendship their quality before and after

the event. Participants who did not disclose a dislike reported friendship quality only

once (i.e., current quality). Friendship quality was assessed with indices developed by

Johnson (2001), consisting of 16 seven-point Likert-type items measuring closeness,

satisfaction, and likelihood of friendship continuance. Tenses of the items were

Dislike of Friends’ Romantic Partners 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

modified when measuring quality prior to disclosure. Cronbach’s reliability alphas

were satisfactory ranging from .86 to .96.

Disliked behavior and characteristics were obtained with an open-ended question

asking participants to list the things they do=did not like about their friend’s partner.

Impact on romantic relationship (for those who disclosed) was assessed with an open-

ended question asking what effect, if any, the respondents’ disclosure had on their

friends’ romantic relationship. Reasons for expressing and withholding were obtained

with one open-ended question asking participants to list the reasons for expres-

sing=withholding dislike.

Results

Coding and Descriptive Statistics

Responses to open-ended questions were examined via analytic induction (see

Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Using the constant comparative method, whereby clusters

of meaning are determined by comparing all participant responses to one another,

one professor and one senior doctoral student independently generated category

schemes for each question using 20% of the data. Two coders then met, discussed,

and refined the coding schemes, and the first coder categorized the remaining data.

Intercoder reliability was calculated on a random 15% of the data. Scott’s pi, which

accounts for chance agreement, was .91. Differences between coders were negotiated

to determine the most accurate fit of the data.

Of the 205 participants, 59% (n ¼ 121) reported that they expressed their dislike,

and 41% (n ¼ 84) reported they withhold=withheld the information. The two

groups did not differ in age, education, or relationship status. Eighty-two percent

of the participants reported on a same-sex friend (n ¼ 168). The two groups did

not differ on reporting same-sex or opposite-sex friends.

Reasons for Expressing and Withholding

RQ1 asked what reasons individuals had for expressing=withholding their dislike.

Examination of participants’ responses yielded five categories of reasons for express-

ing dislike. A majority of participants who expressed their dislike reported the first

two categories, which are protection of my friend’s well-being (57%) and obligation

for honesty in friendship (26%). Illustrating the first category, a respondent said,

‘‘I told because I want to protect her from being hurt.’’ A participant who said,

‘‘I had to be honest and tell him because he is my friend,’’ exemplifies the second

category; ‘‘it is my duty to make sure he is happy.’’ The third category, friend being

asked (15%), references a friend’s opinion being requested. The fourth category,

better perspective (5%), reflects the notion that friends can better see problems than

relationship participants. A few respondents (3%) said that a fear that their friend-

ship was in jeopardy motivated them.

182 S. Zhang and A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Five categories of reasons for not disclosing dislike emerged. The first category,

worries of upsetting the friend (54%), represents concern the disclosure would create

awkwardness in the friendship, and included comments such as, ‘‘I won’t tell him

because I do not want him to feel uncomfortable.’’ The second category, friend not

bothered (48%), was comprised of statements like, ‘‘If he’s happy, then it is a minor

problem.’’ The third category, conflict avoidance (23%), reflects participants’ concern

that conflict will transpire from their disclosure. The fourth category, none of my

business (14%), refers to the belief that negative comments about romantic relation-

ships are ‘‘off limits.’’ As one respondent said, ‘‘I may not like her, but it’s not my

place to interfere.’’ The fifth category (12%), telling will not have an effect, represents

individuals’ feeling their friends were ‘‘too caught up’’ in their relationship for

disclosure to be of consequence. An example is the response: ‘‘I don’t like him at

all, but she wouldn’t drop him at this point even if I did tell her.’’

Things People Do (Did) Not Like in Friends’ Partners

RQ2 asked if the things individuals disliked about their friends’ partners differed for

those who expressed or withheld their dislike. First, a 14-category system of disliked

partner attributes was derived. Next, a series of v2 tests were conducted, revealing that

significantly more participants who expressed dislike (versus those who withheld it)

reported the categories of partner harming my friend (30% vs. 16%) and infidelity

(27% vs. 14%) (v2(1) ¼ 5.20, p < .05; v2(1) ¼ 4.93, p < .05, respectively). None

of the other tests of the 12 categories reached significance. Among the other 12 cate-

gories, common types of dislike included personality characteristics (66% vs. 60%;

e.g., ‘‘he is a rude person’’), controlling=possessive (31% vs. 35%; e.g., ‘‘she’s possessive’’),

discourages network interaction (20% vs. 21%; e.g., ‘‘he does not allow her to hang out

with me’’), negative lifestyle (19% vs. 11%; e.g., ‘‘he quit school and refused to get a

job’’), ulterior motives (14% vs. 13%; e.g., ‘‘He likes her for her nice apartment’’),

and incompatibility (12% vs. 7%; e.g., ‘‘They have nothing in common’’).

Impact on Romantic Relationship

RQ3 asked what impact expressing dislike has on friends’ romantic relationships. At

the time of data collection, 63% of the romantic relationships had ended (n ¼ 76),

and 37% endured (n ¼ 45). To examine RQ3, responses were coded into five cate-

gories. About 42% of participants reported the disclosure had no impact. Thirty-two

percent said their friends contemplated their disclosure and ultimately broke off the

romantic relationship because of it. About 16% were uncertain of the effects of their

disclosure. Six percent indicated they had ‘‘some influence’’ on their friends’ relation-

ship, but the relationship did not dissolve. The Romeo and Juliet effect may have

occurred in a few cases, as 4% felt their disclosure made the romantic relationship

closer.

Dislike of Friends’ Romantic Partners 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Impact on Friendship

RQ4 asked what impact expressing dislike has on friendships. Repeated measures

ANOVA indicated participants were significantly less close (F(1, 120) ¼ 17.87,

p < .001, partial g2 ¼ .13), less satisfied (F(1, 120) ¼ 32.01, p < .001, partial

g2 ¼ .21), and less likely to continue the friendship (F(1, 120) ¼ 24.17, p < .001,

partial g2 ¼ .17) after the disclosure of dislike.

Discussion

Consistent with Wilson et al. (1998), dislike for friends’ partners was found to be

ubiquitous (more than 90% of the sample). It appears that such dislike is disclosed

to friends about 60% of the time. In general, individuals have a variety of reasons for

expressing and withholding their dislike. Interestingly, similar reasons were offered

for both withholding and expressing that center on concern for the friend and=or

stability of the friendship. Indeed, the most common reasons for expressing (‘‘protec-

tion of friends’ well-being’’) and withholding (‘‘worries of upsetting the friend’’)

represent explicit concern for the friend, but in different ways. In the former, dislike

is expressed to protect the friend from a harmful external source; in the latter, the

dislike is withheld to protect the friend from a problematic situation internal to

the friendship. This reiterates the notion that individuals value friendships and want

what is best for them; individuals’ interpretation of ‘‘what is best,’’ however, varies.

These results echo many scholars’ belief that although friendship conduct is

guided by norms, such norms are socially constructed and often escape singular

interpretation (Wiseman, 1986). Duck (1991) suggests that in an ‘‘ideal’’ friendship,

friends are open with one another but simultaneously respect privacy concerns. This

reflects the dialectics pervading friendship, whereby the needs of honesty and protec-

tiveness are constantly negotiated (Rawlins, 1992). Not surprisingly, then, the second

most common reason offered for disclosing dislike was a perceived obligation for

honesty, illustrating honesty’s role as a prototypical aspect of friendship (Duck,

1991). In terms of withholding dislike, the second and third most common reasons

were that the friend appeared content in the relationship and conflict avoidance. This

desire to avoid confrontation or remain uninvolved in friends’ romantic affairs is

consistent with prior research showing that conflict is relatively rare in friendships

and that negative discussion of romantic relationships can be a taboo topic of talk

(Goodwin, 1990).

The current results further indicated that significantly more people who expressed

their dislike, compared to those who withheld it, reported the categories of ‘‘harming

my friend’’ or ‘‘infidelity.’’ Thus, these two categories of dislike appear central in

people’s decision of whether or not to disclose. That is, the propensity to disclose

may increase upon witnessing a friend experiencing emotional distress or potential

problems with infidelity; these situations may override concerns for upsetting the

friend. In contrast, the motivation to disclose appears weaker when dislike involves

more minor disturbances, such as annoying personality characteristics, physical

184 S. Zhang and A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

unattractiveness, or perceptions of incompatibility. Although the latter qualities may

be irksome, they may not spur individuals to take the risk of interfering in a friend’s

romantic relationship (Duck et al., 2006) or risking inappropriate disclosure

(Goldsmith & Parks, 1990). It should also be noted, however, that of the 14 categories

of dislike, 12 did not differ among disclosers and non-disclosers. Considering the

potential effects of Type I error in these results (only 2 of 14 tests were significant),

it is plausible that the type of dislike might be less salient when deciding to disclose=conceal than other factors, such as individual differences (not measured here).

Generally speaking, it is difficult to determine if the disclosure of partner dislike

has consistent effects on friends’ romantic relationships. Results suggest such disclos-

ure does impact relational decision-making for some but often has little impact for

others. There is evidence, however, that these effects are more complicated than they

seem at first glance, particularly regarding time. Some respondents, for instance,

noted that their disclosure did affect the romantic relationship, though not immedi-

ately. As one respondent put it: ‘‘At, first he thought I was jealous and did not listen.

After a few weeks, he realized I was right. And they broke up.’’ Disclosure, however,

appears to have clearer ramifications for friendships. Findings revealed that following

disclosure, participants felt less close to their friend, less satisfied with their friend-

ship, and less confident in the friendship’s long-term stability. Although this research

design precludes any statements of causality, the results imply expressing dislike

negatively influences friendship quality.

Limitations of this study must be noted. Because these data are based on parti-

cipants’ recall of past events, reports are subject to inaccuracy and bias (Stafford &

Daly, 1984). Obtaining reports from both members of the friendship may have shed

light on such inaccuracies. In addition, it was assumed that the disclosures described

by participants were the first instances in which they were communicated. It is poss-

ible that some friends already knew the participants’ feelings (e.g., via nonverbal or

avoidance behaviors), which could affect these results.

Despite its limitations, this study reiterates the idea that disclosing dislike of a

close friend’s romantic partner is a tricky situation steeped in contextual and norma-

tive considerations. As Rawlins (1998) stated, ‘‘friendships are dynamic, ongoing

social achievements involving the constant interconnection and reciprocal influence

of multiple individual, interpersonal, and social factors’’ (p. 64). How friends nego-

tiate these various factors serves to both ‘‘generate and constrain’’ their options

(p. 65). Continued research into the ways friends negotiate inhibiting and liberating

forces can further inform an understanding of the friendship bond.

References

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., & Furnham, A. (1985). The rules of social relationships. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 24, 125–139.

Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Davis, K. E. & Todd, M. J. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases and relationship

description. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An

interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17–38) London: Sage.

Dislike of Friends’ Romantic Partners 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Driscoll, R., Davis, K., & Lipetz, M. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo

and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 1–10.

Duck, S. (1991). Understanding relationships. New York: Guilford.

Duck, S., Foley, M. K., & Kirkpatrick, D. C. (2006). Relating difficulty in a triangular world. In D. C.

Kirkpatrick, S. Duck, & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty (pp. 225–232). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Goldsmith, D. & Parks, M. R. (1990). Communication strategies for managing the risks of seeking

social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 104–121).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goodwin, R. (1990). Taboo topics among close friends: A factor analytic investigation. Journal of

Social Psychology, 130, 691–692.

Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L. D., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring

intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81,

462–472.

Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between

geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication Quarterly, 49, 424–435.

Newell, S. E. & Stutman, R. K. (1991). The episodic nature of social confrontation. In J. A. Ander-

son (Ed.), Communication yearbook 14 (pp. 359–392). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., & Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social network involve-

ment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116–131.

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

Stafford, L. & Daly, J. A. (1984). Conversational memory: The effects of recall mode and memory

expectancies on natural conversations. Human Communication Research, 10, 379–402.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-

niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wilson, L. L., Roloff, M. E., & Carey, C. M. (1998). Boundary rules: Factors that inhibit expressing

concerns about another’s romantic relationships. Communication Research, 25, 618–640.

Wiseman, J. P. (1986). Friendship: Bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 3, 191–211.

186 S. Zhang and A. J. Merolla

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

20:

37 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014