Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt: An REBT-Based Investigation of Reasons Why Hurt-Based Action Tendencies are Not Acted On

ORI GIN AL ARTICLE

Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I FeltHurt: An REBT-Based Investigation of Reasons WhyHurt-Based Action Tendencies are Not Acted On

Windy Dryden • Nicola R. Hurton

Published online: 26 September 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract In our previous study (Dryden and Hurton in J Ration Emot Cogn Behav

Ther 29, 2013), we investigated the action tendencies that 100 people reported

having, but did not act on in specific episodes where they felt hurt. In this study, we

examine the reasons given by this same group of people for not so acting. Under-

standing the types of reasons why people do not act on their hurt-based action

tendencies will first help REBT therapists to distinguish between constructive and

unconstructive factors contained in these expressed reasons and thence to use this

information to encourage their clients to act on their constructive tendencies and to

discourage their clients from acting on their hurt feelings when it is unconstructive

for them to do so.

Keywords Hurt � Unacted-on action tendencies � Action tendencies �Rational emotive behavior therapy

Introduction

REBT theorists and therapists argue that when people experience a negative

emotion at ‘‘C’’ in REBT’s ABC framework1—whether that emotion is healthy or

unhealthy—they have tendencies to act (also at ‘‘C’’) in specific ways that are

consistent with the beliefs that underpin the negative emotion (Dryden 2007). In

unhealthy negative emotions (such as hurt and guilt), these action tendencies are

deemed to be largely unconstructive and associated with irrational beliefs that

W. Dryden (&) � N. R. Hurton

STaCS, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK

e-mail: [email protected]

1 In REBT’s ABC framework as related to hurt, the emotion of hurt and the associated actions and action

tendencies are placed at ‘‘C,’’ what the person feels most hurt about is the adversity at ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ refers

to the person’s beliefs—in this case irrational—about the ‘‘A’’ that accounts for the ‘‘C’’.

123

J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther (2013) 31:199–218

DOI 10.1007/s10942-013-0170-3

underpin the emotion, whereas in healthy negative emotions (such as sorrow and

remorse—the healthy counterparts to hurt and guilt) the action tendencies are

deemed to be largely constructive and underpinned by rational beliefs (Dryden

2009). Thus, as Dryden (2007) has argued, when a person feels hurt—the emotion

under consideration here—that person will tend to hold a set of irrational (i.e. rigid

and extreme) beliefs about, for example, (a) being treated unfairly by a significant

other whom one has treated fairly or (b) that person devaluing one’s relationship

when one values it. Holding these irrational beliefs is more likely to lead the person

to act in a number of unconstructive ways (e.g. sulking and blaming the other

person2), albeit some hurt ‘‘victims’’ may also engage in ‘‘constructive reactions’’

such as asking ‘‘for an explanation’’ (Feeney 2004: 496). By contrast, Dryden

(2007) notes that when a person tends to hold a set of rational (i.e. flexible and non-

extreme) beliefs about the same actual or inferred events as listed above, then that

person will feel sorrow rather than hurt and is more likely to act constructively. So,

instead of sulking, the person will engage the other person in a helpful dialogue and

rather than blame the other for one’s feelings the person will focus, without blame,

in a discussion of the other’s behavior and what lay behind it, while at the same time

taking responsibility for their emotional response to the other’s behavior.

Dryden (2009) has further noted that even when people have tendencies or urges

to act, these tendencies do not necessarily get translated/converted into overt

behaviors.3 Similarly, in a previous questionnaire-based study (Dryden and Hurton

2013) that built upon previous reports of what people actually did when they felt

hurt (e.g. see footnote 2), we identified 13 categories of hurt-related action

tendencies which people chose not to act on. These tendencies were: crying,

expressing feelings, screaming or shouting, physical aggression (directed at self or

other people), damaging property, saying something critical or nasty to the

perpetrator, saying something critical or nasty about the perpetrator to others,

arguing or defending oneself, asking the perpetrator for an explanation, intruding on

the perpetrator, distancing oneself from the perpetrator, pursuing new relationships,

and using channels of authority to deal with the perpetrator. The existence of

unacted-on action tendencies may serve to keep negative emotions active (e.g.

Maitner et al. 2006: 721) and may unwittingly strengthen the person’s conviction in

the irrational beliefs that underpin unhealthy negative emotions. Therefore, when a

client experiences an unhealthy negative emotion such as hurt (the focus of this

study), it is useful for therapists to be alert to possible associated action tendencies

that are not acted on, and to explore with the client whether such tendencies are

unconstructive or constructive. This can also provide an opportunity to help clients

to identify and challenge the irrational beliefs that underpin their hurt feelings and

thus weaken their conviction in these beliefs.

Once an understanding of action tendencies that are not acted on has been formed, the

next step is to understand the reasons why people have chosen not to act on these

2 Also see, for example, Leary et al. (1998), Vangelisti and Crumley (1998) and Feeney (2004) for

examples of other common acted on action tendencies when a person feels hurt.3 Frijda (2004) has similarly suggested that ‘‘the motivation for action is one of the main and major

components of emotions’’ (p. 170), but that ‘‘action follows only under certain conditions’’ (p. 158).

200 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton

123

tendencies. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (e.g. Ajzen 1991, 2001, 2006) suggests

several general reasons (i.e. reasons that are not necessarily associated with emotions)

why individuals might be more likely (or less likely) to engage in behaviors associated

with their action tendencies. According to the theory of planned behavior (e.g. Ajzen

2006: 1), the intention to perform a particular behavior is influenced by three main areas

of consideration: (1) behavioral beliefs concerning ‘‘the likely outcomes of the behavior

and the evaluation of these outcomes’’ which ‘‘produce an unfavorable or favorable

attitude toward the behavior’’; (2) normative beliefs concerning others’ expectations

and the individual’s ‘‘motivation to comply with these expectations’’ which ‘‘result in

perceived social pressure or subjective norms’’; and (3) control beliefs concerning ‘‘the

presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance and the perceived power

of these factors’’ which ‘‘give rise to perceived behavioral control.’’ ‘‘As a general rule,

the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived

control, the stronger should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in

question.’’ Frijda (2004) has further suggested reasons why people do not act upon their

emotionally-related action tendencies such as concerns about ‘‘social censure, emphatic

(sic) distress, sympathy, valuing interpersonal relationships, and social harmony’’ (p.

170). Vangelisti (2006: 136) has more specifically considered factors or ‘‘variables’’ that

may influence people’s tendency to engage in ‘‘relational distancing’’4 behaviors

in situations in which people in ‘‘close relationships’’ feel hurt, such as: ‘‘(a) the

characteristics of the hurtful event; (b) the affective, cognitive and behavioral responses

that people have to being hurt; (c) the enduring characteristics that individuals bring to

hurtful interactions; and (d) the qualities of individuals’ relationships with the person

who hurt them.’’ REBT theory further speculates that people may choose not to act on

their hurt-based action tendencies for rational reasons (e.g. doing so will get them into

trouble) or for irrational reasons (e.g. doing so will prove that they are worthless). It is

useful, therefore, for therapists to discover from clients’ own accounts reasons why they

do not act on their action tendencies, so that they, the therapists, can construct arguments

based on such data to help their clients to act, or not act, on their hurt-based action

tendencies as part of an overall strategy to help people deal constructively with their hurt

feelings and hurt-based action tendencies.

In this current study we examine the reasons that people did not act on their

action tendencies in the situation in which they felt hurt.

Method

Participants

As in our previous study (Dryden and Hurton 2013), the participants were 50 women and

50 men, aged 19–68, with a mean age of 41 (SD = 11.80).5 We used the same

4 Vangelisti (2006: 136) has also characterized hurt feelings as ‘‘a readiness to engage in relational

distancing.’’.5 The mean and SD calculations are based on the ages of 98 of the 100 participants, as two participants

did not provide their ages.

Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 201

123

questionnaire as in that study with the same participants. Basically, we sought

participants using convenience and snowball/referral sampling techniques. This

involved approaching mainly university students and staff, but also some friends and

clients, and asking them if they would be willing to complete the questionnaire

(anonymously) and/or to approach other potential participants through their own

contacts.

Procedure

As in our previous study (Dryden and Hurton 2013), participants received a 10

page (A4 size) questionnaire that consisted of questions concerning a specific

episode in which they had felt hurt. This questionnaire6 contained a few closed

questions (such as questions regarding age and gender, and how long ago the

episode happened), but the majority (28) of questions were open-ended. This

paper examines the responses to one of these open-ended questions—i.e. ‘‘Why

didn’t you do what you felt like doing (if relevant)?’’7 This question was one of

three questions that related to ‘‘Behavior in the Situation.’’ The other two were

‘‘Please describe how you acted in the situation in which you felt hurt’’ and ‘‘List

anything that you felt like doing in the situation, but did not actually do’’ (the

latter question was the focus of the previous study, Dryden and Hurton 2013).

Other questions in this questionnaire were part of a broader study of hurt from an

REBT perspective.

Data Analysis

As noted above, this study examines answers to the question ‘‘Why didn’t you do

what you felt like doing (if relevant)?8 The data analysis aimed to organize the

qualitative data/answers into categories of reasons for not acting on action

tendencies in the situation in which the respondents had felt hurt.

In our analysis of the data, we adopted an approach that was influenced by

thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) and the constant comparative method

(Lincoln and Guba 1985). For further details see Dryden and Hurton 2013.

This resulted in the generation of 4 main categories (see Table 1).

The first of these categories comprised 6 sub-categories (see Table 2), the second

comprised 2 sub-categories (see Table 3), the third comprised 2 sub-categories (see

Table 4) and the fourth comprised 8 sub-categories (see Table 5).

The categories and sub-categories will be discussed below in the ‘‘Results’’

section. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the wider therapeutic

implications of the results.

6 The questionnaire is available from the first author.7 While this wording is clear in the context of completing the questionnaire, what is meant by this

question is ‘‘Why didn’t you do what you felt like doing when you felt hurt?’’.8 Same point as in footnote 6.


123

Results

In presenting the results:

• We name and describe each of the identified 4 categories (and their sub-

categories) in turn, and illustrate most categories with quotations.

• We discuss most categories and sub-categories as we present them.

• As in our previous study, for reasons of brevity and consistency, we use the

terms ‘‘victim’’ and ‘‘perpetrator’’ (as used by Leary et al. 1998), where

‘‘victim’’ is taken to mean the questionnaire respondent who described the

incident in which she/he felt hurt, and ‘‘perpetrator’’ is taken to mean the person

who did something that resulted in the victim feeling hurt. We also refer to the

situation in which the victim felt hurt as the ‘‘hurtful situation,’’ but do not wish

to imply by this that the situation (or the perpetrator) caused hurt.

• We indicate the number of victims whose reasons were categorized within each

category and sub-category in order to complement the narrative and account for

the data (Sandelowski 2001).

1. Reasons for Not Acting on the Action Tendency (in the Hurtful Situation)

Relating to the Possible Outcomes of Acting on the Action Tendency

One or more of the reasons that 54 of the 100 respondents did not do what they felt

like doing when they experienced hurt feelings appeared to relate to considerations

about the consequences of doing so. The work of Ajzen (e.g. Ajzen 2006: 1), as

noted above, similarly suggests that ‘‘beliefs about the likely outcomes of…behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes’’ are among three important guiding

considerations in human behavior.9 In REBT’s ‘‘ABC’’ framework, these reasons

may be conceptualized as inferences about the possible consequences or outcomes

of acting on their action tendencies at ‘‘C.’’

The inferences fell into 8 sub-categories (see Table 2) relating to reasons why

people do not act on their hurt-related tendencies because of the perceived outcomes

of so doing.

Table 1 Four main categories of reasons for not acting on action tendencies (in the hurtful situation)

1 Reasons for not acting on the action tendency relating to the possible outcomes of acting on the

action tendency

2 Reasons for not acting on the action tendency relating to obstacles to acting on the action tendency

3 Reasons for not acting on the action tendency relating to protecting personal or social regard

4 Reasons for not acting on the action tendency relating to the perceived inappropriateness of acting on

the action tendency

9 As outlined in the introduction, the other two considerations are ‘‘normative beliefs’’ and ‘‘control

beliefs.’’ For a fuller discussion regarding how such beliefs can influence intention to perform behaviours

please refer to Ajzen (1991, 2001, 2006).


123

1a. The Action Would Have Made Things Worse

Nine victims (6 males and 3 females) indicated that they did not act on their action

tendency in the hurtful situation because they thought the action would have

exacerbated the situation,10 e.g.

• ‘‘Because I knew it would only make matters worse.’’

• ‘‘It would have made the situation worse.’’

1b. The Action Would Have Made the Situation Worse for the Victim

Nineteen victims (8 males and 11 females) indicated that what they felt like doing

when they felt hurt would have made things worse for themselves. For example, at

least 3 victims seemed to hold back from acting on their action tendencies in order

to avoid punishment, e.g.

• ‘‘I didn’t want to go to prison.’’

• ‘‘Reacting violently/angrily … would have gotten me into trouble.’’

Other reasons given for not acting on their action tendencies in this sub-category

included considerations about the negative repercussions the action would have had

for the victim’s job/salary/employment (n = 4) and concerns that the action might

have provoked the perpetrator to respond with further hurtful behavior (n = 4) such

as ‘‘becoming more insulting to me,’’ ‘‘hitting back’’ or ‘‘altering her will and giving

more to my sister.’’

Table 2 Category 1: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to

the possible outcomes of acting on the action tendency n = 54

Sub-category Frequency

1a The action would have made things worse 9

1b The action would have made the situation worse for the victim 19

1c The action would have made the situation worse for the perpetrator 6

1d The action would have made the situation worse for others (not the perpetrator) 5

1e The action would have damaged the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator(s) 9

1f The action would have damaged the victim’s relationship with others (not the

perpetrator)

1

1g The action would not have achieved worthwhile outcomes 10

1h An alternative action or strategy would have produced more valued outcomes 14

‘‘n’’ is based on number of respondents (out of 100 respondents) whose reasons were categorized in one

or more of the sub-categories within this category

Frequency is based on number of respondents who reported one or more reasons that were categorized

within a sub-category

10 These 10 victims did not refer to any specific aspect of the situation that they might have exacerbated

if they had acted on their action tendency. It is possible that they thought that such action would have

made things worse in one or more of the outcome areas considered below, even if this was not stated.


123

1c. The Action Would Have Made the Situation Worse for the Perpetrator

Whereas the reasons for not acting classified in sub-category 1b seemed to reflect

victims’ concerns to avoid a negative outcome for themselves, answers classified in

this sub-category (2 males and 4 females) seemed to reflect a concern to avoid a

negative outcome for the perpetrator,11 e.g.

• ‘‘I didn’t want to damage her health further.’’

• ‘‘Didn’t want to hurt my brother.’’

1d. The Action Would Have Made the Situation Worse for Others (Not

the Perpetrator)

One male and 4 female victims gave reasons for not acting on their action tendency

that concerned avoiding harm to others who had not perpetrated the hurtful act.12

All 5 victims referred to children—either the perpetrator’s children (n = 1), or their

own (i.e. the victim’s and perpetrator’s) children (n = 4), e.g.

• ‘‘I felt that the children would be even more traumatized by this.’’

• One victim additionally mentioned that she did not want to make the episode

worse for the ‘‘family sake.’’

1e. The Action Would Have Damaged the Victim’s Relationship

with the Perpetrator(s)

Three male and 6 female victims seemed to have refrained from acting on their

action tendency in the hurtful situation because they thought that acting on the

tendency might have created a rift, or future difficulties/tensions, in their

relationship with the perpetrator(s). For example, 2 victims indicated that they

held back from doing what they felt like doing because they wanted to avoid a ‘‘fall

out’’ with the perpetrator, 3 victims seemed concerned to avoid a loss or ‘‘permanent

rift’’ in their relationship or friendship with the perpetrator, and 3 victims thought

that if they had acted on their action tendency it might have resulted in ‘‘conflict,’’

‘‘more confrontation’’ or a ‘‘worse atmosphere.’’

Some reasons for not acting classified in this subcategory may have been associated

with positive feelings for the perpetrator (see ‘‘The Behavior Would Have Been

Inconsistent with Positive Feelings or Attitudes Towards Significant Other’’ section)

and/or the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator, per se, while some others may

have been associated with more practical or self-serving considerations (see ‘‘The

11 While the focus here appeared to be on avoiding a negative outcome for the perpetrator, these reasons

may also have been associated with positive feelings for the perpetrator (see ‘‘The Behavior Would Have

Been Inconsistent with Positive Feelings or Attitudes Towards Significant Others’’section).12 As in ‘‘The Action Would Have Made the Situation Worse for the Perpetrator’’ section, while the focus

here appeared to be on avoiding a negative outcome for others, these reasons may also have been

associated with positive feelings for significant others (see ‘‘The Behavior Would Have Been Inconsistent

with Positive Feelings or Attitudes Towards Significant Others’’ section).


123

Action Would Have Made the Situation Worse for the Victim’’ section). For example,

one of the victims who was concerned to avoid a loss of friendship wrote that:

• ‘‘I could not afford to lose a friend at that time because I was too lonely’’.

1f. The Action Would Have Damaged the Victim’s Relationship with Others (Not

the Perpetrator)

One male victim wrote that he did not do what he felt like doing in the situation in

which he felt hurt because of a fear of being separated from his children.13 The

authors thought it appropriate to include a category for this one item as it is possible

that some answers classified in other sections (e.g. ‘‘The Action Would Have Made

Things Worse’’ section) related to concerns for outcomes in this area.

1g. The Action Would Not Have Achieved Worthwhile Outcomes

Whereas responses categorized in the above sub-categories seemed to reflect a

concern to avoid making the situation worse, 10 victims (5 males and 5 females)

indicated that they held back from acting on their action tendency in the situation in

which they felt hurt because they did not believe that the outcomes of the action

would have been worthwhile. For example, 5 victims thought that acting on their

action tendency would not have helped the situation, e.g.

• ‘‘I did not feel it would achieve anything’’.

• ‘‘… didn’t stalk as it would not be helpful’’.

and 3 victims thought that acting on their action tendency would have been

‘‘pointless,’’ e.g.

• ‘‘seemed pointless’’.

• ‘‘… pointless action’’.

1h. An Alternative Action or Strategy Would Have Produced More Valued

Outcomes

Fourteen victims (5 males and 9 females) mentioned that they had not acted on their

action tendency during the hurtful episode because they thought (or hoped) that an

alternative strategy (or alternative strategies) would achieve more desirable outcomes.

For example, 4 of the victims appeared to hope that the situation would improve

over time if they took no direct action, e.g.

• ‘‘I hoped I would recover from this or that maybe he would return one day.’’

• ‘‘…let time work for the situation.’’

13 This was a clear example of where concern for outcomes was associated with positive feelings for

others. That is, this victim had previously written that he had ‘‘two children, who mean everything to me’’

(this section of his answer was classified under ‘‘The Behavior Would Have Been Inconsistent with

Positive Feelings or Attitudes Towards Significant Others’’section).


123

The above 4 victims seemed concerned to restore a positive relationship with the

perpetrator. 4 victims (including one of the above) similarly mentioned alternative

strategies that they thought would be more effective in restoring the peace, e.g.

• ‘‘I felt it was ‘better’ to keep control and not punish them or play their game.’’

• ‘‘… resolved to keep as much contact as I could.’’

On the other hand, 4 victims mentioned alternative behaviors that they thought

may be a more powerful form of manipulation and/or revenge, e.g.:

• ‘‘My only way to get back at them is to be successful in the future. To win.’’

• ‘‘What I did was more powerful and I knew it would be more manipulating—at

least I hoped it would.’’


Relating to Obstacles to Acting on the Action Tendency

Seventeen victims (7 males and 10 females) mentioned reasons under this heading to

explain why they did not do what they felt like doing in the situation in which they felt

hurt (see Table 3). The reasons for not acting that were included in this category may

relate to Ajzen’s (1991) concept of behavioral control. Ajzen (1991) draws the important

distinction between actual control of available resources and opportunities and

perception of behavioral control, which he also relates to self-efficacy (Bandura 1977).

Some more practical obstacles categorized in ‘‘External/Practical Obstacles to Acting

on the Action Tendency’’ section may be indicative of actual lack of opportunities and

some internal obstacles categorized in ‘‘Internal Obstacles to Acting on the Action

Tendency’’ section may be more indicative of perceptions of behavioral control.

2a. External/Practical Obstacles to Acting on the Action Tendency

Eight victims (4 males and 4 females) referred to external or practical obstacles to

acting on the action tendency, such as:

• ‘‘The police stopped me when I found out where he was being held.’’

• ‘‘Nowhere to go anyway.’’

• ‘‘Illegal.’’


obstacles to acting on the action tendency n = 17


2a External/practical obstacles to acting on the action tendency 8

2b Internal obstacles to acting on the action tendency 12






123

2b. Internal Obstacles to Acting on the Action Tendency

Twelve victims (4 males and 8 females) referred to internal or personal obstacles to

acting on their actions tendencies. In most cases, the answers suggested that the

victims were too emotionally overloaded or overwhelmed to act on the action

tendency, e.g.

• ‘‘Was emotionally exhausted.’’

• ‘‘I was too wounded to do this.’’

However, while most perceived internal obstacles concerned being overwhelmed

by feelings associated with the hurtful episode, some victims may have also or

alternatively14 attributed their reasons for not acting on their action tendencies to

other internal obstacles, e.g.

• ‘‘I would have found this difficult anyway.’’

• ‘‘I could not think of an appropriate way to revenge myself.’’


Relating to Protecting Personal or Social Regard

The answers of 11 respondents’ (6 males and 5 females) indicated that at least one

reason they did not act on their action tendencies in the hurtful situation concerned

either (a) their personal regard or (b) their social regard (see Table 4).

One might expect concerns for personal and social regard to have been on their

minds, given the central role that self-depreciation beliefs can play in ego hurt

(Dryden 2007: 15) and that hurtful episodes can ‘‘connote devaluation or

disassociation’’ (Leary et al. 1998: 1233). For example, the victims may have been

concerned to repair, or avoid further damage to their self-esteem/self-identity or

their social image.

3a. Protecting Personal Regard

Three males and 3 females provided one or more reasons for not acting on their

action tendencies that seemed to relate to a concern to protect their personal regard.

These reasons included ‘‘pride’’ (2 respondents), ‘‘self-esteem’’ (1 respondent) and

‘‘dignity’’ (2 respondents). For example, one respondent wrote that she did not do

what she felt like doing because she:

• ‘‘Tried to hold on to self-esteem and dignity.’’

Another respondent wrote:

• ‘‘Trying to maintain dignity.’’

14 This was not always straightforward to classify.


123

3b. Protecting Social Regard

Five answers (provided by 3 males and 2 females) were classified in this sub-

category. They seemed to indicate a concern for how others saw them, or how they

wanted to be seen. For example:

• ‘‘Did not want to be seen as irrational or a ‘stalker’.’’

• ‘‘Would look foolish.’’

• ‘‘I wanted to … appear grown up.’’

As can be seen, the reasons provided in this category relate explicitly or

implicitly to self-depreciation, an irrational belief about the self that is deemed to

stem from a rigid self-oriented demand (Dryden 2009).


Relating to the Perceived Inappropriateness of Acting on the Action Tendency

One or more of the reasons that 33 of the 100 respondents did not do what they felt

like doing when they experienced hurt feelings appeared to relate to considerations

about the inappropriateness of doing so (see Table 5).

4a. Inappropriate (no Explanation)

Four male victims mentioned that they thought the behavior would be inappropriate,

but gave no reason for this, e.g.

• ‘‘I didn’t think it appropriate.’’

4b. The Behavior Would Be Childish or Silly

Four victims (3 males and 1 female) mentioned that they thought the behavior

would have been childish or silly, e.g.

• ‘‘Crying would be silly.’’

• ‘‘I felt it would have been childish silly behavior.’’


protecting personal or social regard n = 11


3a Protecting personal regard 6

3b Protecting social regard 5






123

4c. The Behavior Would Have Been an Over-reaction

Four victims (1 male and 3 females) indicated that they thought the behavior would

have been an over-reaction, e.g.

• ‘‘Both of the above would have been taking it a bit too seriously.’’

• ‘‘It seemed … an over reaction.’’

4d. The Behavior Would Be Inconsistent with the Victim’s Personal Standards/

Values

Answers classified in this sub-category (9 in total, 3 males and 6 females) suggested

that the respondents thought that acting on the action tendency would be

inappropriate because such action would be going against their personal values.

In three such instances, answers/reasons given for not acting on the action

tendency may have been associated with concerns to protect, or to act in accordance

with, the victim’s self-regard or self-image (see, for instance, ‘‘Reasons for Not

Acting on the Action Tendency (in the Hurtful Situation) Relating to Protecting

Personal or Social Regard’’ section above) e.g.

• ‘‘I draw the line at physical violence.’’

• ‘‘I would not wish to hurt someone in this way.’’

The above answers may have also reflected ethical considerations, and two

respondents referred to ethics explicitly:

• ‘‘… didn’t think it ethically OK to hurt her.’’

• ‘‘I did not feel it was ethically okay to do these things.’’


perceived inappropriateness of acting on the action tendency n = 33


4a Inappropriate (no explanation) 4

4b The behavior would be childish or silly 4

4c The behavior would have been an over-reaction 4

4d The behavior would be inconsistent with the victim’s personal standards/values 9

4e The behavior would have been socially inappropriate 7

4f The behavior would have been inconsistent with positive feelings or attitudes towards

significant others

5

4g There may have been mitigating circumstances that contributed to the perpetrator’s

behavior (e.g. the perpetrator’s behavior may have been understandable or justified)

9

4h Miscellaneous 1






123

A concern for ethics may also be implied from the responses of a further four

victims who referred to the action that they had tended towards as being ‘‘wrong’’ (2

victims) or ‘‘unfair,’’ or neglecting their ‘‘sense of duty.’’

This sub-category appears to be similar to Ajzen’s concept of ‘‘personal or moral

norms’’—e.g. ‘‘personal feelings of moral obligation or responsibility to perform, or

refuse to perform, a certain behavior’’ (Ajzen 1991: 199). As Conner and Armitage

(1998: 1441) have also noted, ‘‘Moral norms should have an important influence on

the performance of those behaviors with a moral or ethical dimension.’’ Given that a

large number of victims reported aggressive action/behavioral tendencies in the

situation in which they felt hurt (see Paper 1 in this issue), one might expect issues of

personal values and moral norms to occur in this context.

4e. The Behavior Would Have Been Socially Inappropriate

Seven victims (4 males and 3 females) indicated that they did not do what they felt

like doing when they experienced hurt feelings because they thought the behavior

would have been socially inappropriate. Frijda (2004: 169) has similarly noted that

the emotion-action relationship is ‘‘susceptible to social influence.’’ For example,

people may consider actions to be inappropriate or unacceptable because of

‘‘perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior’’ (Ajzen 1991:

188), or ‘‘the norms of the moment’’ or ‘‘sheer habit of the group … or for the

emotional reasons of group belongingness and group loyalty’’ (Frijda 2004: 169).

Two victims referred to overt (verbal) social pressure to not act on their action

tendencies in the situation in which they felt hurt:

• ‘‘Friends of mine advised against it.’’

• ‘‘My mother was begging us to stop.’’

Five victims (4 males, 1 female) appeared to hold back from acting on their

action tendencies because they perceived them to be inappropriate behavior for the

social context e.g.

• ‘‘It was an occasion for the christening of a little child … [and I did not want to

cause a scene].’’

• ‘‘5 min before my wedding in front of all my friends and family was hardly the

ideal place to make a scene.’’

It was not clear whether these 5 respondents held back from acting on their action

tendencies because of perceived social pressure and/or for other reasons (e.g. such as

loyalty to, or concern for, significant others). However, it did seem that they were

taking into account the social/situational inappropriateness of their action tendencies.

4f. The Behavior Would Have Been Inconsistent with Positive Feelings or Attitudes

Towards Significant Others

Five victims (4 males and 1 female) referred to positive attitudes or feelings about

others as reasons for not acting on their action tendencies. All 5 of these referred to

positive attitudes or feelings towards the perpetrator, e.g.


123

• ‘‘Still have feelings for my wife.’’

• ‘‘I was still in love with her.’’

Two of these 5 victims’ answers also suggested that they had held back from

acting on their action tendency because of concern for their children.

Frijda (2004: 170) has similarly suggested that the value that people place on

personal relationships may influence the likelihood that they act on their action

tendencies. These victims seemed to positively value their relationship with the

perpetrator (and others) and this appeared to moderate their tendency to engage in

actual relationship distancing behaviors (see also Vangelisti 2006).

4g. There May Have Been Mitigating Circumstances that Contributed

to the Perpetrator’s Behavior (e.g. the Perpetrator’s Behavior May Have Been

Understandable or Justified)

The responses of 9 victims (i.e. 3 males and 6 females) suggested that they had

held back from acting on their action tendency in the hurtful situation because

they had considered factors—including their own behavior—that may have

contributed to, or partially explained, the perpetrator’s ‘‘hurtful’’ behavior. For

example, 3 females seemed to have considered the role they played in the hurtful

episode, e.g.

• ‘‘Trying to accept my part in event leading to this outcome.’’

• ‘‘Guilt over various parts of it.’’

Four victims (2 males and 2 females) considered factors to which they had been a

party that might have contributed to the perpetrator’s behavior: i.e. the perpetrator/s

being drunk (2 respondents), the perpetrator’s age and the perpetrator’s emotional

state.

A further 2 victims (1 male and 1 female) indicated that they did not act on their

action tendencies because they either understood, or wanted to understand, why the

perpetrator had acted in the way they did.

It is possible that some reasons given in this section were also indicative of

positive relationship quality (see ‘‘The Behavior Would Have Been Inconsistent

with Positive Feelings or Attitudes Towards Significant Others’’ section) in that

these victims had considered interpretations that ‘‘minimized’’ the perpetrator’s

behavior. For example, Kearns and Fincham (2005: 321) have suggested a ‘‘causal

sequence in which positive relationship quality led to more benign interpretations of

a transgression, which in turn, promoted forgiveness.’’

4h. Miscellaneous

One male victim (who had considered ‘‘overdosing, self-harming etc.’’) did not act

on his action tendency because he decided that he ‘‘wasn’t in the wrong.’’ He also

added ‘‘I think I played with these emotions only quite briefly as I explored options

but decided they were weak/illogical.’’


123

Discussion

This questionnaire-based study derived four main categories of reasons for not

acting on action tendencies in situations in which people felt hurt. These categories

were further broken down into sub-categories. Table 6 provides an overview of

these four main categories and sub-categories. It also shows the number of

respondents/victims whose reasons were categorized within each category and sub-

category.

The most common type of reasons given for not acting on the action tendency in

the hurtful situation related to considerations about the possible outcomes of acting

on the tendency (Category 1, e.g. n = 54); 73 reasons were sub-categorized as such.

It may be that some victims had constructive concerns or reservations about the

outcomes of acting on their tendencies (e.g. that by so acting they would be sent to

prison, or make things worse for significant others, or achieve an outcome that was

less favorable than outcomes that could have been achieved by following a different

course of action). At the same time, some people may ‘‘awfulize’’ about the

outcomes of acting on healthy action tendencies in hurtful situations (such as ‘‘if I

were to express my hurt feelings to my boss, I would lose my job and never get

another job again’’).

The wider therapeutic implications of this finding are that therapists need to

explore with their clients who are thinking of acting on their hurt-related action

tendencies the nature of their inferences about the outcome of such actions. Inviting

them to consider the pragmatic value of such actions is particularly important. There

are two ways of doing this: (a) in an open-ended manner and (b) in an empirically

derived manner. In the former the therapist would ask such open-ended questions as:

‘‘What would be the effect of acting in that way?’’ In the latter, the therapist would

frame questions based on the findings of this study (e.g. ‘‘What effect would acting

on your hurt-related action tendency have on your relationship with the perpetra-

tor?’’ Would this action achieve your valued outcome? What could you do instead

to achieve a more valued outcome?’’) In addition, if it is healthy for someone to act

on their action tendency and they do not, it is useful to consider that the reason

given for non-action may indicate the presence of an awfulizing belief and for the

therapist to treat it as such. In this case the therapist should first help the client to

dispute the irrational beliefs underpinning their hurt and then to help the person to

dispute the awfulizing belief underpinning non-action. Once the client is operating

primarily on their alternative rational beliefs they are more likely to take

constructive action.

In considering Category 1, the authors also note that more reasons (for not acting

on action tendencies in the hurtful situation) were classified in sub-categories 1b and

1c than in any other sub-categories (including sub-categories within categories 2–4).

These reasons reflected considerations that ‘‘the action would have made the

situation worse for the victim’’ (19 respondents) and that ‘‘an alternative action or

strategy would have produced more valued outcomes’’ (14 respondents). It is

possible that these hurt victims’ ‘‘perception of being wronged’’ contributed to

feelings that they were ‘‘entitled’’ to ‘‘behave selfishly’’ in the sense that this

perception increased their ‘‘sense of entitlement to avoid further suffering and to


123

Table 6 Categories and subcategories of reasons for not acting on action tendencies in the hurtful

situation (with frequencies)

Category 1: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to the possibleoutcomes of acting on the action tendency n = 54


1a The action would have made things worse 9

1b The action would have made the situation worse for the victim 19

1c The action would have made the situation worse for the perpetrator 6

1d The action would have made the situation worse for others (not the perpetrator) 5

1e The action would have damaged the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator(s) 9

1f The action would have damaged the victim’s relationship with others (not theperpetrator)

1

1g The action would not have achieved worthwhile outcomes 10

1h An alternative action or strategy would have produced more valued outcomes 14

Category 2: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to obstacles toacting on the action tendency n = 17


2a External/practical obstacles to acting on the action tendency 8

2b Internal obstacles to acting on the action tendency 12

Category 3: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to protectingpersonal regard or social regard n = 11


3a Protecting personal regard 6

3b Protecting social regard 5

Category 4: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to perceivedinappropriateness of acting on the action tendency n = 33


4a Inappropriate (no explanation) 4

4b The behavior would be childish or silly 4

4c The behavior would have been an over-reaction 4

4d The behaviour would be inconsistent with the victim’spersonal standards/values

9

4e The behavior would have been socially inappropriate 7

4f The behavior would have been inconsistent with positivefeelings or attitudes towards significant others

5

4g There may have been mitigating circumstances that contributedto the perpetrator’s behavior (e.g. the perpetrator’s behaviormay have been understandable or justified)

9

4h Miscellaneous 1

‘‘n’’ is based on number of respondents (out of 100 respondents) whose reasons were categorized in oneor more of the sub-categories within this category

Frequency is based on number of respondents who reported one or more reasons that were categorizedwithin a sub-category


123

obtain positive outcomes for themselves’’ (Zitek et al. 2010: 245). It may help

therapists to be aware of their clients’ feelings of entitlement when they feel hurt,

even if clients do not necessarily follow through on some of their ‘‘selfish’’ action

tendencies, and to target for change the beliefs that underpin these feelings.

The second most common type of reasons (n = 33) given for not acting on the

action tendency related to considerations about the appropriateness of so doing

(Category 4). 43 reasons were sub-categorized as such. More common reported

reasons in this category related to inconsistency with the victim’s personal

standards/values (9 respondents), consideration of mitigating circumstances that

contributed to the perpetrator’s behavior) and considerations about the social

inappropriateness of acting on the action tendency.

The wider therapeutic implications of this finding are that therapists could

explore with their clients who are thinking of acting on their hurt-related action

tendencies their inferences about the inappropriateness or appropriateness of doing

so. In some situations hurt clients may consider that acting on their action tendency

could be inappropriate for healthy reasons. For example, they may consider it to be

less appropriate to lash out at the perpetrator given certain mitigating circumstances

that contributed to the perpetrator’s behavior. In other situations, however, their

judgement about the inappropriateness of the behavior may be based on an

unhealthy ‘‘must’’ associated with shame-related beliefs (such as ‘‘I absolutely

should not cry in a public place’’) which the therapist might helpfully challenge. It

could perhaps also be argued that some hurt clients (along with some victims in our

study) decide not to act on their action tendencies because they think that acting on

them would be inappropriate from the perspective of what might be considered to be

healthy personal, social or moral ‘‘shoulds’’—such as it being ‘‘wrong’’ to carry out

physically violent acts. Regardless of the nature of inferences about the inappro-

priateness of acting on certain action tendencies, it can be helpful to explore with

the client the negative hurt-related inferences and emotions that gave rise to the

unacted-on tendency to carry out the ‘‘inappropriate’’ behavior and whether the

client is harboring unvented hurt-related emotions and action tendencies. Similarly

(as with all unacted-on action tendencies), it can be helpful to explore with the client

the appropriateness of alternative courses of action that were considered and taken

(or not taken) and—if necessary—to help the client to devise more appropriate or

constructive courses of action.

Another important intervention here is to encourage clients to act in ways that are

consistent with their value system and to refrain from acting in ways that are

inconsistent with that system. First, the therapist needs to ascertain what the client’s

value system with respect to the behavior suggested by the hurt-based action

tendency and then to invoke a value in a relevant question (e.g. ‘‘Does acting in that

way help you to live according to your values here?’’) Care has to be taken on this

point for some clients will depreciate themselves for even wanting to act in ways

that go against their values.

A further category of reasons (Category 2) for not acting on the action tendency

in the hurtful situation related to obstacles to acting on the action tendency

(n = 17); 20 reasons were categorized as such. These broke down into sub-

categories of reasons that concerned external/practical obstacles and internal


123

obstacles. The wider therapeutic implications of this finding are that therapists could

refer to such obstacles when it is clear that taking hurt-based action would be

counterproductive for the client. For example, if a client wants to attack the

perpetrator, then suggesting that they consider the illegalities of so doing are in

order. Conversely, if a client is refraining from taking action that would be

constructive for the person then the therapist, having identified the relevant obstacle

to taking such action, might problem-solve with the client ways of surmounting the

obstacle. If the obstacle here is internal, for example, then the therapist may

consider such relevant factors as the client’s level of ‘‘self-efficacy’’ (Bandura

1977). Clients can feel stressed and threatened in hurtful situations, and their

cognitive appraisals of this emotional arousal may affect their ‘‘perceived self-

efficacy’’ (Bandura 1977, 198–199). Where these perceptions appear to be holding

the client back from acting on what could possibly be a constructive tendency such

as asking the perpetrator ‘‘for an explanation’’ (Feeney 2004: 496), the therapist

should first help the client to deal with their emotional disturbance (about asking for

the explanation) and thus also reduce their emotional arousal, and then help the

client to see that they probably can do what they think that they can’t do (i.e. help

them address their low level of self-efficacy with respect to their own behavior).

The other category (Category 3) for not acting on the acting on the action

tendency in the hurtful situation related to protecting the victims’ regard (n = 11)—

from either a personal or social perspective.

REBT therapists who wish to intervene here have a number of issues to consider.

First, as responses in this category show, people choose not to act on their hurt-

based tendencies because doing so would lessen their personal regard or social

regard. REBT theory (e.g. Ellis 2005) argues that conditional self-rating is

ultimately unhealthy. For clients not to take action because they would regard

themselves as less worthy, for example, than they would if they took such action is

actually strengthening this philosophy of conditional self-rating. REBT therapist can

take one of two main approaches here. They could address this issue with their

clients and show them that they can accept themselves whether or not they take such

action, but that it is better not to take such action for reasons to be specified (what

might be called the ‘‘philosophical approach’’) or they can leave well alone arguing

that the most important thing for the client is not to take such action even that

decision might be underpinned by unhealthy reasons (what might be called the

‘‘pragmatic’’ approach). Here, as elsewhere, therapists will be guided by a number

of factors including their judgment of their clients’ preparedness to entertain the

philosophical as opposed to the pragmatic approach. Whichever approach level is

taken, it should not be forgotten that a basic task for REBT therapist is to help

clients to identify, challenge and change the irrational beliefs that underpin their

hurt feelings.

We noted some limitations to the approach adopted in our first accompanying

paper (Dryden and Hurton 2013). Similar limitations would apply to this second

study.

A further limitation of this study is that it seems likely that the reasons for not

acting on action tendencies would differ depending on the action tendency. It was


123

not possible to link reasons to the action tendencies in this study, due to the open-

ended nature of the answers. A future study might examine this.

It should also be noted that some victims gave reasons for not acting that fell in

more than one category and/or subcategory, and these at times appeared to be

interrelated. This should be borne in mind in therapy.

Action tendencies and reasons for not acting on them may also be different for

non-romantic and romantic relationships. This is a possibility we could explore later

with our data, as one of the questions asked the victim about his/her relationship

with the perpetrator.

On a similar point, it seems likely that the reasons for not acting on action

tendencies would differ depending on the emotion. So the reasons given in this

study may not apply to situations when people are not acting on their tendencies

when they are, for example, experiencing shame. Neither should the categories

viewed in this study be viewed as a comprehensive framework of reasons for not

acting on action tendencies in situations in which people feel hurt, given the

relatively small sample size.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by a Grant from the Research Capability Fund in the

Department of Professional and Community Education, Goldsmiths, University of London.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved from http://

people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,

84, 191–215.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues

for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464.

Dryden, W. (2007). Overcoming hurt. London: Sheldon Press.

Dryden, W. (2009). Rational emotive behavior therapy: Distinctive features. Hove, East Sussex:

Routledge.

Dryden, W., Hurton, N. R. (2013). What I felt like doing, but did not do when I felt hurt: An REBT-based

investigation of action tendencies that are not acted on. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-

Behavior Therapy. doi:10.1007/s10942-013-0169-9.

Ellis, A. (2005). The myth of self-esteem: How rational emotive behavior therapy can change your life

forever. New York: Prometheus Books.

Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards integrative models of the negative

effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508.

Frijda, N. H. (2004). Emotions and action. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.),

Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam symposium (pp. 158–173). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions:

Self-serving of relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,

321–333.

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.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.


123

http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf

http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.intervention.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10942-013-0169-9

Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2006). Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup

emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728.

Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative

research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 230–240.

Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Hurtful interactions and the dissolution of intimacy. In M. A. Fine & J.

H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 133–152). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vangelisti, A. L., & Crumley, L. P. (1998). Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational

contexts. Communication Monographs, 65, 173–196.

Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 245–255.


123

Documents

Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt: An REBT-Based Investigation of Reasons Why Hurt-Based Action Tendencies are Not Acted On