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.
202 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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).
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 203
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.
204 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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).
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 205
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).
206 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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.’’
2. Reasons for Not Acting on the Action Tendency (in the Hurtful Situation)
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.’’
Table 3 Category 2: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to
obstacles to acting on the action tendency n = 17
Sub-category Frequency
2a External/practical obstacles to acting on the action tendency 8
2b Internal obstacles to acting on the action tendency 12
‘‘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
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 207
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.’’
3. Reasons for Not Acting on the Action Tendency (in the Hurtful Situation)
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.
208 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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).
4. Reasons for Not Acting on the Action Tendency (in the Hurtful Situation)
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.’’
Table 4 Category 3: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to
protecting personal or social regard n = 11
Sub-category Frequency
3a Protecting personal regard 6
3b Protecting social regard 5
‘‘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
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 209
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.’’
Table 5 Category 4: Reasons for not acting on the action tendency (in the hurtful situation) relating to
perceived inappropriateness of acting on the action tendency n = 33
Sub-category Frequency
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
‘‘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
210 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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.
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 211
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.’’
212 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 213
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
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 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
Sub-category Frequency
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
Sub-category Frequency
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
Sub-category Frequency
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
214 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 215
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
216 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
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.
Why I did Not do What I Felt Like Doing When I Felt Hurt 217
123
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.
218 W. Dryden, N. R. Hurton
123