What It Takes to Fix a Broken Relationship

The publication of Prince Harry’s memoir and interviews pertaining to its revelations are igniting worldwide discussions about how and whether broken relationships can be repaired. Will Harry ever be accepted by the royal family and, by the same token, will he want to be? It sounds as if the family will never come back together, but might they somehow overcome their years of hurt feelings if not physical estrangement?

One reason this royal rift has gained so much attention, you might argue, is that it is so reminiscent of what many families go through, albeit on a lesser scale. Adult siblings disagree about each other’s romantic partners, behaviors toward their parents, or even sensitive matters going all the way back into childhood. In-laws often enter the picture, especially when they ruffle the feathers of one of the original set of family members. When Harry speaks about violent arguments with his brother, William, it vicariously reawakens old wounds or pours salt into those that haven’t healed.

Rumination and Co-rumination in the Light of a Transgression

According to a new study by Flinders University’s (Australia) Michael Wenzel and colleagues (2022), thinking about your own wrongdoings, or what they refer to as “intrapersonal rumination,” can serve a productive function in helping you come to grips with your actions and even beginning to forgive yourself. Most of the theorizing about rumination points to its deleterious effects on mental health, as can happen in clinical depression when people can’t stop thinking about their flaws.

However, the Flinders U. researchers believe that, through rumination, you can “reach a broader understanding of the transgression by considering different perspectives, and contextualizing the incident” (p. 2). In other words, the shades of gray in your behavior can start to emerge out of the black-and-white outline you may have previously constructed. Sure, you said something hurtful to one of your best friends, and that was wrong. But, as you ponder the incident, memories also flood in of the times when you were kind and caring.

In co-rumination, as the authors go on to note, two people involved in the same transgression engage in a “shared and interactive” discussion, “dwelling on the wrong,” when you share “thoughts, emotions, and motivations in a dialogue.” The “moral repair” that can follow from this results from an intertwining of reactions to the transgression, as both parties go through a “bipartisan” process of rethinking the behavior in question.

There is a danger in co-rumination, however, if you engage in “co-brooding," or sharing negative emotions as you continue to hurl insults at each other. In “co-reappraisal,” though, you and the other person share your thoughts to gain greater clarity about the transgression. Co-reappraisal could theoretically lead to forgiveness on the part of the victim and self-forgiveness by the transgressor.

Testing Co-rumination in Relationship Transgressions

To investigate co-rumination as a reparative process, Wenzel et al. recruited a sample of 110 university student dyads in a prospective manner, meaning before any transgression had occurred. After one partner reported the transgression of the other, a brief survey was sent immediately to both, followed, in turn, by a third and fourth survey, separated by a day or two.

The nature of the transgressions included such acts as a violation of trust, an indiscretion, physical harm, psychological hurt, and similar relationship violations. The surveys following the report of a transgression assessed co-reflection (talking to each other to try to see each other’s perspective), co-brooding (repeating the same accusations over and over), individual rumination (rethinking the incident), forgiveness, self-punitiveness (punishing oneself for the offense), and self-forgiveness. Each partner also rated the seriousness of the offense.

The statistics used to trace the path from transgression to forgiveness used a “cross-lagged” method, in which behavior A at time 1 is related to behavior (or response) B at time 2, and so on. Adding complexity to the analyses, the authors took into account the separate and combined scores of offender and victim.

Turning to the findings, the question of whether co-rumination could promote a climate of greater mutual understanding was answered in a somewhat unexpected way. The pattern of lagged relationships suggested that co-rumination with the victim triggered rumination by the transgressor. As the authors concluded, “co-rumination is not just an outlet of individual repetitive thinking…rather…rumination can have a social basis” (p. 17). Rumination, in turn, provoked both self-forgiveness and self-punitiveness in the offender. Although self-punitiveness may seem like an undesirable outcome, it has the “upside” of promoting greater insight by the transgressor.

Meanwhile, what’s happening to the victim? Early on, the victim has considerable “power and influence in the process.” If the victim offers forgiveness, co-brooding will be short-circuited. However, by forgiving too soon, the offender won’t “work through the relational implications of the conflict,” and the repair won’t be “genuine and comprehensive” (p. 19).

Moral Repair: A Mutual Process

The bottom line from this innovative study is that forgiveness is a two-way street. When people are involved in a committed relationship that they wish to preserve, it seems that true repair can only occur when there is a chance for co-reflection.

What about relationships in which there is no clear transgressor, or, as in a more complex set of family ties, there is a series of transgressions? It may seem that co-reflection is the last thing that anyone wants to enter into, but based on the Australian study, it seems as though it may be the most important. Mutually unpacking all that past history in a nonjudgmental and nonaccusatory fashion could help identify the original source of all the acrimony. Apologies or even outright forgiveness on their own won’t be enough to provide the pathway to repair.

Some of the suggested methods to promote co-reflection, as Wenzel et al. note, can include listening more than talking; mutual perspective-taking; showing empathy, respect, and humility; and, finally, reaffirming shared values. At an emotional level, participants can share their feelings and engage in social support, both of which can help lower everyone’s stress levels.

To sum up, relationship rifts create considerable pain that can last for years, if not lifetimes. Willingness to engage in the repair process by reducing those rifts can help turn the pain into fulfillment.

Facebook image: KieferPix/Shutterstock