Relational Pet Peeves 1
Running Head: RELATIONAL PET PEEVES
What’s Bugging You: Pet Peeves in Committed Relationships
(Submission to the Central States Communication Association Undergraduate
Honors Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2010)
Relational Pet Peeves 2
What’s Bugging You: Pet Peeves in Committed Relationships
What’s bugging you? This is a common question that one might get on
any given day of the week. What is really bugging us? Did someone just die in
our lives and we are mourning them? Or did your significant other not put their
toothbrush back in the toothbrush holder? Surprisingly enough the latter is
probably truer. As a people we let everything get to us. We go by day to day and
find something that annoys us terribly and often aren’t afraid to admit that it
bothers us. These behaviors or social allergies are commonly known as pet
peeves. I am conducting a research study on pet peeves in intimate
relationships. I want to take a look at younger couples and really find out what
they consider a pet peeve, why they have these pet peeves and will someone
violating a pet peeve lead to the end of their relationship? These are really
important questions to ask when trying to maintain a relationship. If you are
unaware you are violating a pet peeve you may continue to hurt you significant
other without any knowledge.
Webster defines a pet peeve as a frequent subject of complaint. Is that
how we define it? It is important to nail down the social definition because
words or phrases mean different things to everyone. One person may interpret a
frequent subject of complaint completely different from someone else.
Another very important question to ask is whether or not the pet peeve
violation will actually lead to the end of the relationship. What factors play into
the destruction of the relationship? Is the violation of a pet peeve known or is
the significant other violating it unconsciously. By taking two focus groups and
analyzing their responses to these questions I hope to find the dark side of pet
peeves.
Relational Pet Peeves 3
Literature Review
I wanted to research other peer-reviewed articles in order to find what
has been researched in the area of pet peeves and where I can expand through
my research. I also wanted to make sure to define or correctly identify my
qualifications of my research. It is important that I not only find out what is out
there about pet peeves, but also subjects concerning interpersonal relationships
and romantic relationships. In this way I can greater understand what situations
I may have to handle and if there are any deeper underlying factors that I might
not have identified other wise. During review of articles there were some things
that also need to be clarified.
When I decided to study pet peeves and began research on that
terminology I was quickly redirected to the term social allergies. A social
allergen is a reaction of hypersensitive annoyance or disgust to a repeated
behavior (Cunningham, Shamblen, and Barbee 2005). This definition turned my
attention to correctly defining what a pet peeve actually is to our society. I
wanted to know how everyone sees pet peeves. The article then went on to
break down the various types of social allergens one might experience. Some
examples were uncouth habits, inconsiderate behaviors and intrusive acts
(Cunningham, Shamblen and Barbee 2005). These specific examples helped me
in identifying themes throughout my research. Another topic in which I wanted
to study was that of social penetration and how getting to know someone might
be cause for more annoying behaviors.
Social penetration theory deals with the development of social
relationships from strangership and casual acquaintanceship to the formation of
more intimate social bonds (Altman 1973). I wanted to know why deeper
involvement with a person caused more pet peeve violations. In order to find
this out I had to study Altman’s proposed process-oriented theory of the
development, management and possible deterioration of social relationships.
Relational Pet Peeves 4
When looking at the intimate relationships these phases are heightened because
of the attraction and social pressure added. If we were just considering a normal
relationship without intimacy factors are reduced because of lower expectations
and less desirable benefits. Another aspect of social penetration theory is the
disclosure of information. In the beginning stages of a relationship less
information is divulged. That is why I thought it important to make sure these
intimate relationships have lasted at least six months in order to have deeper
relational penetration. With the level of intimacy increased more is shared and
therefore more is known, and pet peeves are easier to identify.
Instances of nonverbal communication are also important to consider.
Most social allergies or pet peeves are tangible physical involvements, but often
we can be irked by person’s nonverbal behaviors as well. Rolling of the eyes or
the cold shoulder are strong nonverbals that often times annoy the person they
are directed at. So when considering pet peeves we must include our
unconscious nonverbal behaviors because of the implications this might have on
the level of annoyance of the violated pet peeve.
Interpersonal communication is necessary when in intimate relationships.
Interpersonal communication entails multiple outcomes, and collectively these
outcomes can be simultaneously constructive and destructive, functional and
dysfunctional, and pleasurable and painful (Cupach and Spitzberg 2007). When
studying pet peeves I am considering how much this will affect the future of
relationships and how violation made lead to the ending of the relationships and
how if interpersonal communication is not utilized effectively the relationship
can deteriorate quickly. With this in mind I began my study and took a look into
intimate relationships and how pet peeves are involved. In other words what’s
bugging you?
Relational Pet Peeves 5
Method
I recruited 19 participants in a Midwestern University from
Communication classes. Out of the 19 participants, 13 were female and 6 were
males. The participants’ ranged in ages from 19 to 35 years old with and average
age of 22.7 years old. The participants significant others ranged in ages from 20
to 32 years old with an average age of 23.5 years old. Out of the 19 participants
69% were not engaged, 31% were engaged and 0% were married. The
minimum length of the relationship with the significant other was six months.
The length of the relationships ranged from 6 months to 72 months. The average
length of the relationship was 29.68 months.
Upon retrieving all the demographic information from the participants
they were then divided into two focus groups. These two focus groups where
then asked a series of open-ended questions reflecting the goal of the researcher.
Each session lasted no more than two hours and was very informal. The object
of the focus group format was to generate conversation to allow for
maximization of each question. I wanted to make sure nothing was left unsaid
about pet peeves.
Discussion
After compiling the data and listening to the tape recording some very
interesting themes were found in each of the focus groups. First the definition of
pet peeves that each group agreed upon was slightly different from that of
Webster’s and not as severe as the social allergies defined in my literature
review. Second, most often verbal and nonverbal behaviors were not considered
pet peeves. Most participants immediately considered only physical items
involved to be pet peeves. Third, long distance relationships greatly affect the
confrontation when a pet peeve has been violated. Finally, the participants
believed that pet peeves would not lead to the end of a relationship because they
Relational Pet Peeves 6
considered them more innocent or unintentional and most importantly not a
flaw.
My first question asked to my participants was what is your definition of a
pet peeve? I wanted to make sure we all agreed upon a definition so we could
refer back to it and really understand the implications the definition made
throughout the study. Since I had two focus groups I had two definitions, but
surprisingly they weren’t too different. The first group defined pet peeve as a
significant annoying behavior. The implications of this definition make it seem
that a pet peeve is not a trite unnoticed behavior and that it does have
significance in the relationship. The second group defined pet peeve as a
repetitive annoying behavior performed by humans. This last addition of
“caused by humans” implies that pet peeve is something only humans can have
and that inanimate objects cannot annoy someone. Now we have all fought with
our VCR before but that is a man made object, so by this definition our pet peeve
of electronics malfunctioning lies on the creator of the device not the machine
itself. Also this definition lets us place blame. If there is no one around to blame
for our annoyance the level of frustration dwindles because the object cannot
feel and respond. With these definitions I can also infer that pet peeves require
another human beings response. Without someone to receive the message of
frustration the reaction is not validated. We as humans need to validate our
emotions in order to be considered annoyed.
After putting down an accepted concrete definition I simply wanted to
find out what my participants considered a pet peeve. Thus began a very
riveting conversation on how “I can’t stand wet popcorn and wet socks, there is
just something about that I can’t stand.” The first reaction of most participants
was to explain and divulge general pet peeves that they have with everyone no
matter what. One participant was very adamant about not letting anyone drink
from his or her cup, and if you did how they would then no longer drink from the
Relational Pet Peeves 7
cup. After a round or two of addressing general pet peeves, I then asked them
what pet peeves they have with their significant others. One participant
responded with my significant other “doesn’t think I fart or poop.” This response
begs the question of how people are viewed and why do we think that those
actions don’t occur? Were we raised in a specific way that our pet peeves model
our upbringing? If we were raised to clean our room and make our bed everyday
does our significant other not doing that become a pet peeve of ours? After
further questioning I found that most participants agreed that the way they were
raised played a role in their pet peeves. One participant is a very tidy person and
is with an unclean person. This violation by the significant other usually results
in nagging and suggestive language by the participant that would lead to
arguments. Another method used commonly by the participants was
gunnysacking. Participants would often wait to confront their significant other
until multiple pet peeves were violated, thus creating a big argument and
completely blindsiding the significant other. This technique is popular in long
distance relationships for the simple fact that when they are together they don’t
want to fight. They only have a limited amount of time to spend together and
they don’t want to ruin that time with arguing about little things. Another
question follows, when they are able to spend more time together are they going
to discover more about that person they don’t like? Will these pet peeves they
were able to ignore before suddenly become more? I cannot answer this
question but it does make you wonder if pet peeves can lead to the breakdown of
a relationship.
As I would further question about pet peeves I unveiled another theme.
Women tend to have opposite opinions of men on certain pet peeves. For
instance one of the male participants was expressing how his pet peeve of his
significant other was how she always planned things. This participant saw this
annoying because of his laid back nature and wanting to make plans as the day
comes and not a week before hand. “I have no idea what I’m doing Friday, it’s
Relational Pet Peeves 8
only Tuesday.” After saying this I looked at the female participants and could
almost see them jumping out of their seat at him. Most of the women then
agreed that the unplanned nature of their significant others was highly annoying
to them. They wanted to have some idea of what they will be doing together this
week. It was important to them, almost to the point of arguing right there and
then in the interview. After discovering this I wanted to know how often do pet
peeves violations happen because situations like he one stated before. My
participants responded immediately. One of the participants significant other
always wanted dishes out of the sink and immediately put away, but the
participant proposed the question “the what do you have a sink for if not to hold
dishes?” This query started a pet peeve disagreement almost immediately.
Noticing that gender plays a role in pet peeve violation is very significant and
often times when one violates a pet peeve, the offender in return has one of their
pet peeves violated as well.
Discussing pet peeves further with my groups I found that most
participants were referring to physical things the significant other would do. For
example they would refer to “leaving the box top on the cereal open.” They were
not considering nonverbal behaviors. I see this as a major oversight because
nothing upsets us more that someone rolling his or her eyes during a
conversation. This may be a general statement but we most often don’t consider
those nonverbal behaviors pet peeves. I on the other hand believe them to be
extremely overlooked and extremely detrimental. Our true feelings are most
often shown through our nonverbal behaviors. Body language speaks in
volumes compared to the simple statement of “I’m fine, nothing’s wrong.” We
know this statement to not be true because their facial expression and slumped
shoulder say otherwise. After posing this question of what are some nonverbal
pet peeves, participants quickly responded. “I can’t stand it when he shrugs his
shoulders to answer a question.” These responses often contribute to a greater
response from the recipient. Also we are sometimes unconscious of the
Relational Pet Peeves 9
nonverbal behavior. We could easily roll our eyes and not even realize we did it.
This oversight on nonverbal behaviors is a serious one. without the realization
of these we might go on violating them unconsciously and then one day when
our partner breaks up with us for no apparent reason we sit and wonder. This of
course brings me to my previously mentioned question of whether or not pet
peeves being violated can lead to the end of the relationship.
When I initially asked the question if pet peeves being violated would lead
to the ending of a relationship I was immediately met with a resounding no, but
after further interrogation I discovered that there are levels of pet peeves. Most
of my participants considered pet peeves as little annoyances that they could
deal with, but then I reminded them of their definition stating that it was a
significant repetitive annoying behavior. They backtracked a little and then
explained that there are various degrees of a pet peeve. After continual violation
of a pet peeve it no longer is considered a pet peeve, but is now a flaw. This I
very interesting because it shows the seriousness at which people considers a
pet peeve. Whether they no longer consider it a pet peeve is irrelevant, the fact
is that it started as one and escaladed to more. The initial violation was seen as
nothing, but after repetitive annoyance it becomes a flaw. If you reread my
previous sentence you will see that their definition of a pet peeve is involved. My
mind can’t help but ask why do we consider pet peeves to be no big deal? They
seemingly are the roots of what might eventually be found a personality flaw.
Another implication that might be considered is the mood of the person when
the pet peeve is violated. Is their mood dependent on the level in which they
take offense? I asked my focus group and all agreed. Emotions are a huge part.
My next question then is, are emotions the reason for pet peeves moving from
something little to a considerable flaw? Is leaving the toilet seat up a
relationship destroyer because you were fired that day? It is important to take
into account why that person reacts to the violated pet peeve. I would hope that
the person be in control of there emotions and be able to respond appropriately,
Relational Pet Peeves 10
but lets face it, there is no way that is possible. We are human and we are
looking to lay blame on another human, which according to this study is a very
involved part of the pet peeve definition. This question was also based on
gender, most women would react immediately when in a heightened emotional
state, on the contrary men stated that they would wait to tell their significant
other they violated a pet peeve after they were both calm. Now this is probably
not true in all cases but for this study most men admitted that they would try to
tell their significant other about their pet peeve violation after the situation has
passed. The role gender plays is important to determining the level of the pet
peeve violation. Do they consider it a flaw or just small little pet peeve? Will this
escalation of the pet peeve end the relationship?
Study Limitations and Future Directions
You can’t go through an entire study without realizing that there are
limitations to your study and areas on which you can expand in the future. My
study was very limited in the sample size. I only had 19 participants to try to
cover the topic of pet peeves. Also all of my participants had taken upper level
communication classes, which in way can train them to respond in ways others
might not be aware of. Another critique I have is the gender skew. Most of my
participants were female. This skew allowed for a very limited glance on how
men react specifically to pet peeves. Without more study on the male
perspective my study shows limited data. My study was also geared to college
students. I believe this is a limitation because of the inexperience in
relationships and the possible affect age and lifestyle has on their perceptions.
An older person might not see it the same way as a group of college students do.
Overall I started with limitations, but have many avenues now on which to
expand.
To further my research in the future would be very rewarding. Many
questions were raised while conducting the experiment. For instance an entire
Relational Pet Peeves 11
study could be done on pet peeves in long distance relationships and how the
interactions differ from local relationships. Another avenue you could pursue is
a specific study on nonverbal behaviors as pet peeves in intimate relationships. I
am happy that my research generated a greater interest in me to conduct more
research study in order to expand my knowledge and understanding of pet
peeves. Overall the study in my eyes was a success. I unearthed a social
definition of what a pet peeve actually is and how if a pet peeve is continually
violated that in can escalade into a flaw. I discovered that nonverbal behaviors
are often not overlooked as pet peeves. Also how gender plays a huge role in the
intensity that is placed on the pet peeve violation. With all this and more I am
satisfied with my research and look forward to expanding it in the future.
Relational Pet Peeves 12
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of
interpersonal relationships . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Cunningham, M. R., Ault, L., & Shamblen, S. R. (2001, July). From impression
management to social allergy: Romantic deflation and the emergence of
aversive behaviors . Paper presented at the Conference of the International
Network on Personal Relationships, Prescott, AZ.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., Angier, N., Daly, J. A., Hogg, E., Sacks, D. et al. (1999).
Kinesic cues: The body, eyes, and face . In L. K. Guerrero, J. A. DeVito (Eds.)
The nonverbal communication reader: Classic and contemporary readings (2nd
ed., pp. 48– 89). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. (1996). Interpersonal communication and human
relationships (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Shamblen, S. R. (2004). My partner wasn’t so disgusting when we first started dating;
what happened? An exploration of change process in close relationships .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (Ed.). (2007). The Dark side of interpersonal
communication. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..