Discouraging messages.

Discouraging messages are those that recipients interpret as intended to dishearten. There are two studies in this report. The first study explores estimates of the frequency and perceptions about discouraging messages. The second study is a cluster analysis of discouraging messages as elicited

Keywords: Discouraging; Motivation; Hurtful Messages; Social Influence

**********

A great deal of communication and related research is directed at how to motivate others in their endeavors. In contrast, little if any research, however, points to what demotivates. Some might say that if we seek to inspire, we might first avoid creating dolor or "negative support" environments (see La Gaipa, 1990). Others might argue that what is encouraging in one direction stems from the discouragement of prior states (e.g., creating the motivating impact of inconsistency requires the persuader to point out or create an inconsistent state). Either perspective would seem to demand that we learn more about what messages discourage those who are otherwise motivated.

Definition

Discouraging messages are those messages interpreted by the receiver as having the intent of exacerbating or increasing a sense of resignation and being disheartened. There are several properties of this definition that require elaboration.

First, discouraging messages convey a negative intention or attitude held by the source toward the receiver. The key aspect is that the recipient sees the discouraging message as intended to dissuade the receiver from continuing to perform.

Second, discouraging messages refers to an active communication process as opposed to a persistent emotional state (e.g., depression). That is, the recipient interprets a discouraging message as intended to alter the recipient's motivation state. While persistent emotional states like depression are of interest to communication researchers (Segrin, 2003; Segrin & Dillard, 1992) receiving a discouraging message should not be confused with being in a persistent emotional state.

Third, discouraging messages can be seen as related to but not the same as hurtful messages (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, 2002; Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti & Crumley, 1998; Young, 2004; Young & Bippus, 2001). Vangelisti specifically broadened hurtful messages "regardless of intentionality ..." to any "feeling of hurt ... evoked by and expressed through communication" (p. 54). According to Vangelisti hurtful messages are distinguished from messages that elicit guilt or those that elicit anger on the dimensions of source (internal, external, interpersonal, or relational), stability, and globality. What is characteristic of discouraging messages, by contrast, is the perceived intent to dishearten rather than the elicited response. Thus, a response to a discouraging message may well be feelings of hurt, anger, or guilt. On the other hand, the response to a discouraging message might be righteous indignation or a desire to rise above the pettiness of the comment. A message that discourages is specifically one that the recipient interprets as intended to be demoralizing or demotivating.

Vangelisti (1994) employed inductive analysis to generate a typology of hurtful message speech acts. This investigation has the potential for comparing and contrasting hurtful speech acts from messages seen as discouraging.

Two studies were conducted to explore the nature and extent of discouraging messages. The first study examined self-reports of experiences and perceptions of discouraging messages. Study 2 involved a cluster and multidimensional scaling analysis of discouraging message matchings.

Study 1

The intent here was to find evidence about the perceptions people have of discouraging messages. How common are discouraging message? Are discouraging words innocuous and uncommon or are such messages a vast social affliction? Are there differences in the perceptions about who sends discouraging messages? Vangelisti (1994) found little evidence that people attribute hurtful messages to relational or interpersonal factors. Much of the literature on hurtful messages, however, centers on the role of the attributions about purposeful intent that the recipients make about the source of the message (Mills et al., 2002; Vangelisti, 1994; Young, 2004; Young & Bippus, 2001). The more the source appears to be trying to create hurt feelings, the greater the intensity of the response. Reynolds (1991), relying on previous research on actor-observer differences in beliefs about communication (e.g., Stafford, Waldron, & Infield, 1989; see also Guerrero, 1994; Schutz, 1999), found differences between people in general, partners, and the self in estimates of the frequency of conversational retreats. [1] Similarly, extrapolating from literature on the self-categorization explanation of the Third-person effect (Reid & Hogg, 2005), when social identity is salient (as in a high level of motivation to achieve), message recipients make different attributions about the intentions and effects of messages. While actor-observer differences may matter, the particular role (social identity) held by the message recipient (i.e., dealing with a supervisor, a subordinate, or a friend) may influence perceptions about discouraging messages. The primary research question for this exploratory effort is: To what degree do perceptions and estimates about discouraging messages vary across relational focus or gender? Further, following Kellermann, Reynolds, and Chen (1991), the initial attention for this exploratory study is on perceptions of the frequency, ease, and negative affect (rudeness) of discouraging encounters.

Method

Participants

The people participating (N = 138) in this study were recruited from upper division communication classes at a West Coast university and at an East Coast university. There were 65 males and 73 females in the participant pool. The average age was 22 (range 17-37). The participants were multiethnic with most claiming several ethnic backgrounds but with a clear primary cultural orientation toward North America. The sample population represents working adults. Many of the participants attend school part time or recently returned to school after working full time.

Measures

Given differences in perceptions about communication based on the relational focus' (e.g., actor, observer, partner, boss), approximately equal groups of the participants encountered instructions and item wording designed to make them think about a particular source-receiver relationship while answering questions about discouraging messages. The different focus relations were discouraging messages from people in general, subordinates, supervisors, and friends, and discouraging messages sent to friends. The initial instructions for the questionnaire contained instructions for a specific relational focus. Subsequently, a reinforcement of the relational focus appeared in each questionnaire item.

Perception of the frequency of discouraging messages was measured with a set of Likert-type questionnaire items with a 1 (disagree) to 9 (agree) response format. These items were as follows: X's often try to discourage me about some idea I have or something I am doing; X's frequently try to make me feel like I am incapable of doing the job I have been given; X's commonly experience conversations with me where I find their comments discouraging (reverse coded); only occasionally do X's find themselves trying to complement me and make me feel competent. The reliability coefficient for this scale was [alpha] = .73.

Estimate of frequency of discouraging messages was conducted by asking the participants to estimate how many out of 20 conversations with their X's involved discouraging messages. By grounding to a set number of conversations (which happens to be close to the typical conversations per day) it is assumed that estimates are more likely to be valid (see Kellermann et al., 1991).

The perception of the effort it takes to discourage was measured with a set of Likert-type questionnaire items with a 1 (disagree) to 9 (agree) response format. These items were as follows: X's think it is easy to criticize me when I make a simple mistake on a task (reverse coded); X's find it a simple thing to encourage me to do better work; making me feel hopeless and frustrated is uncomplicated for X's (reverse coded); X's have to strain to find a way to say that they are unsatisfied with my performance; it takes a strong effort for X's to say anything that I would take to be discouragement; X's find it difficult to say anything that would make me feel down-and-out. The reliability coefficient for this scale was [alpha] = .71.

Perceptions of the negative affect (rudeness) of discouraging messages was measured with a set of Likert-type questionnaire items with a 1 (disagree) to 9 (agree) response format. These items were as follows: X's consider it rude to say things that make me feel like giving up on a task or quitting; X's think that it is impolite for them to say anything to me that would make me question my ability. The reliability coefficient for this scale was [alpha] = .58. Because of the low measurement reliability, further analysis of this measure is inappropriate.

Results and Discussion

Perception of the frequency of discouraging messages

These data show an average rating on perception of discouraging messages of 3.24 (SD = 1.5, n = 138) on a scale range of 1-9. A 4 x 2 ANOVA with focus and gender as the factors was conducted with the perception of the frequency as the dependent variable. Main effects for gender and focus appeared. Women (M = 2.84, SD = 1.2, n = 73) were significantly less likely than men (M = 3.70, SD = 1.6, n = 65) to perceive discouraging messages as frequent, F (1, 128) = 9.97, p = .002, [eta.sup.2] = .09. For relational focus these data indicate that the participants were less likely to see discouraging messages sent to friends (M = 2.69, SD = 1.25, n = 28) as frequent compared to discouraging messages from people in general (M = 3.15, SD = 1.20, n = 26), subordinates (M = 4.19, SD = 1.7, n = 26), Supervisors (M = 3.14, SD = 1.4, n = 26), or from friends (M = 3.13, SD = 1.5, n = 27), F (4,128) = 3.51, p = .01, [eta.sup.2] = . 11.

Estimate of frequency of discouraging messages

These data show an average estimate of 3.18 (SD = 3.04, n = 317) out of 20 conversations. Thus, the participants estimated that 15% of their conversations involve messages that are discouraging. A 4 x 2 ANOVA with focus and gender as the factors was conducted with the estimates of frequency as the dependent variable. A main effect for gender appeared. Women (M = 2.57, SD = 3.1, n = 72) were significantly less likely than men (M = 3.85, SD = 2.9, n = 65) to estimate discouraging messages as occurring out of 20 conversations, F (1, 127) = 5.77, p = .02, [eta.sup.2] = .04. The estimate of frequency was correlated with the perception of frequency (r = .40, p < .01) and with an estimate of the number of conversations a day (r = .22, p < .01). In short, the more you communicate, the more likely you are to get discouraging messages.

Perception of the effort it takes to discourage

These data show an average rating on perception of the effort needed to discourage of 3.97 (SD = 1.3, n = 138) on a scale range of 1-9. A 4 x 2 ANOVA with focus and gender as the factors was conducted with the perception of the effort needed to discourage as the dependent variable. Main effects for gender and focus appeared. Women (M = 3.67, SD = 1.3, n = 73) were significantly less likely than men (M = 4.32, SD = 1.4, n = 65) to perceive discouraging messages as easy, F (1, 128) = 7.26, p = .008, [eta.sup.2] = .06. For relational focus these data indicate that the participants were less likely to see discouraging messages sent to friends (M = 3.13, SD = 1.3, n = 29) as easy to do as compared to discouraging messages from people in general (M = 4.02, SD = 1.2, n = 29), subordinates (M = 4.38, SD = 1.4, n = 26), supervisors (M = 4.18, SD = 1.4, n = 27), or from friends (M = 4.24, SD = 1.3, n = 27), F (4, 128) = 3.90, p = .005, [eta.sup.2] = .11. The perception of the frequency of discouragement and the perception of the effort required to discourage are positively correlated (r = .61, p < .01).

The participants for this first study might be expected to have high achievement motivations but no procedure assured such a probability. In order to have a better understanding of messages that discourage, future efforts should focus on those making efforts that they can be said to be discouraged from.

The results of the first study show that the participants think that it is easier to get than to give discouraging messages. Such a finding would be expected from an attribution bias perspective. On the other hand, the results from the first study also show that the more you have been discouraged, the harder it is to discourage you again.

Study 2

What are the messages that otherwise encouraged people find discouraging? Are there characteristics of discouraging messages that distinguish them from other types of messages? Before we can learn much about how to help people overcome being discouraged, we need a basic descriptive profile of the particular messages that are discouraging.

This study parallels similar efforts on conversational retreat (Kellermann et al., 1991) and responses to deception (Reynolds, 1995). The process can be summarized as a two-phase procedure with Phase I involving the collection of a variety of discouraging messages and Phase II involving the cluster analysis of those messages.

Phase I: Protocols of Discouraging Events

Coders examined written protocols of actual discouraging events in order to develop a list of messages seen by the authors of the protocols as discouraging. There are two major portions to this investigation. First, there is a description of the generation and coding of the protocols for different discouraging messages. Second, there is an explanation of the cluster analysis of messages representative of the initial list of discouraging messages.

Protocol Procedure

Participants (N = 80) were recruited with a snowball procedure where university students and faculty were asked to nominate individuals within their community who were known to be highly motivated and successful. The nominated participants also nominated others they knew to be highly motivated and successful. Selecting those known to be highly motivated and successful was important since 1) discouraging messages may be less relevant or meaningful to those not seeking achievement, and 2) the unsuccessful or unmotivated may well confuse discouragement with a persistent psychological state thereby seeing every message as potentially discouraging. The final list of protocol participants included students, staff members, faculty, and administrators. Participants wrote a protocol of an experience involving a discouraging event where they felt that a person had purposefully discouraged them. Participants were asked to have a specific event clearly in mind before writing a complete description of what was said to them that was considered discouraging.

Discouraging Message Coding

The purpose of the discouraging message coding was to construct a list of all the discouraging messages reported across all of the episodes described in the protocols. To code a message as discouraging the report had to be of a verifiable act (e.g., observable behavior or description of conduct) undertaken by the potential source of a message where the act is interpreted in the protocol as intended to exacerbate or increase a sense of resignation and being disheartened on the part of the recipient. The coders had previous research experience with coding messages from similar protocols. Specifics on such coding procedures can be found generally in Folger and Poole (1981) and in detail in Chen (1989). The instructions for coding specifically indicated that feelings of being discouraged did not count as a discouraging message. Two coders separately culled through each of the protocols l0 at a time for discouraging messages. Each coder marked specific 'messages' with brackets. Coder unitization agreement for each set of 10 protocols exceeded the minimum set at .80. Following the initial markup and unitization check, the coders discussed and resolved disagreements. More than 500 discouraging messages were identified in the protocols. Elimination of duplicate discouraging messages, however, yielded a set of 91 distinct discouraging messages.

Discussion

The purpose of Phase I was to generate a list of discouraging messages people report using in episodes of discouragement. The list generated should not be considered exhaustive or even fully representative of all potential discouraging messages. The list of discouraging messages generated is merely considered to represent an adequate variety to begin to examine how discouraging messages combine. Following the generation of a list of discouraging messages, Phase II of the research was undertaken to identify how the discouraging messages grouped into strategies for responding to discouragement.

Phase II: Message Clusters

Strategy composition was explored with cluster hierarchical analysis of "similarity-of-type" judgments of the 91 discouraging messages identified in Phase I. This approach is assumed to be equivalent to mapping discouraging messages on a psychological plane where "distances" between objects define the respective location of each item. The structure of the resulting map must necessarily be a function of the "distance" measure employed.

Clustering Materials

Each packet contained 45 of the discouraging messages on 1" x 4" velum cards, an instruction sheet, a set of twenty 4.25" x 11" "recording sheets," a demographic questionnaire sheet, and a handful of rubber bands for keeping grouped discouraging message cards together. The instruction sheet explained the purpose of the study and provided instructions on how to complete the task. The research team assigned a number to each discouraging message card to facilitate data collection. Each recording sheet had a "Recording Sheet" header, a space for the participant to record the category number (e.g., 1 of 10), a space for the participant to label the category, and 45 sets of three response boxes where the participant was asked to record the discouraging message numbers corresponding to the discouraging messages placed in the category. Participants also completed a demographic sheet last after completing the rest of the task. The demographic questionnaire sheet had questions concerning age, gender, and ethnic identity.

The participants were provided with 45 of the 91 discouraging messages to reduce the potential impact from fatigue. Previous research employing this methodology (Douglass, 1987; Kellermann et al., 1991) report that sorting all 91 discouraging messages would take over an hour and that around 45 discouraging messages allowed participants to complete the sorting task well within 30 minutes. Each set of 45 discouraging messages was randomly selected from the full pool of 91 discouraging messages such that each participant was presented with a completely unique set of discouraging messages in a random order.

A "match" of discouraging messages constituted any time a participant placed two discouraging messages in the same category. To adjust for the obvious problem that all possible pairings were not likely to occur within sets at the same frequency, a data transformation was required. The transformation amounted to dividing the actual count of a match by the number of times the two discouraging messages could possibly be matched together. The ratio of matches to matches possible represents the perceived similarity of the discouraging messages. A discouraging message-by-discouraging message matrix of match ratios was constructed. Hierarchical cluster analysis was then conducted on this similarity matrix to determine which discouraging messages combine into strategy clusters.

Results

Standards for determination of the number of hierarchical levels and total number of clusters include interpretability and a scree test of agglomeration coefficients. The scree test involves looking for "jumps" and "flattenings" in agglomeration coefficients (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The scree test indicated that 18, 6, and 3 cluster solutions were potentially stable. The 18 cluster solution, however, contained several single item discouraging message clusters. Thus, interpretation will focus on the 6 and 3 cluster solutions. The dendogram resulting from the cluster analysis is presented in Figure 1 with the 6 cluster solution marked with bold lines, labels, and closed end bottom sections. Table 1 provides the listing of the discouraging messages organized by 18, 6, and 3 cluster solutions.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Three cluster solution: Nonacceptance, other's failure, and challenges

At this most molar level it is clear that having your ideas rejected outright (often with no apparent deliberation) is a major source of discouragement. Disappointment with the failures of others, particularly those the person sought to mentor, was also an obvious source of discouragement. Challenges seem to center around aspects of the achiever's credibility.

Six cluster solution: Distinctions within challenges

The nonacceptance and other's failure clusters held together through the 6 cluster solution while the challenges cluster split into four subclusters: discrimination, question character, question competence, attack and blame. The discrimination cluster clearly involves messages that involve judgments based on race, gender, or age. The question character cluster involves statements that insinuate a problem with the target person's moral standards, maturity level, or mental sanity to judge the circumstances. The question competence cluster involves statements that raise issues about the amount of effort extended, performance, and the degree to which the job or work is complete. Finally, the attack and blame cluster represents clearly aggressive or passive aggressive messages such as making it clear the person would not get a second chance, purposefully blocking the person's progress, petty picking at details, putting the performance on a personal level, avoiding emotional engagement, intentional emotional woundings, and accusation of blame.

Conclusion

The data from Study 1 indicate that discouraging words are indeed seldom, but the data from Study 2 show that there are at least six types of discouraging messages. The sample for Study 1 indicate that they are more likely to be discouraging than to be discouraged, that it is hard for them to discourage compared to the difficulty for others to discourage them. Such findings are consistent with literature on attribution biases in communication (see Bippus, 2003; Boster, Fediuk, & Kotowski, 2001; Canary & Spitzberg, 1990; Reynolds, 1991; Stafford et al., 1989).

A comparison of the cluster solution for this study with the typology of hurtful message speech acts presented by Vangelisti (1994) supports the suspicion that discouraging messages are potentially just as unique from hurtful messages as are messages that elicit anger and messages that elicit guilt. Just as some anger or guilt eliciting messages also are hurtful, some discouraging messages are also hurtful. Some of the specific clusters identified in the second phase of the second study (such as questioning character and competence) can clearly be identified by Vangelisti's hurtful message categories of accusations and evaluations. Some of the types of hurtful messages listed by Vangelisti (such as inform or joke) do not seem to fit under discouraging messages. Other groups of discouraging messages (such as rejection by nonresponsiveness, blocking, or pettiness) do not seem to easily fit within Vangelisti's categories of hurtful messages. Clearly, hurtful messages and discouraging messages are related but not identical.

A potential limitation for the second study involved the variety of forms of behavior initially coded as discouragement 'messages.' As the analysis developed, it became increasingly obvious to the coders that some of the 'messages' were difficult to qualify as intentional behavior (e.g., others failures) and that some discouraging messages may have been missed. In particular, the sampling method for the cluster analysis resulted in a potential bias for 'messages that have been overcome.' Are there clusters unique to discouraging messages that are difficult to overcome? It would probably be wise to replicate the cluster analysis (Breckenridge, 1989) with a new clean database of discouraging messages. A follow-up interview with the participants might also have clarified why or if they actually thought some of the behaviors were intentional and if the descriptions tended toward episodes of successful overcoming.

Given that the descriptions of the discouraging messages seem to be about episodes of overcoming, there is the distinct problem here that the events may be more in the category of 'memorable messages' (see Ellis & Smith, 2004; Knapp, Stohl, & Reardon, 1981) and not necessarily recent events. How the participants may have replayed and cognitively edited the events may be worthy of future investigations of discouraging messages.

There is a need for future research on the effects of discouraging messages, the motivation behind the creating of discouraging messages, and specifically how message recipients deal with discouraging messages. If communication scholars are at all concerned with effective social influence, they should direct more attention toward what messages discourage people from developing and reaching their full potential.

References

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07-044. Newbury Park: Sage.

Bippus, A. M. (2003). Humor motives, qualities, and reactions in recalled conflict episodes. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 413-426.

Boster, F. J., Fediuk, T. A., & Kotowski, M. R. (2001). The effectiveness of an altruistic appeal in the presence and absence of favors. Communication Monographs, 68, 340-346.

Breckenridge, J. N. (1989). Replicating cluster analysis: Method, consistency, and validity. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 147-161.

Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes. Communication Monographs, 57, 139-151.

Chen, J. B. (1989). Conversational retreat typology. Masters Abstracts International, 28 (02), 183. (UMI No. AAT 1337792)

Douglass, W. (1987). Affinity testing in initial interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 3-15.

Ellis, J. B., & Smith, S. W. (2004). Memorable messages as guides to self-assessment of behavior: A replication and extension diary study. Communication Monographs, 71, 97-119.

Folger, J. P., & Poole, M. S. (1981). Relational coding systems: The question of validity. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 5 (pp. 235-247). New Brunswick, NJ: ICA-Transaction Press.

Guerrero, L. K. (1994). "I'm so mad I could scream": The effects of anger expression on relational satisfaction and communication competence. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 125-141.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kellermann, K., Reynolds, R., & Chen, J. B-S. (1991). Strategies of conversational retreat: When parting is sweet sorrow. Communication Monographs, 58, 362-383.

Knapp, M. L., Stohl, C., & Reardon, K. K. (1981). "Memorable" messages. Journal of Communication, 31, 27-41.

La Gaipa, J. J. (1990). The negative effects of informal support systems. In S. Duck & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 122-139). London: Sage.

Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent perceptions of hurtful messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 731-754.

Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect. Human Communication Research, 31, 129-166.

Reynolds, R. A. (1991). Conversation abandonment: I do, you don't, but we will. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 61-70.

Reynolds, R. A. (1995, June). You lied straight-faced while I cried: Responses to suspected deception. Paper presented at the conference of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Schutz, A. (1999). It was your fault! Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 193-208.

Segrin, C. (2003). Age moderates the relationship between social support and psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research, 29, 317-342.

Segrin, C., & Dillard, J. P. (1992). The interactional theory of depression: A meta-analysis of the research literature. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 43-70.

Stafford, L., Waldron, V. R., & Infield, L. L. (1989). Actor-observer differences in conversational memory. Human Communication Research, 15, 590-611.

Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side in interpersonal communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vangelisti, A. L., & Crumley, L. P. (1998). Reactions to messages that hurt. Communication Monographs, 65, 173-196.

Young, S. L. (2004). Factors that influence recipients' appraisals of hurtful communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 291-303.

Young, S. L., & Bippus, A. M. (2001). Does it make a difference if they hurt you in a funny way? Communication Quarterly, 49, 35-52.

Note

[1] Kellermann, Reynolds and Chen (1991) use the term "conversational retreat" to refer to unilateral conversational endings where one conversational participant withdraws from a conversation when the other participant presumably desires to continue the conversation.

Rodney A. Reynolds (PhD, Michigan State University, 1986) is a Professor of Communication at Pepperdine University. Correspondence to: Rodney A. Reynolds, Communication Division, Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263, USA. E-mail: Rodney.reynolds@pepperdine.edu

Table 1 Discouraging Messages: Clusters and Items

Nonacceptance

Rejection by nonresponsiveness

25.     Would never acknowledge my suggestions.
34.     Would never agree to anything like what I proposed.
18.     Acted as if he/she had never heard my idea.
76.     Refused to use my suggestions.
77.     Refused to accept my reasoning.
5.      When I had a concern, he/she would not discuss it.
47.     When I expressed a concern, he/she said, "That's just too
        bad."
27.     Didn't approve of my plans.
35.     Didn't ask for my help when he/she knew I could help.

Rejection via authority

22.     Said if he/she adopted my idea the company would go broke.
28.     Said it would be better to shelve my idea for a project.
91.     When I said what I wanted to do he/she said, "Forget it."
21.     Said "Your interests and ours don't have a perfect fit."

Other's failure

74.     He/she failed again after having a second chance.
81.     Kept trying to do their own job and kept failing.
49.     He/she (the supervisor) didn't perform at the level he/she
        knew he/she was capable of.
67.     Kept doing average work.

Challenges
Discrimination

39.     Said I was "too young."
43.     Indicated I couldn't do a task because of my gender.
38.     Said I was too old.
40.     Characterized my physical appearance with an extremely
        harsh image.
59.     Acted like I was dumb because of my race.
20.     Talked real slow like I didn't know the language.
51.     Said I was overqualified.

Question character
Deprecate character

45.     Told me I was lousy in my role.
65.     Said I was "good for nothing."
52.     Said "You're acting like a stupid child."
69.     Said "You urgently need help."
56.     Predicted my whole life was going to fall apart because
        of my foolishness.

Not beinworthy of the task

63.     Said I wasn't up to doing the task effectively.
90.     Said I wasn't trained enough to do the job.
37.     Said I wasn't good enough to be "on the first string
        varsity team."

Prediction of failure

31.     Told me I wasn't cut out for the program I wanted to get into.
60.     Told me, "You won't make any money."
19.     Said I wouldn't "make it" there.
80.     Said, "I don't think you're going to make it."
85.     Said I'd quit in no time.
68.     Said, "Even your family doesn't think you can do it."
73.     Said I was crazy to do what I was doing.

Task beyond skill level

33.     Insisted that I couldn't handle two tasks at the same time.
71.     Insisted the job would be too hard to me.
62.     Said, "You can't do this job."
26.     Said I had taken on too much.
55.     Said the task I wanted was too big for me to cope with.
* 9.    Claimed I was not a good business person.
* 83.   When I said what I was going to try to do said, "You might,
        but we doubt it."

Question competence
Effort

48.     Said, "You're not even trying."
78.     Said, "You really need to try harder."
14.     Said "I know you can do better than this."
17.     Said, "It is taking too much time to get your job done."
44.     Said, "If I don't see any improvement real soon, I don't
        think you'll be with us much longer."

Poor performance evaluation

7.      On my evaluation he/she wrote, "Lacks control of subordinates."
32.     Gave me a "below average" evaluation.
15.     On my evaluation he/she wrote, "Lacks mastery of task knowledge
        and skills."
23.     Claimed that my performance was really down.
41.     Said I didn't do enough to train and develop the people I was
        working with.

Questionclosure

42.     Came to me when I was trying to get a job done and wanted to
        know why it wasn't done yet.
50.     When I finished something he/she said, "Do it over again
        right away!"
36.     When I finally finished a job, he/she said, "You mean it took
        you this long?"
24.     After I worked hard on a special task, he/she said he/she
        didn't really like it.
86.     When I was doing my paper work, he/she told me that I was
        being an "office clerk" instead of doing the job I was
        hired to do.

Attack and blame

No second chances

6.      When I said I couldn't do something, he/she did not offer me
        alternatives.
10.     Said he/she didn't believe in giving second chances.

Blocking

1.      When I wanted to do something more that he/she didn't think I
        could handle, he/she purposefully made it more difficult.
4.      Made it difficult for me to get transportation.
46.     Said I didn't get invited.
53.     Gave me very bad news that makes me feel helpless.

Pettiness

70.     Were nitpicking at me.
82.     Looked for every little mistake to criticize.
75.     Called me in to chew me out.
84.     Proceeded to berate, curse, and malign my character, person,
        job performance, etc.
8.      Every chance he/she got he/she would say, "See, you did it
        again!"

Personalization

58.     After I made an important decision, he/she said to me,
        "Friends don't 'turn' on friends."
72.     When I was trying to be helpful, he/she turned my comments
        around to make me look bad and make them look good.

Emotional deflections

13.     When I knew he/she was unhappy, he/she would tell me "Nothing
        is wrong."
30.     Each supervisor would say to go ask the other.

Emotional woundings

64.     Suggested that I start thinking about another career.
87.     Asked me what I thought of unemployment as if that was what
        was going to happen to me.
11.     Said, "How do you expect to accomplish anything when you have
        no self control?"
88.     Kept telling me I had not yet learned my lesson.
12.     Asked me to do something and said I had little or no choice
        in the matter.
79.     When I tried to respond he/she said I was dealing with the
        issue on an emotional level.
54.     Wanted to know why I was making my family suffer by my taking
        on such a job.
61.     Asked why I didn't admit that "This is not for you."
16.     When I sought a new assignment he/she said my health
        (both mental and physical) would suffer.

Blame assignment

2.      Told me there are rumors about my role in the last supervisor
        leaving.
29.     Told other people that I am a problem.
89.     Said the only reason I took a project was to make a name for
        myself.
3.      Tried to say all their problems were my fault.
66.     Claimed my problems were my own fault for taking a leave or
        vacation when I did.
* 57.   Claimed that I have never encouraged him/her to do better.

* Did not clearly fit a subcluster.