CAJoW6

Relationships start, grow, and sometimes end in vastly different ways. Understanding relationship stages and theories will help you guide relationships in the desired trajectory.

Learning Objectives 9.1 Describe the process of relationship development—from

contact through (possible) dissolution.

9.2 Explain the role of communication at the different relationship stages.

9.3 Summarize the major theories that explain relationship development, deterioration, and repair (attraction, relationship rules, relationship dialectics, social exchange, equity, and politeness).

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories

CHAPTER NINE

PART THREE

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Chapter Topics Relationship Stages

Relationship Communication

Relationship Theories

250

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 250 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 251

Contact with other human beings is so important that when you’re deprived of it for long periods, depression sets in, self-doubt surfaces, and you may find it difficult to manage even the basics of daily life. Research shows clearly that

the most important contributor to happiness—outranking money, job, and sex—is a close relationship with one other person (Freedman, 1978; Laroche & deGrace, 1997; Lu & Shih, 1997). The desire for relationships is universal; interpersonal relationships are important to men and to women, to gay men and lesbians and to heterosexuals, to young and to old (Huston & Schwartz, 1995).

A good way to begin the study of interpersonal relationships is by examining your relationship advantages and disadvantages and by asking yourself what your relationships (past, present, or those you look forward to) do for you. What are the advantages and the disadvantages? Focus on your own relationships in general (friendship, romantic, family, and work), or on one particular relationship (say, your life partner or your child or your best friend), on one type of relationship (say, friendship) and respond to the following statements by indicating whether or not your relationship(s) serve each of these functions.

You may wish to do this twice—once for your face-to-face relationships and once for your online relationships.

____ 1. My relationships help to lessen my loneliness.

____ 2. My relationships help me gain in self-knowledge and in self-esteem.

____ 3. My relationships help enhance my physical and emotional health.

____ 4. My relationships maximize my pleasures and minimize my pains.

____ 5. My relationships help me to secure stimulation (intellectual, physical, and emotional).

Let’s elaborate just a bit on each of these commonly accepted advantages of interper- sonal communication.

1. One of the major benefits of relationships is that they help to lessen loneliness (Rokach, 1998; Rokach & Brock, 1995). They make you feel that someone cares, that someone likes you, that someone will protect you, that someone ultimately will love you.

2. Through contact with others you learn about yourself and see yourself from different perspectives and in different roles—as a child or parent, as a coworker, as a manager, as a best friend, for example. Healthy interpersonal relationships help enhance self- esteem and self-worth. Simply having a friend or romantic partner (at least most of the time) makes you feel desirable and worthy.

3. Research consistently shows that interpersonal relationships contribute significantly to physical and emotional health (Goleman, 1995a; Pennebacker, 1991; Rosen, 1998; Rosengren, Orth-Gomer, Wedel, & Wilhelmsen, 1993) and to personal hap- piness (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Without close interpersonal relationships, you’re more likely to become depressed—and this depression, in turn, contributes sig- nificantly to physical illness. Isolation, in fact, contributes as much to mortality as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, smoking, or lack of physical exercise (Goleman 1995a).

4. The most general function served by interpersonal relationships, and the function that encompasses all the others, is that of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Your good friends, for example, will make you feel even better about your good fortune and less hurt when you’re confronted with hardships.

5. Just as plants are heliotropic and orient themselves to light, humans are stimulotropic and orient themselves to sources of stimulation (Davis, 1973). Human contact is one of the best ways to secure this stimulation—intellectual, physical, and emotional. Even an imagined relationship seems better than none.

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 251 06/06/2018 17:05

252 Chapter 9

Relationship Stages 9.1 Describe the process of relationship development—from contact through

(possible) dissolution.

It’s useful to look at interpersonal relationships as created and constructed by the indi- viduals. That is, in any interpersonal relationship—say, between Pat and Chris—there are actually several relationships: (1) the relationship that Pat sees, (2) the relationship as Chris sees it, (3) the relationship that Pat wants and is striving for, and (4) the rela- tionship that Chris wants. And, of course, there are the many relationships that friends and relatives see and that they reflect back in their communications. For example, the relationship that Pat’s mother, who dislikes Chris, sees and reflects in her commu- nication with Pat and Chris is very likely to influence Pat and Chris in some ways. And then there’s the relationship that a dispassionate researcher/observer would see. Viewed in this way, there are many interpersonal relationships in any interpersonal relationship.

This is not to say that there is no real relationship; it’s just to say that there are many real relationships. And because of these differently constructed relationships, people often disagree about a wide variety of issues and evaluate the relationship very differently. Regularly, on Jerry Springer and Maury, you see couples who view their

Now, respond to these sentences as you did to the sentences above.

____ 6. My relationships put uncomfortable pressure on me to expose my vulnerabilities.

____ 7. My relationships increase my obligations.

____ 8. My relationships prevent me from developing other relationships.

____ 9. My relationships scare me because they may be difficult to dissolve.

____ 10. My relationships hurt me.

These statements express what most people would consider disadvantages of interpersonal relationships.

6. Close relationships put pressure on you to reveal yourself and to expose your vulner- abilities. While this is generally worthwhile in the context of a supporting and caring rela- tionship, it may backfire if the relationship deteriorates and these weaknesses are used against you.

7. Close relationships increase your obligations to other people, sometimes to a great extent. Your time is no longer entirely your own. And although you enter relationships to spend more time with these special people, you also incur time (and perhaps financial) obligations with which you may not be happy.

8. Close relationships can lead you to abandon other relationships. Sometimes the other relationship involves someone you like, but your partner can’t stand. More often, how- ever, it’s simply a matter of time and energy; relationships take a lot of both, and you have less to give to these other and less intimate relationships.

9. The closer your relationships, the more emotionally difficult they are to dissolve—a feeling which may be uncomfortable for some people. If a relationship is deteriorating, you may feel distress or depression. In some cultures, for example, religious pres- sures may prevent married couples from separating. And if lots of money is involved, dissolving a relationship can often mean giving up the fortune you’ve spent your life accumulating.

10. And, of course, your partner may break your heart. Your partner may leave you— against all your pleading and promises. Your hurt will be in proportion to how much you care and need your partner. If you care a great deal, you’re likely to experience great hurt. If you care less, the hurt will be less—it’s one of life’s little ironies.

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 252 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 253

relationship very differently. The first guest thinks all is going well until the second guest comes on and explodes—often identifying long-held dissatisfactions and behav- iors that shock the partner.

One of the most obvious characteristics of relationships is that they occur in stages, moving from initial contact to greater intimacy and sometimes to dissolution. You and another person don’t become intimate friends immediately upon meeting. Rather, you build an intimate relationship gradually, through a series of steps or stages. The same is true of most relationships (Mongeau & Henningsen, 2008).

The six-stage model presented in Figure 9.1 describes the main stages in most relationships. As shown in the figure, the six stages of relationships are contact, involvement, intimacy, deterioration, repair, and dissolution, with each stage hav- ing an early and a late phase. The arrows represent the movements that take place

Figure 9.1 A Six-Stage Model of Relationships

Because relationships differ so widely, it’s best to think of any relationship model as a tool for talking about relationships rather than as a specific map that indicates how you move from one relationship position to another. As you review this figure, consider, for example, if you feel that other steps or stages would further explain what goes on in relationship development.

Exit

Exit

Exit

Exit

Contact

• Perceptual • Interactional

Involvement

• Testing • Intensifying

Intimacy

• Interpersonal commitment • Social bonding

Deterioration

• Intrapersonal dissatisfaction • Interpersonal deterioration

Repair

• Intrapersonal repair • Interpersonal repair

Dissolution

• Interpersonal separation • Social/public separation

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 253 06/06/2018 17:05

254 Chapter 9

as relationships change. Let’s first examine the six stages, and then we’ll look at the types of relationship movements.

Contact At the initial phase of the contact stage, there is some kind of perceptual contact—you see, hear, read a message from, view a photo or video, read a person’s profile, or per- haps smell the person. From this you form a mental and physical picture—gender, approximate age, beliefs and values, height, and so on. After this perception, there is usually interactional contact. Here the contact is superficial and relatively impersonal. This is the stage at which you exchange basic information that is preliminary to any, more intense involvement (“Hello, my name is Joe”), or you might send someone a request to be a friend. Here you initiate interaction (“May I join you?”) and engage in invitational communication (“Can I buy you a latté?”). The contact stage is the time of “first impressions.” According to some researchers, it’s at this stage—within the first four minutes of initial interaction—that you decide whether you want to pursue the relationship (Zunin & Zunin, 1972).

Involvement At the involvement stage of a relationship, a sense of mutuality, of being connected, develops. Here you experiment and try to learn more about the other person. At the initial phase of involvement, a kind of testing goes on. You want to see whether your initial judgment proves reasonable. So you may ask questions: “Where do you work?” “What are you majoring in?” If you want to get to know the person even better, you might continue your involvement by intensifying your interaction and by beginning to reveal yourself, though in a preliminary way. Another way of testing the suitability of the relationship is with kissing (Wlodarski & Dunbar, 2013).

In a dating relationship, you might use a variety of strategies to help you move to the next stage and perhaps to intimacy. For example, you might increase contact with your partner; give your partner tokens of affection such as gifts, cards, or flowers; increase your own personal attractiveness; do things that suggest intensifying the rela- tionship, such as flirting or making your partner jealous; and become more sexually intimate (Tolhuizen, 1989). Table 9.1 provides a look at a few nonverbal and verbal ways that people flirt face-to-face. Some cautions to observe are also included. Try rewriting these flirtatious messages as they would be used on a social media dating site such as eHarmony, OK Cupid, or any of the mobile apps.

Flirtatious Messages Cautions Maintain an open posture; face the person; lean forward; tilt your head to one side (to get a clearer view of the person you’re interested in).

Don’t move so close that you make it uncomfortable for the other person.

Make eye contact and maintain it for a somewhat longer than normal time; raise your eyebrows to signal interest; blink and move your eyes more than usual; wink.

Be careful that your direct eye contact doesn’t come off as leering or too invasive, and avoid too much blinking—people will think you have something wrong with your eyes.

Smile and otherwise display positive emotions with your facial expressions.

Avoid overdoing this; laughing too loud at lame jokes is probably going to appear phony.

Touch the person’s hand. Be careful that the touching is appropriate and not perceived as intrusive.

Mirror the other’s behaviors. Don’t overdo it. It will appear as if you’re mimicking.

Introduce yourself. Avoid overly long or overly cute introductions.

Ask a question (most commonly, “Is this seat taken?”). Avoid sarcasm or joking; these are likely to be misunderstood.

Compliment (“great jacket”). Avoid any compliment that might appear too intimate.

Be polite; respect the individual’s positive and negative face needs. But don’t be overly polite; it will appear phony.

Table 9.1 Nine Ways to Flirt

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 254 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 255

Intimacy At the intimacy stage, you commit yourself still further to the other person and estab- lish a relationship in which this individual becomes your best or closest friend, lover, or companion. Both the quantity and the quality of your interpersonal exchanges increase (Emmers-Sommer, 2004) and, of course, you also talk more and in greater detail about the relationship (Knobloch, Haunani, & Theiss, 2006). You also come to share each other’s social networks—a practice followed by members of widely different cultures (Gao & Gudykunst, 1995). Your relationship satisfaction also increases with the move to this stage (Siavelis & Lamke, 1992).

The intimacy stage usually divides itself into two phases. In the interpersonal commitment phase the two people commit themselves to each other in a private way. In the social bonding phase the commitment is made public—perhaps to family and friends, perhaps to the public at large. Here you and your partner become a unit, an identifiable pair. Commitment is especially strong when individuals are satisfied with their rela- tionship; it grows weaker as individuals become less satisfied (Hirofumi, 2003). Three types of commitment are often distinguished and can be identified from your answers to the following questions (Johnson, 1973, 1982, 1991; Knapp & Taylor, 1994; Knapp, Vangelisti, & Cauglin, 2014; Kurdek, 1995):

• Do I have a desire to stay in this relationship? Do I have a desire to keep this rela- tionship going? How strong is this desire?

• Do I have a moral obligation to stay in this relationship? Did I make promises that I should keep?

• Do I have to stay in this relationship? Is it necessary for me to stay in this relationship?

All relationships are held together, in part, by commitment based on desire, obli- gation, or necessity, or on some combination of these factors. And the strength of the relationship, including its resistance to possible deterioration, is related to your degree of commitment. When a relationship shows signs of deterioration and yet there’s a strong commitment to preserving it, you may well surmount the obstacles and reverse the process. For example, couples with high relationship commitment will avoid argu- ing about minor grievances and also will demonstrate greater supportiveness toward each other than will those with lower commitment (Roloff & Solomon, 2002). Similarly, those who have great commitment are likely to experience greater jealousy in a variety of situations (Rydell, McConnell, & Bringle, 2004). When commitment is weak and the individuals doubt that there are good reasons for staying together, the relationship deteriorates faster and more intensely.

Deterioration The relationship deterioration stage is character- ized by a weakening of the bonds between friends or lovers. The first phase of deterioration is usually intrapersonal dissatisfaction: you begin to experience personal dissatisfaction with everyday interactions and begin to view the future with your partner more negatively. If this dissatisfaction grows, you pass to the second phase, interpersonal deterioration. You withdraw and grow further and further apart. You share less of your free time. When you’re together, there are more awkward silences, fewer disclosures, less physical contact, and a lack of psy- chological closeness. Conflicts become more com- mon and their resolution more difficult. On social

VIEWPOINTS Culture and Sexual Relationships

Some cultures consider sexual relationships to be undesirable outside marriage; others see sex as a normal part of intimacy and chastity as undesirable (Hatfield & Rapson, 1996). How have your cultural beliefs and values influenced what you consider appropriate relationship and sexual behavior?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 255 06/06/2018 17:05

256 Chapter 9

network sites, the deterioration stage is perhaps seen most clearly in the decline in frequency of comments, pokes, and thumbs-up liking. And, in fact, research shows that high levels of social media usage are associated with relational problems for relatively new relationships (Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2012).

This is also the stage at which you consider dissolving the relationship. You con- sider the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages. And here you seek the counsel of your face-to-face friends and your social media friends. And if you’re still not sure what to do, there are websites that offer you suggestions.

In addition to the problems caused by relationships not meeting the needs the rela- tionship was developed to serve in the first place, Table 9.2 presents some additional reasons for relationship deterioration. The preventives noted should not be taken to mean that all relationship partners should stay together; there are many good reasons for breaking up.

Repair Some relationship partners, sensing deterioration, may pursue the relationship repair stage. Others, however, may progress—without stopping, without thinking—to dis- solution. At the repair stage, you try to mend the relationship, to bring it back to an earlier, happier stage.

At the first repair phase, intrapersonal repair, you may analyze what went wrong and consider ways of solving your relational difficulties. You might, at this stage, consider changing your behaviors or perhaps changing your expectations of your partner. You might also evaluate the rewards of your relationship as it is now and the rewards to be gained if your relationship ended.

Should you decide that you want to repair your relationship, you might discuss this with your partner at the interpersonal repair phase—you might talk about the problems in the relationship, the changes you want to see, and perhaps what you are willing to do and what you want your partner to do. This is the stage of negotiating new agree- ments and new behaviors. You and your partner might try to repair your relationship by yourselves, or you might seek the advice of friends or family or perhaps go for professional counseling.

Problems Reasons Preventive Strategies Poor communication Communication that is excessively critical, unsupport-

ive, or disconfirming creates dissatisfaction that can easily lead to a breakdown in friendship, love, or family relationships.

Talk about your communication; voice your expectations.

Third-party relationships When a person’s goals cease to be met within the rela- tionship, a new relationship may be pursued; if this new relationship serves the goals better, then the original rela- tionship is likely to deteriorate.

Talk about needs openly, explaining what you want from the relationship and listening to what the other person wants.

Relationship changes The development of incompatible attitudes, vastly different intellectual interests and abilities, or major goal changes may contribute to relationship deterioration.

Discuss changes as they develop and consider changes in your partner. If appropriate and possible, participate in the changes of the other.

Sex- and work-related problems

Problems within the relationship (for example, sex) or out- side the relationship (for example, work) can put a strain on a relationship with the frequent result that other, more supportive relationships may be sought.

Discussing these problems with each other and/or with a therapist can help prevent them from escalating.

Financial difficulties Money (in part because of its close association with power and control) often proves to be a cause of major problems as people settle into their relationship.

Discuss your attitudes and beliefs about money before entering a relationship.

Beliefs about relationships

If you and your partner hold widely different beliefs about, say, gender or financial expectations, then your relation- ship is more likely to experience instability and interper- sonal distancing (Goodwin & Gaines, 2004).

Try to be more open-minded and flexible; differences do not have to lead to deterioration.

Table 9.2 Some Causes of Relationship Deterioration

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 256 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 257

Dissolution At the relationship dissolution stage, the bonds between the indi- viduals are broken. In the beginning, dissolution usually takes the form of interpersonal separation, in which you may move into sepa- rate apartments and begin to lead lives apart from each other. If this separation proves acceptable and if the original relationship isn’t repaired, you enter the phase of social or public separation. If the relationship is a marriage, this phase corresponds to divorce. Avoidance of each other and a return to being “single” are among the primary characteristics of dissolution. On Facebook, this would be the stage where you defriend the person and/or block that per- son from accessing your profile.

Dissolution is also the stage during which the ex-partners begin to look upon themselves as individuals rather than halves of a pair. They try to establish a new and different life, either alone or with another person. Some people, it’s true, continue to live psycholog- ically with a relationship that has already been dissolved; they frequent old meeting places, reread old love letters, daydream about all the good times, and fail to extricate themselves from a relationship that has died in every way except in their memory.

In cultures that emphasize continuity from one generation to the next—as in, say, China—interpersonal relationships are likely to be long-lasting and permanent. Those who maintain long-term relationships tend to be rewarded, and those who break rela- tionships tend to be punished. But in cultures in which change is seen as positive—as in, say, the United States—interpersonal relationships are likely to be more temporary (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993). The rewards for long-term relationships and the punishments for broken relationships will be significantly less.

Movement among the Stages Relationships are not static; we move from one stage to another largely as a result of our interpersonal interactions. Three general kinds of movement may be identified: stage movement, relationship turning points, and relationship license.

Stage Movement The six-stage model shown in Figure 9.1 illustrates the kinds of movement that take place in interpersonal relationships. In the model, you’ll note three types of arrows:

• Exit arrows The exit arrows show that each stage offers the opportunity to exit the relationship. After saying “Hello” you can say “Goodbye” and exit. And, of course, you can end even the most intimate of relationships.

• Vertical arrows The vertical arrows between the stages represent the fact that you can move to another stage: either to a stage that is more intense (say, from involvement to intimacy) or to a stage that is less intense (say, from intimacy to deterioration).

• Self-reflexive arrows The self-reflexive arrows—the arrows that return to the beginning of the same level or stage—signify that any relationship may become stabilized at any point. You may, for example, continue to maintain a relationship at the intimate level without its deteriorating or going back to the less intense stage of involvement. Or you may remain at the “Hello, how are you?” stage—the contact stage—without getting any further involved.

As you can imagine, movement from one stage to another depends largely on your communication skills—for example, your abilities to initiate a relationship; to present yourself as likeable; to express affection; to self-disclose appropriately; and, when necessary, to dissolve the relationship with the least possible amount of acrimony

Your romantic partner keeps turning down your requests to connect on social media platforms. This upsets you. What do you do?

a. Try and understand your partner’s reason for this.

b. Explain to your partner why this upsets you.

c. Get suspicious and confront your partner and try to access his/her accounts on social media platforms.

d. Do nothing.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Sharing Social Media Networks

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 257 06/06/2018 17:05

258 Chapter 9

(Dindia & Timmerman, 2003). These issues are cov- ered in the last section of this chapter, Relationship Communication.

Turning Points Movement through the various stages takes place both gradually and in leaps. Often, you progress from one stage to another gradually. You don’t jump from contact to involve- ment to intimacy; rather, you progress gradually, a few degrees at a time. In addition to this gradual movement are relationship turning points (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). These are significant relationship events that have important consequences for the individuals and the relationship, and may turn its direction or trajectory. For example, a relationship that is progressing slowly might experience a rapid

rise after the first date, the first kiss, the first sexual encounter, or the first meeting with the partner’s child.

Turning points vary with culture. In some cultures, the first sexual experience is a major turning point; in others it’s a minor progression in the normal dating process.

What constitutes a turning point will also vary with your relationship stage. For example, an expensive and intimate gift may be a turning point at the involvement or the repair stage, an ordinary event if you’re at the intimate stage and such gifts are exchanged regularly, and an inappropriate gift if given too early in the relationship.

Relationship License Changes Movement of a somewhat different type can be appre- ciated by looking at what is called the relationship license—the license or permission to break some relationship rule as a result of your relationship stage. As the relation- ship develops, so does the relationship license; as you become closer and approach the intimacy stage, you have greater permission to say and do things that you didn’t have at the contact or involvement stage. The license becomes broader as the relationship develops and becomes more restrictive as the relationship deteriorates. For example, long-term friends or romantic couples (say, at the intimacy stage) may taste each other’s food in a restaurant or may fix each other’s clothing or pat each other on the rear. These are violations of rules that normally hold for non-intimates, for casual acquaintances, or for people in the initial stages of a relationship. In relationships that are deteriorating, the licenses become more limited or may be withdrawn entirely.

In some relationships, the license is reciprocal; each person’s license is the same. In other relationships, it’s nonreciprocal; one person has greater license than the other. For example, perhaps one person has license to come home at any time, but the other is expected to stay on schedule. Or one person has license to spend the couple’s money without explanation, but the other has no such right. Or one perhaps has the right to be unfaithful, but the other doesn’t. For example, in some cultures, men are expected to have intimate relationships with many women, whereas women are expected to have relationship only with a legally approved partner. In this case, a nonreciprocal license is built into the culture’s rules.

Part of the art of relationship communication—as you move through the vari- ous stages—is to negotiate the licenses that you want without giving up the privacy you want to retain. This negotiation is almost never made explicit; most often it is accomplished nonverbally and in small increments. The license to touch intimately, for example, is likely to be arrived at through a series of touches that increase gradually, beginning with touching that is highly impersonal.

Table 9.3 provides a brief summary of relationship stages and movements.

VIEWPOINTS Negative Turning Points

Turning points are often positive, as the examples in the text indicate, but they can also be negative. For example, the first realization that a partner has been unfaithful, lied about past history, or revealed a debilitating condition would likely be significant turning points for many romantic relationships. What have been your experiences with negative relationship turning points?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 258 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 259

If you’re in a close relationship, your influence on your partner is considerable, so you may have an obliga- tion to reveal certain things about yourself. Conversely, you may feel that the other person—because he or

she is so close to you—has an ethical obligation to reveal certain information to you. At what point in a relationship—if any—do you feel you would have an ethical obligation to reveal

each of the 10 items of information listed here? Visualize a relationship as existing on a continuum, from initial contact at 1 to extreme intimacy at 10, and use the numbers from 1 to 10 to indicate at what point you would feel your romantic partner or friend would have a right to know each type of information about you. If you feel you would never have the obligation to reveal this information, use 0.

At what point do you have an ethical obligation to reveal the following information to a romantic partner (say, of a year or two) and a close friend?

ETHICS IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Your Obligation to Reveal Yourself

Romantic Partner Friend

__________________ __________________ Age

__________________ __________________ History of family genetic disorders

__________________ __________________ HIV status

__________________ __________________ Past sexual experiences

__________________ __________________ Marital history

__________________ __________________ Annual salary and net financial worth

__________________ __________________ Affectional orientation

__________________ __________________ Attitudes toward other races and nationalities

__________________ __________________ Religious beliefs

__________________ __________________ Past criminal activity or incarceration

Ethical Choice Point You’re in a romantic relationship and your partner presses you to reveal your past sexual experiences. You really don’t want to (you’re not very proud of your past); furthermore, you don’t think it’s relevant to your current relationship. Today, your partner asks you directly to reveal this part of your past. What are your ethical obligations here? Are there certain aspects that you are ethically bound to reveal and other aspects that you are not ethically bound to reveal?

Stages Contact: perceptual and interactional First impressions are templates through which future contacts will be viewed.

Involvement: testing and intensifying The time of this stage varies greatly from one person to another.

Intimacy: interpersonal commitment and social bonding

Intimacy means different things to different people; it’s good to understand each other’s meaning.

Deterioration: intrapersonal dissatisfaction and interpersonal deterioration

Some relationships turn less satisfying and no longer serve the purpose for which it was developed.

Repair: intrapersonal repair and interpersonal repair

Reversing the deterioration process involves rebuilding the positives and less- ening the negatives.

Dissolution: interpersonal separation and social/public separation

When a relationship becomes more unpleasant than pleasant, many choose to dissolve it.

Movements Stage movements Here you move up, down, or stay put.

Turning points These can be positive (moving the relationship toward intimacy) or negative (moving the relationship toward deterioration).

Relationship license Increases and decreases occur in the relationship license depending on whether the move is toward intimacy or away from intimacy.

Table 9.3 In a Nutshell Relationship Stages and Movements

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 259 06/06/2018 17:05

260 Chapter 9

Relationship Communication 9.2 Explain the role of communication at the

different relationship stages.

Communication is the lifeblood of relationships— without communication, relationships could not exist. And without effective communication, effec- tive relationships could not exist. With effective communication, however, you stand a much better chance of experiencing relationships that are pro- ductive, satisfying, supportive, open, and honest, and possess all the characteristics you want in a relationship. Here, we look at some of the communi- cation patterns and guides to effectiveness in devel- oping, deteriorating, and repairing relationships.

Communicating in Developing and Maintaining Relationships Much research has focused on the communication that takes place as you make contact, become involved, and reach intimacy (Ayres, 1983; Canary & Stafford, 1994; Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Dindia & Baxter, 1987; Guer- rero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993).

As a relationship develops, both the breadth and the depth of the communication increase. This relationship is explained clearly in social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). It describes relationships in terms of the number of topics that people talk about (the breadth of the relationship) and the degree of “personalness” of those topics (the depth of the relationship).

We can represent an individual as a circle and divide that circle into various parts, as in Figure 9.2. This figure illustrates different models of social penetration. Each circle in the figure contains eight topic areas to depict breadth (identified as A through H) and five levels of intimacy to depict depth (represented by the concentric circles). Note that in circle 1, only three topic areas are penetrated. Of these, one is penetrated only to the first level and two to the second. In this type of interaction, three topic areas are discussed, and only at rather superficial levels. This is the type of relationship you

VIEWPOINTS Meeting Online

One study found that people who met on the Internet and who communicated over a period of time before they met in person were more likely to stay together than couples who did not engage in much communication (Baker, 2002). Based on your own experiences, how would you predict which couples who met online would stay together and which would break apart?

Figure 9.2 Models of Social Penetration

How accurately do the concepts of breadth and depth express your communication in relationships of different intensities? Can you identify other aspects of messages that change as you go from talking with an acquaintance to talking with a friend or an intimate?

A B

C

D

EF

Relative Strangers Friendship Intimate Relationship

G

H

A B

C

D

EF

G

H

A B

C

D

EF

G

H

1 2 3

Relative Strangers Friendship Intimate Relationship

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 260 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 261

might have with an acquaintance. Circle 2 represents a more intense relationship, one that has greater breadth and depth; more topics are discussed and to deeper levels of penetration. This is the type of relationship you might have with a friend. Circle 3 rep- resents a still more intense relationship. Here there is considerable breadth (seven of the eight areas are penetrated) and depth (most of the areas are penetrated to the deepest levels). This is the type of relationship you might have with a lover or a parent or child.

Here are some examples of how people communicate as they develop and seek to maintain their relationships, presented in the form of suggestions for more effective interpersonal relationships. As a preface, it should be noted that these messages may be sent over any of the available communication channels. Many relationships develop online (Match.com commercials claim that one out of five relationships begin online), and because online contact is so easy to maintain even when partners are widely sepa- rated geographically, a great deal of relationship communication occurs through e-mail, Facebook postings, instant messaging, texting, and tweeting. One behavior that can- not be fully appreciated online is kissing. Kissing, more important to women than to men, is frequently used to maintain, solidify, and strengthen relationships (Wlodarski & Dunbar, 2013).

• Reach out. You call just to say, “How are you?” or send cards or letters. Sometimes communication is merely small talk that is insignificant in itself but is engaged in because it preserves contact. Also included would be talking about the honesty and openness in the relationship and talking about shared feelings. Responding construc- tively in a conflict (even when your partner may act in ways harmful to the relation- ship) is another type of communicative maintenance strategy (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993).

• Be nice. You’re polite, cheerful, and friendly; you avoid criticism; and you compro- mise even when it involves self-sacrifice. This behavior also includes talking about a shared future, for example, talking about a future vacation or buying a house together. It also includes acting affectionately and romantically.

• Be open. You engage in direct discussion and listen to the other—for example, you self-disclose, talk about what you want from the relationship, give advice, and express empathy.

• Give assurances. You assure the other person of the significance of the relation- ship— for example, you comfort the other, put your partner first, and express love.

• Share joint activities. You spend time with the other—for example, playing ball, visiting mutual friends, doing specific things as a couple (even cleaning the house), and sometimes just being together and talking with no concern for what is done. Controlling (eliminating or reducing) extrarelational activities would be another type of togetherness behavior (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Also included here would be ceremonial behaviors, for example, celebrat- ing birthdays and anniversaries, discussing past pleasurable times, and eating at a favorite restaurant.

• Be positive. You try to make interactions pleas- ant and upbeat—for example, holding hands, giving in to make your partner happy, and doing favors. At the same time, you avoid cer- tain issues that might cause arguments.

• Focus on improving yourself. For example, you work on making yourself look especially good and attractive to the other person.

• Be empathic. This skill is covered in the accom- panying Understanding Interpersonal Skills box.

VIEWPOINTS Growing Similarity

It’s been found that couples in long-term relationships resemble each other in facial features more than do couples formed at random. One reason offered (in addition to the obvious one that we select a relationship partner who looks like us to start with) is empathy. People come to have similar facial features because they empathize with each other—they in effect copy each other’s facial behaviors (for example, smiling or wrinkling the forehead) and eventually develop greater similarity in facial appearance (Zajonc, Adelmann, Murphy, & Niedenthal, 1987; Dean, 2007). In what other ways (physical and emotional) might couples in long-term relationships come to resemble each other?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 261 06/06/2018 17:05

262 Chapter 9

Communicating in Deteriorating and Dissolving Relationships Like communication in developing relationships, communication in deteriorating rela- tionships involves special patterns and special strategies of disengagement.

Recognizing Patterns of Deterioration Communication patterns such as withdrawal and increased negativity, for example, are in part a response to the deterioration; you communicate the way you do because you feel that your relationship is in trouble. However, these patterns are also causative: the communication patterns you use largely determine the fate of your relationship. Here are a few communication patterns that are seen during relationship deterioration.

• Withdrawal Nonverbally, withdrawal is seen in the greater space you need and in the speed with which tempers and other signs of disturbance arise when that space

In some cultures, mainly high collectivist cultures, there is great value placed on long-term relationships; relationships that last are viewed positively and relationships that don’t last are viewed negatively. Other cultures, mainly high individualist cultures, are more accepting of short-term, temporary relationships.

THE CULTURAL MAP Relationship Length

These countries are among the most strongly a�liated with individualism. Relationships in individualist cultures are more temporary than long-lasting, and individualist cultures are more accepting of change in relationships. Divorce rates, for example, are generally high in these cultures.

These countries are among the most strongly a�liated with collectivism. Relationships in collectivist cultures are more long-lasting than temporary, and, in fact, collectivist cultures often expect relationships to last forever. Divorce rates, as you’d expect, are generally low in these cultures.

How do you feel about long-term versus short-term romantic relationships? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of long-lasting and of temporary romantic relationships? Are these the same advantages and disadvantages you’d find in friendship relationships?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 262 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 263

is invaded. Other nonverbal signs of withdrawal include a decrease in eye contact and touching; less similarity in clothing; and fewer displays of items associated with the other person, such as bracelets, photographs, and rings (Knapp, Vange- listi, & Caughlin, 2014; Miller & Parks, 1982). Verbally, withdrawal is marked by a decreased desire to talk and, especially, to listen. At times, you may use small talk not as a preliminary to serious conversation but as an alternative, perhaps to avoid confronting the serious issues.

• Depenetration Recall that when a relationship moves to intimacy, the breadth and depth of communication increases. Conversely, as a relationship begins to deterio- rate, the breadth and depth reverse themselves in a process called depenetration. For example, while ending a relationship, you might cut out certain topics from your interpersonal communications. At the same time, you might discuss the remaining topics in less depth. In some instances of relational deterioration, how- ever, both the breadth and the depth of interaction increase. For example, when a couple breaks up and each is finally free from an oppressive relationship, they may—after some time—begin to discuss problems and feelings they would never have discussed when they were together. In fact, they may become extremely close friends and come to like each other more than when they were together. In these cases, the breadth and depth of their relationship may increase rather than decrease (Baxter, 1983).

• Decline in self-disclosure Self-disclosing communications decline significantly. If the relationship is dying, you may think self-disclosure is not worth the effort. Or you may limit your self-disclosures because you feel that the other person may not accept them or can no longer be trusted to be supportive and empathic.

• Deception Deception increases as relationships break down. Sometimes this takes the form of clear-cut lies, which you or your partner may use to avoid arguments over details such as staying out all night, not calling, or being seen in the wrong place with the wrong person. At other times, lies may be used because of a feel- ing of shame; you may not want the other person to think less of you. One of the problems with deception is that it has a way of escalating, eventually creating a climate of distrust and disbelief.

• Positive and negative messages During deterioration, there’s an increase in negative messages and a decrease in positive messages. Once you praised the other’s behav- iors, but now you criticize them. Often the behaviors have not changed significantly; what has changed is your way of looking at them. What once was a cute habit now becomes annoying; what once was “different” now becomes inconsiderate. When a relationship is deteriorating, requests for pleasurable behaviors decrease (“Will you fix me my favorite dessert?”) and requests to stop unpleasant or negative behaviors increase (“Will you stop whistling?”) (Lederer, 1984). Even the social niceties that accompany requests get lost as they deteriorate from “Would you please make me a cup of coffee, honey?” to “Get me some coffee, will you?” to “Where’s my coffee?”

Disengaging from a Relationship Another dimension of communicating in relation- ship deterioration focuses on the strategies people use in breaking up a relationship. When you wish to exit a relationship, you need some way of explaining this—to yourself as well as to your partner. You need a strategy for getting out of a relationship that you no longer find satisfying or profitable. A few such strategies are presented in the list that follows (Cody, 1982). As you read the list, note that your choice of a strategy depends on your goal. For example, you’re more likely to remain friends if you use de-escalation than if you use justification or avoidance (Banks, Altendorf, Greene, & Cody, 1987).

• Positive tone is used to preserve the relationship and to express positive feelings for the other person. For example, “I really care for you a great deal, but I’m not ready for such an intense relationship.”

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 263 06/06/2018 17:05

264 Chapter 9

VIEWPOINTS Breakup Rules

The more intimate your relationship (and the longer you’ve been together), the more intimate the method of breaking up needs to be. You cannot announce for the first time that you are divorcing your spouse of 20 years on a Facebook update or on a post-it note you leave on the refrigerator as you’re hopping a plane for Tahiti. How would you describe the rules for relationship breakup? Are they the same for online and for face-to-face relationships?

• Negative identity management to blame the other person for the breakup and to absolve yourself; for example, “I can’t stand your jealousy, your constant suspicions, your checking up on me. I need my freedom.”

• Justification to give reasons for the breakup; for example, “I’m going away to college for four years; there’s no point in not dat- ing others.”

• De-escalation to reduce the intensity of the relationship. For example, you might avoid the other person, cut down on phone calls, or reduce the amount of time you spend together. Or you might de-escalate to reduce the exclusivity and hence the intensity of the relationship and say, for example, “I’m just not ready for an exclusive relationship. I think we should see other people.”

Dealing with a Breakup Regardless of the specific reason for the end of the relationship, relationship breakups are difficult to deal with. They invariably cause stress and emotional problems, and they may actually create as much pain in a person’s brain as physical injuries (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Women, it seems, experience greater depression and social dys- function than men after relationship dissolution (Chung, et al., 2002). Consequently, it’s important to give attention to self-repair. Here are a few suggestions to ease the difficulty that is sure to be

experienced, whether the breakup is between friends or lovers or occurs because of death, separation, or the loss of affection and connection.

• Break the loneliness–depression cycle. Instead of wallowing in loneliness and depression, be active. Engage in social activities with friends and others in your support system. Many people feel they should bear their burdens alone. Men, in particular, have been taught that this is the only “manly” way to han- dle things. But seeking the support of others is one of the best antidotes to the unhappiness caused when a relationship ends. Tell your friends and family of your situation—in only general terms, if you prefer—and make it clear that you want support. Seek out people who are positive and nurturing. Avoid nega- tive individuals who paint the world in even darker tones. Make the distinction between seeking support and seeking advice. If you feel you need advice, seek out a professional.

• Take time out. Resist the temptation to jump into a new relationship while the old one is still warm or before a new one can be assessed with some objectivity. At the same time, resist swearing off all relationships. Neither extreme works well. Also, take time out for yourself. Renew your relationship with yourself. If you were in a long-term relationship, you probably saw yourself as part of a team, as part of a couple. Now get to know yourself as a unique individual— standing alone at present but fully capable of entering a meaningful relationship in the near future.

• Bolster your self-esteem. When relationships fail, self-esteem often declines. This seems especially true for those who did not initiate the breakup (Collins & Clark, 1989). You may feel guilty for having caused the breakup or inadequate for not holding on to the relationship. You may feel unwanted and unloved. Your task is to regain a positive self-image. Recognize, too, that having been in a relationship that failed—even if you view yourself as the main cause of the breakup—does not mean that you are a failure. Neither does it mean that you cannot succeed in a new and different relationship. It does mean that something went wrong with this

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 264 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 265

one relationship. Ideally, it was a failure from which you have learned something important about yourself and about your relationship behavior.

• Remove or avoid uncomfortable relationship symbols. After any breakup, there are a variety of reminders—photographs, gifts, and letters, for example. Resist the temptation to throw these out. Instead, remove them. Give them to a friend to hold or put them in a closet where you won’t see them. If possible, avoid places you frequented together. These symbols bring back uncomfortable memories. After you have achieved some emotional distance, you can go back and enjoy these as reminders of a once pleasant relationship. Support for this suggestion comes from research showing that the more vivid your memory of a broken love affair—a memory greatly aided by these relationship symbols—the greater your depression is likely to be (Harvey, Flanary, & Morgan, 1986). Additional research shows that remaining friends on Facebook after a breakup obstructs healing and the ability to move on past the broken relationship to another (Marshall, 2012).

• Become mindful of your own relationship patterns. Avoid repeating negative patterns. Many people repeat their mistakes. They enter second and third rela- tionships with the same blinders, faulty preconceptions, or unrealistic expecta- tions with which they entered earlier involvements. Instead, use the knowledge gained from your failed relationship to prevent repeating the same patterns. At the same time, don’t become a prophet of doom. Don’t see in every relationship vestiges of the old. Don’t jump at the first conflict and say, “Here it goes all over again.” Treat the new relationship as the unique relationship it is. Don’t evaluate it through past experiences. Use past relationships and experiences as guides, not filters.

Communicating in Relationship Repair If you wish to save a relationship, you may try to do so by changing your communication patterns and, in effect, putting into practice the insights and skills learned in this course. First, we’ll look at some general ways to repair a relationship; second, we’ll examine ways to deal with repair when you are the only one who wants to change the relationship. We can look at the strategies for repairing a relation- ship in terms of the following six suggestions, whose first letters conveniently spell out the word REPAIR (Recognize the problem. Engage in productive communica- tion. Pose possible solutions. Affirm each other. Integrate solutions into everyday behavior. Risk giving without promises of reciprocity.), a useful reminder that repair is not a one-step but a multistep process (see Figure 9.3).

Recognize the Problem Your first step is to identify the prob- lem and to recognize it both intellectually and emotionally. Specify what is wrong with your present relationship (in concrete terms) and what changes would be needed to make it better (again, in specific terms). Create a picture of your relationship as you would want it to be, and compare that picture to the way the relationship looks now. Specify the changes that would have to take place if the ideal picture were to replace the present picture.

Also try to see the problem from your partner’s point of view and to have your partner see the problem from yours. Exchange these perspectives, empathically and with open minds. Try, too, to be descriptive when discussing grievances, taking special care to avoid such troublesome terms as always and never. Own your feel- ings and thoughts; use I-messages and take responsibility for your feelings instead of blaming your partner.

A coworker with whom you’re becoming friendly gives you a gift that is too intimate for the level of your rela- tionship. In fact, you don’t want the relationship to progress to this level, at least not just yet. What might you say to make your feelings known?

a. Return the gift with a note explaining your feelings.

b. Keep the gift, but make it clear that this will not advance the relationship.

c. Meet face-to-face and explain the situation.

d. Say nothing beyond thank you.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Refusing a Gift Positively

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 265 06/06/2018 17:05

266 Chapter 9

Figure 9.3 The Relationship Repair Wheel

The wheel seems an apt metaphor for the repair process; the specific repair strategies—the spokes—all work together in a constant process. The wheel is difficult to get moving, but once in motion it becomes easier to turn. Also, it’s easier to start when two people are pushing, but it is not impossible for one to move it in the right direction. What metaphor do you find helpful in thinking about relationship repair?

Recognize the problem En ga

ge in

p ro

du ct

iv e

co nfl

ic t

re so

lu ti

on

Propose possible solutionsRisk

A ffi

rm each otherIn

te gr

at e

so lu

ti on

s

in to

n or

m al

b eh

av io

r

Engage in Productive Communication Interpersonal communication skills such as those discussed throughout the text (for example, other-orientation, openness, con- fidence, immediacy, expressiveness, and empathy) are especially important during repair and are an essential part of any repair strategy. Here are several suggestions to refresh your memory:

• Look closely for relational messages that help clarify motivations and needs. Respond to these messages as well as to the content messages.

• Exchange perspectives and see the situation as your partner does.

• Practice empathic and positive responses, even in conflict situations.

• Own your feelings and thoughts. Use I-messages and take responsibility for these feelings.

• Use active listening techniques to help your partner explore and express relevant thoughts and feelings.

• Remember the principle of irreversibility; think carefully before saying things you may later regret.

• Keep the channels of communication open. Be available to discuss problems, negotiate solutions, and practice new and more productive communication patterns.

Similarly, the skills of effective interpersonal conflict resolution are crucial in any attempt at relationship repair. If partners address relationship problems by deploying productive conflict resolution strategies, the difficulties may be resolved, and the relationship may actually emerge stronger and healthier. If unproductive and destructive strategies are used, however, then the relationship may well dete- riorate further.

Propose Possible Solutions After the problem is identified, examine the possible choices you have for resolving any problems. Look for solutions that enable both of

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 266 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 267

you to win. Discuss the possible solutions, their pros and cons. Try to avoid “solutions” in which one person wins and the other loses. With such win–lose solutions, resentment and hostility are likely to fester.

Affirm Each Other Any strategy of relationship repair should incorporate support- iveness and positive evaluations. For example, happy couples engage in greater posi- tive behavior exchange: they communicate more agreement, approval, and positive affect than do unhappy couples (Dindia & Fitzpatrick, 1985). Clearly, these behaviors result from the positive feelings the partners have for each other. It can also be argued, however, that these expressions help to increase the positive regard each person has for the other.

One way to affirm another is to talk positively. Reverse negative communication patterns. For example, instead of withdrawing, talk about the causes of, and the possible cures for, your disagreements and problems. Reverse the tendency to hide your inner self. Disclose your feelings. Compliments, positive stroking, and all the nonverbals that say, “I care,” are especially important when you wish to reverse negative communica- tion patterns.

Cherishing behaviors are an especially insightful way to affirm another person and to increase favor exchange (Lederer, 1984). Cherishing behaviors are the small gestures you enjoy receiving from your partner (a smile, a wink, a squeeze, a kiss). Cherishing behaviors should be (1) specific and positive, (2) focused on the present and future rather than related to issues about which the partners have argued in the past, (3) capable of being performed daily, and (4) easily executed. People can make a list of the cherishing behaviors they each wish to receive and then exchange lists. Each person then performs the cherishing behaviors desired by the partner. At first, these behaviors may seem self-conscious and awkward. In time, however, they will become a normal part of interaction. Recent research confirms the usefulness of cherishing behaviors delivered by texting. Texting messages of confirmation—I’m thinking of you, I miss you, How are you? What’s up?—leads to improved relationship satisfaction (Schade, Sand- berg, Bean, Busby, & Coyne, 2013; Ni, 2013).

Integrate Solutions Often solutions that are reached after an argument are followed for only a very short time; then the couple goes back to their previous, unproductive behavior patterns. Instead, integrate the solutions into your normal behavior; make them an integral part of your everyday relationship behavior. For example, make the exchange of favors, compliments, and cherishing behaviors part of your normal rela- tionship behavior.

Risk Take risks in trying to improve your relationship. Risk giving favors without any certainty of reciprocity. Risk rejection by making the first move to make up or by saying you’re sorry. Be willing to change, adapt, and take on new tasks and responsibilities. Risk the possibility that a significant part of the problem is you—that you’re being unreasonable, or controlling, or stingy and that this is causing problems and needs to be changed.

Table 9.4 offers a brief summary of communication and relationship stages.

Relationship Stages Communication Communicating in development and maintenance

Being at your best and observing all the rules of politeness charac- terize the developing stages of relationships.

Communicating in deterioration and dissolution

When a relationship deteriorates, communication lessens in quan- tity and quality.

Communicating in repair During relationship repair, you attempt to resolve the problems and improve the relationship by, for example, engaging in productive communication, affirming each other, and taking risks.

Table 9.4 In a Nutshell Communication and Relationship Stages

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 267 06/06/2018 17:05

268 Chapter 9

UNDERSTANDING INTERPERSONAL SKILLS Empathy: Feeling What Another Person Feels From That Person’s Point of View

Communicating with Empathy Here are a few more specific suggestions to help you com- municate both your feeling and your thinking empathy more

effectively (Authier & Gustafson, 1982):

• Be clear. Make it clear that you’re trying to understand, not to evaluate, judge, or criticize.

• Focus. Maintain eye contact, an attentive posture, and physical closeness to focus your concentration. Express involvement through facial expressions and gestures.

• Reflect. To check the accuracy of your perceptions and to show your commitment to understanding the speaker, reflect back to the speaker the feelings that you think are being expressed. Offer tentative statements about what you think the person is feeling, for example, “You seem really angry with your father” or “I hear some doubt in your voice.”

• Disclose. When appropriate, use your own self-disclosures to communicate your understanding, but be careful that you don’t refocus the discussion on yourself.

• Address mixed messages. At times you may want to identify and address any mixed messages that the per- son is sending as a way to foster more open and hon- est communication. For example, if your friend verbally expresses contentment but shows nonverbal signs of depression, it may be prudent to question the possible discrepancy.

• Acknowledge importance. Make it clear that you under- stand the depth of a person’s feelings.

Sometimes you will want to control your empathy, for example, when you want to remain especially calm and logical in order to help another person. Similarly, a physi- cian often wants to control empathy in order to focus on the medical problem at hand in a dispassionate manner (Gole-

man, 2013b).

Working with Empathy Empathy can also yield practical benefits. For example, research shows—from a study in 38 countries—that manag- ers who display empathy toward their employees get higher performance ratings from their supervisors than do those who don’t display empathy (Gentry, Weber, & Golnaz, 2007). And empathic physicians enjoy greater patient satisfaction (Swink, 2013). What pratical benefits might empathy have for you at school and at work?

Empathy is feeling what another person feels from that per- son’s point of view without losing your own identity. The first step in empathy, of course, is to understand what the other person is thinking and feeling. To achieve this, you need to put into practice all the skills discussed throughout this text and course; for example, listen carefully to what the speaker is saying and pay close attention to those small nonverbal movements of the face and eyes that often reveal nonverbal- ized feelings. If you listen carefully, you’ll find yourself imitating the expressions of this other person, which will help you feel what the other person is feeling. You’ll be less able to do this if you’ve had Botox injections, however, because you’ll be less able to use your facial muscles to echo the expressions of the other (Whitbourne, 2013b).

Empathy enables you to understand emotionally what another person is experiencing. (To sympathize, in contrast, is to feel for the person—to feel sorry or happy for the person, for example.) Women, research shows, are perceived as more empathic and engage in more empathic communication than do men (Nicolai & Demmel, 2007). Research also shows that empathy among college students has declined significantly from the 1970s to 2010, despite the great number of social media connections among friends (Konrath, 2012). And, on the more practical side, there is evidence that empathy in the workplace adds to the bottom line; empathic employees are more effec- tive in dealing with customers and are less likely to leave the company, for example (Goleman, 1995a). Given the importance of empathy in the workplace, a mobile app called Translator, is in development and is designed to teach employees how to be more empathic (Zarya, 2017).

Empathy is best expressed in two distinct parts: thinking empathy and feeling empathy (Bellafiore, 2005). In thinking empathy, you express an understanding of what the other person means. For example, when you paraphrase some- one’s comment, showing that you understand the meaning the person is trying to communicate, you’re communicating thinking empathy. The second part is feeling empathy; here you express your feeling of what the other person is feeling; in other words, you demonstrate a similarity between what you’re feeling and what the other person is feeling. Often you’ll respond with both thinking and feeling empathy in the same brief response; for example, when a friend tells you of prob- lems at home, you may respond by saying, “Your problems at home do seem to be getting worse. I can imagine that you feel so angry at times.”

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 268 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 269

Relationship Theories 9.3 Summarize the major theories that explain relationship development,

deterioration, and repair (attraction, relationship rules, relationship dialectics, social exchange, equity, and politeness).

Several theories offer insight into why and how you develop and dissolve your rela- tionships (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008b). Here we’ll examine six such theories: attrac- tion, relationship rules, relationship dialectics, social exchange, equity, and politeness, previewed in Figure 9.4.

Attraction Theory Attraction theory holds that people form relationships with those they consider attractive.

Before reading about the factors that make for attractiveness, examine your attractiveness preferences by rating the following qualities on a 5-point scale in terms of how important each is to you: 5 = Very important; 4 = Important; 3 = Neither important nor unimportant; 2 = Unimportant; 1 = Very unimportant):

____ 1. Facial appearance

____ 2. General body structure (weight, height, shape)

____ 3. Grooming and general cleanliness

____ 4. Appropriate financial resources

____ 5. Intelligence

____ 6. Similarity in religious beliefs

____ 7. Sense of humor

____ 8. Positive toward me

____ 9. Optimistic toward life in general

____ 10. Honest/ethical

____ 11. Ambitious

____ 12. Communicative

____ 13. Similarity in cultural backgrounds, including race and nationality

____ 14. Available

____ 15. Sexual compatibility

There are no correct or incorrect answers, and people are likely to respond to such characteristics very differently. This brief exercise was designed to stimulate you to think in specific terms about the characteristics of another person that are important to you. Those given here are often mentioned in research and theory as being significant in evaluating a

potential life partner.

If you’re like most people, then you’re attracted to others on the basis of these major factors: similarity, proximity, reinforcement, physical attractiveness and personality, socioeconomic and educational status, and reciprocity of liking. As a preface to the discussion of these factors, it’s important to recognize the difference between online and face-to-face relationships. Attraction to a person in an online relationship (espe- cially one that is going to stay online) depends on the communicated messages, photos, videos, the responsiveness to your posts, the sense of humor—all of which may have nothing to do with the person’s physical appearance. With face-to-face relationships or online relationships that will morph into face-to-face relationships, there is considerable emphasis on the physical qualities of the individual.

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 269 06/06/2018 17:05

270 Chapter 9

VIEWPOINTS Online Relationships

Among the advantages of online relationships is that they reduce the importance of physical characteristics and instead emphasize factors such as rapport, similarity, and self-disclosure, and in the process promote relationships that are based on emotional intimacy rather than physical attraction (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). What do you see as the main advantages of online relationships? The main disadvantages?

Similarity If you could construct your mate, according to the similarity principle, it’s likely that your mate would look, act, and think very much like you (Burleson, Samter, & Luccetti, 1992; Burleson, Kunkel, & Birch, 1994). Generally, people like those who are similar to them in nationality, race, abilities, physical characteristics, intel- ligence, and attitudes (Pornpitakpan, 2003). A study of 65,000 online daters showed that similarity guided their choices in selecting potential dating partners (Fiore & Don- ath, 2005; Dean, 2010b). No doubt this counts in great part for the proliferation of dating sites focusing on specific religious or racial groups. There is, however, some evidence that this preference for similarity (at least in facial appearance) only holds for people already in a relationship. Those who are single and perhaps seeking a partner are more apt to favor faces that are dissimilar to their own (Lindová, Little, Havlíček, Roberts, Rubešová, & Flegr, 2016; Dean, 2016a).

Research also finds that you’re more likely to help someone who is similar in race, attitude, general appearance, and even first name. Even the same first name or

coming from the same state or city is significant (Wyer, 2012). Sometimes people are attracted to their opposites, in a pattern called complemen- tarity; for example, a dominant person might be attracted to someone who is more submissive. Generally, however, people prefer those who are similar.

Proximity If you look around at people you find attractive, you will probably find that they are the people who live or work close to you. People who become friends are the people who have the great- est opportunity to interact with each other. Prox- imity, or physical closeness, is most important in the early stages of interaction—for example, dur- ing the first days of school (in class or in dormi- tories). The importance of proximity as a factor in

Figure 9.4 Relationship Theories

Relationship theories

Attraction

Relationship rules

Relationship dialectics

Social exchange

Equity

Politeness

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 270 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 271

attraction decreases, though always remaining significant, as the opportunity to interact with more distant others increases.

Reinforcement If you’re like most people, you’re attracted to people who give rewards or reinforcements, which can range from a simple compliment to an expensive cruise. You’re also attracted to people you reward (Jecker & Landy, 1969; Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2016). That is, you come to like people for whom you do favors; for example, you’ve probably increased your liking for persons after buying them an expensive present or going out of your way to do them a special favor. In these situa- tions, you justify your behavior by believing that the person was worth your efforts; otherwise, you’d have to admit to spending effort on people who don’t deserve it.

Physical Attractiveness and Personality It’s easily appreciated that people like physically attractive people more than they like physically unattractive people. And, consistent with popular stereotypes, men place greater emphasis on physical attrac- tiveness than do women. In one study of heterosexual men and women, 92% of men (but only 84% of women) indicated they wanted a good-looking partner and 80% of men (but only 58% of women) wanted a partner who had a slender body (Dean, 2017; Fales, et al., 2016). What isn’t so obvious is that we also feel a greater sense of famil- iarity with more attractive people than with less attractive people; that is, we’re more likely to think we’ve met a person before if that person is attractive (Monin, 2003). Another not so obvious connection is that attractive students get higher grades than less attractive students and the more attractive also earn higher salaries than their less attractive counterparts (Gordon, Crosnoe, & Wang, 2014). Even the more attractive candidate gets elected more often than the less attractive candidate (White, Kenrick, & Neuberg, 2013).

The perception of physical attractiveness is also influenced by a person’s friends. A person with attractive friends (as shown by the photos they post on Facebook) is judged more attractive than that same person with unattractive friends’ photos posted (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008). And, perhaps in light of this, there are websites that will write flattering, interesting, and clever status updates for your Facebook wall. After all, if people write flattering, interesting, and clever posts on your wall, then surely you too must be interesting and clever—and deserv- ing of flattery. Even your association with positively reviewed films and television shows has been found to increase your perceived attractiveness rating on OK Cupid (Roper, 2014).

Also, although culture influences what people think is physical attractiveness and what isn’t, some research indicates that there are certain facial features that seem to be thought attractive in all cultures—a kind of universal attractiveness (Brody, 1994). Additionally, you probably tend to like people who have a pleasant rather than an unpleasant personality (although people will differ on what is and what is not a pleas- ant personality).

Socioeconomic and Educational Status Popular belief holds that, among hetero- sexual men and women, men are more interested in a woman’s physical attributes than in her socioeconomic status. And, indeed, research shows that women flirt on the Internet by stressing their physical attributes, whereas men stress their socioeconomic status (Whitty, 2003b). There is interesting evidence that men, too, consider a woman’s socioeconomic status in making romantic relationship decisions—but whereas women find higher socioeconomic status more attractive, men find just the opposite. Men report greater likelihood of a romantic relationship with a woman lower in socioeconomic status than they are. Further, men find women with a higher educational level (which is often responsible for the higher socioeconomic status) less likeable and less faithful, and as a result see less likelihood of a romantic relationship with such women (Greit- emeyer, 2007).

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 271 06/06/2018 17:05

272 Chapter 9

Reciprocity of Liking It will come as no surprise that research supports what you already know from your own experience: You tend to be attracted to people you think are attracted to you; you come to like those who you think like you. Reciprocity of liking, also known as reciprocity of attraction or reciprocal liking, is seen in a variety of situations. We initiate potential friendships and romantic relationships with people who we think like us, certainly not with those we think dislike us. Group members who are told that certain other members like them will later express greater liking for these members than for others. Public speakers are advised to compliment the audience and express liking for them largely on the theory that this liking will be reciprocated. There is even evidence to show that people like “likers”— people who like others generally— more than they like people who don’t express such liking ( Eastwick & Finkel, 2009).

However, some research indicates that there is some appeal to uncertainty. For example, when participants viewed Facebook profiles, they indicated a greater attrac- tion to those they were told were attracted to them a lot than to those who they were told were attracted to them an average amount (consistent with the notion of reciprocity). But, they were most attracted to a third group who they were told either liked them a lot or an average amount—indicating that there is some benefit to uncertainty (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2010; Dean, 2016a).

Relationship Rules Theory You can gain an interesting perspective on interpersonal relationships by looking at them in terms of the rules that govern them (Shimanoff, 1980). The general assumption of relationship rules theory is that friendship and love, in particular, are held together by adherence to certain rules. When those rules are broken, the relationship may dete- riorate and even dissolve.

Relationship rules theory helps us clarify several aspects of relationships. First, these rules help identify successful versus destructive relationship behavior. In addi- tion, these rules help pinpoint more specifically why relationships break up and how they may be repaired. Further, if we know what the rules are, we are better able to master the social skills involved in relationship development and maintenance. And because these rules vary from one culture to another, it is important to identify those unique to each culture so that intercultural relationships may be developed and main- tained more effectively.

Friendship Rules One approach to friendship argues that friendships are maintained by rules (Argyle, 1986; Argyle & Henderson, 1984). When these rules are followed, the friendship is strong and mutually satisfying. When these rules are broken, the friend- ship suffers and may die. For example, the rules for keeping a friendship call for behav- iors such as standing up for your friend in his or her absence, sharing information and feelings about successes, demonstrating emotional support for a friend, trusting and offering to help a friend in need, and trying to make a friend happy when you’re together. On the other hand, a friendship is likely to be in trouble when one or both friends are intolerant of the other’s friends, discuss confidences with third parties, fail to demonstrate positive support, nag, and/or fail to trust or confide in the other. The strategy for maintaining a friendship, then, depends on your knowing the rules and having the ability to apply the appropriate interpersonal skills (Blieszner & Adams, 1992; Trower, 1981).

Romantic Rules Other research has identified the rules that romantic relationships establish and follow. These rules, of course, vary considerably from one culture to another. For example, the different attitudes toward permissiveness and sexual relations with which Chinese and American college students view dating influence the romantic rules each group will establish and live by (Tang & Zuo, 2000). One researcher identified eight major romantic rules that keep the relationship together—or, when broken, lead

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 272 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 273

to deterioration and eventually dissolution (Baxter, 1986). The general form for each rule is that, if you are in a close relationship, then you should:

1. recognize that each has a life beyond the relationship.

2. have and express similar attitudes and interests.

3. reinforce each other’s self-esteem.

4. be real: open and genuine.

5. be faithful to each other.

6. spend substantial time together.

7. obtain rewards commensurate with your investment compared to the other party.

8. experience an inexplicable magic when together.

Family Rules Family communication research points to the importance of rules in defining and maintaining the family (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015). Family rules concern three main interpersonal communication issues (Satir, 1983):

• What you can talk about. Can you talk about the family finances? Grandpa’s drink- ing? Your sister’s lifestyle?

• How you can talk about something. Can you joke about your brother’s disability? Can you address directly questions of family history or family skeletons?

• To whom you can talk. Can you talk openly to extended family members such as cousins and aunts and uncles? Can you talk to close neighbors about family health issues?

All families teach rules for communication. Some of these are explicit, such as “Never contradict the family in front of outsiders” or “Never talk finances with outsid- ers.” Other rules are unspoken; you deduce them as you learn the communication style of your family. For example, if financial issues are always discussed in secret and in hushed tones, then you rather logically infer that you shouldn’t tell other, more distant family members or neighbors about family finances.

Like the rules of friends and lovers, family rules tell you which behaviors will be rewarded (and therefore what you should do) and which will be punished (and therefore what you should not do). Rules also provide a kind of structure that defines the family as a cohesive unit and that distinguishes it from other, similar families.

The rules a family develops are greatly influenced by the cul- ture. Although there are many similarities among families through- out the world, there are also differences (Georgas, Mylonas, Bafiti, & Poortinga, 2001). For example, members of collectivist cultures are more likely to restrict family information from outsiders as a way of protecting the family than are members of individualist cultures. But this tendency to protect the family can create serious problems in cases of wife abuse. Many women will not report spou- sal abuse because of this desire to protect the family image and not let others know that things aren’t perfect at home (Dresser, 2005).

Family communication theorists argue that rules should be flexible so that special circumstances can be accommodated; for example, there are situations that necessitate changing the family dinnertime, vacation plans, or savings goals (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993). Rules should also be negotiable so that all members can par- ticipate in their modification and feel part of family government.

Workplace Rules Rules also govern your workplace relation- ships. These rules are usually part of the corporate culture that an employee would learn from observing other employees (especially

You discover that your partner of the last 15 years is being unfaithful with someone online (and in another country), breaking an important but unstated rule of your relationship. You understand that generally such infidelity is seen as a consequence of a failure in com- munication (Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, O’Mara, & Buchanan, 2000). You want to discover the extent of this online relationship and your partner’s intentions in regard to this affair. What would be an effective way for you to deal with this situation?

a. Tell you partner what you found and ask to discuss it.

b. Tell your partner to stop.

c. Express your knowledge and disappointment with this affair.

d. Say nothing.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Virtual Infidelity

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 273 06/06/2018 17:05

274 Chapter 9

those who move up the hierarchy) as well as from official memos on dress, sexual harassment, and the like. Of course, each organization has different rules, so it’s impor- tant to see what rules are operating in any given situation. Among the rules that you might find are:

• Work hard.

• Be cooperative in teams; the good of the company comes first.

• Don’t reveal company policies and plans to workers at competing firms.

• Don’t form romantic relationships with other workers.

• Avoid even the hint of sexual harassment.

• Be polite to other workers and especially to customers.

Relationship Dialectics Theory Relationship dialectics theory argues that someone who is engaged in a relation- ship experiences internal tensions between pairs of motives or desires that pull him or her in opposite directions. These tensions are much like those you experience in your daily lives. For example, you want to work this summer to earn money to get a new car, but you also want to go to Hawaii and surf for two months. You want both, but you can have only one. In a similar way, you experience tensions between opposites in your relationship desires. Research generally finds three such pairs of opposites (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2007, 2008a; Baxter & Simon, 1993; Rawlins, 1989, 1992).

The tension between closedness and openness refers to the conflict between openness and privacy. More specifically, it’s the conflict between the desire or need to be transpar- ent and to disclose your inner self to the other person and, its opposite, the desire or need to be less transparent and to not disclose your inner self (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). Another tension that can come under the closeness-openness tension has to do with the conflict between the desire to be in a closed, exclusive relationship and the wish to be in a relationship that is open to different people. This tension manifests itself most during the early stages of relationship development. You like the exclusiveness of your pairing and yet you want also to relate to a larger group. Young heterosexual men, in interacting with women, use a pattern of messages that encourage closeness followed by messages that indicate a desire for distance, followed by closeness messages, fol- lowed by distancing messages—a clear example of the tension between the desire for closedness and the desire for autonomy (Korobov & Thorne, 2006).

The tension between autonomy and connection, which seems to occur more often as the relationship progresses, involves the desire to remain an autonomous, indepen- dent individual but also to connect intimately to another person and to a relationship.

You want to be close and connected with another per- son, but you also want to be independent (Sahlstein, 2004). This tension, by the way, is a popular theme in women’s magazines, which teach readers to want both autonomy and connection (Prusank, Duran, & DeLillo, 1993).

The tension between novelty and predictability centers on the competing desires for newness, differ- ent experiences, and adventure on the one hand, and for sameness, stability, and predictability on the other. You’re comfortable with being able to predict what will happen, and yet you also want newness, difference, and novelty.

Each individual in a relationship may experience a somewhat different set of desires. For example, one

VIEWPOINTS Emotional Relationships

In face-to-face relationships, emotional closeness compromises privacy; the closer you become, the less privacy you have. Research on online relationships, however, indicates that because you’re more in control of what you reveal, you can develop close emotional relationships but also maintain your privacy (Ben-Ze’ev, 2003). Do you find this to be true? If not, how would you express the relationship between emotional closeness and privacy in online and in face-to-face relationships?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 274 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 275

person may want exclusivity above all, whereas that person’s partner may want greater openness. There are three main ways that you can use to deal with these tensions.

• Accept the imbalance. First, you can simply accept the imbalance as part of dating or as part of a committed relationship. You may even redefine it as a benefit and tell yourself something like: “I had been spending too much time at work. It’s probably better that I come home earlier and don’t work weekends”—accepting the closeness and giving up the autonomy.

• Exit the relationship. Second, you can simply exit the relationship. For example, if the loss of autonomy is so great that you can’t live with it, then you may choose simply to end the relationship and achieve your desired autonomy.

• Rebalance your life. A third alternative is to rebalance your life. For example, if you find the primary relationship excessively predictable, you may seek to satisfy the need for novelty elsewhere, perhaps with a vacation to exotic places, perhaps with a different partner. If you find the relationship too connected (even suffocating), you may seek physical and psychological space to meet your autonomy needs. You can also establish the balance you feel you need by negotiating with your partner, for example, agreeing that you will take separate vacations or that each of you will go out separately with old friends once or twice a week.

As you can appreciate, meeting your partner’s needs while also meeting your own needs is one of the major relationship challenges you’ll face. Knowing and empathizing with these tensions and discussing them seem useful (even necessary) tools for relation- ship maintenance and satisfaction.

Social Exchange Theory Social exchange theory claims that you develop relationships that enable you to maxi- mize your profits (Chadwick-Jones, 1976; Gergen, Greenberg, & Willis, 1980; Thibaut & Kelley, 1986; Stafford, 2008)—a theory based on an economic model of profits and losses. The theory begins with the following equation: Profits = rewards - costs.

• Rewards are anything that you would incur costs to obtain. Research has identified six types of rewards in a love relationship: money, status, love, information, goods, and services (Baron & Byrne, 1984). For example, to get the reward of money, you might have to work rather than play. To earn the status of an A in an interpersonal communication course, you might have to write a term paper or study more than you want to.

• Costs are what you normally try to avoid, that you consider unpleasant or difficult. Examples might include working overtime; washing dishes and ironing clothes; watching your partner’s favorite television show, which you find boring; or doing favors for those you dislike.

• Profit is that which results when the costs are subtracted from the rewards (profit = rewards - costs).

Using this basic economic model, social exchange theory claims that you seek to develop the friendships and romantic relationships that will give you the greatest prof- its, that is, relationships in which the rewards are greater than the costs.

When you enter a relationship, you have in mind a comparison level—a general idea of the kinds of rewards and profits that you feel you ought to get out of such a rela- tionship. This comparison level consists of your realistic expectations concerning what you feel you deserve from this relationship. For example, a study of married couples found that most people expect high levels of trust, mutual respect, love, and commit- ment. Couples’ expectations are significantly lower for time spent together, privacy, sex- ual activity, and communication (Sabatelli & Pearce, 1986). When the rewards that you get equal or surpass your comparison level, you feel satisfied with your relationship.

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 275 06/06/2018 17:05

276 Chapter 9

However, you also have a comparison level for alternatives. That is, you compare the profits that you get from your current relationship with the profits you think you could get from alternative relationships. Thus, if you see that the profits from your pres- ent relationship are below the profits that you could get from an alternative relationship, you may decide to leave your current relationship and enter a new, more profitable relationship. And with the Internet providing ready access to literally thousands of alternatives, this type of analysis can get difficult and unwieldy.

Equity Theory Equity theory uses the ideas of social exchange but goes a step further and claims that you develop and maintain relationships in which the ratio of your rewards relative to your costs is approximately equal to your partner’s (Messick & Cook, 1983; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). For example, if you and a friend start a business in which you put up two-thirds of the money and your friend puts up one-third, equity would demand that you get two-thirds of the profits and your friend get one-third. In an equi- table relationship, then, each party derives rewards that are proportional to the costs they each pay. If you contribute more toward the relationship than your partner, then equity requires that you should get greater rewards. If you both work equally hard, then equity demands that you should both get approximately equal rewards. Conversely, inequity exists in a relationship if you pay more of the costs (for example, if you do more of the unpleasant tasks) but your partner enjoys more of the rewards. Inequity also exists if you and your partner work equally hard but your partner gets more of the rewards. In this case, you’d be under-benefited and your partner would be over-benefited.

Much research supports this theory that people want equity in their interpersonal relationships (Hatfield & Rapson, 2007; Ueleke et al., 1983). The general idea behind the theory is that if you are under-benefited (you get too little in proportion to what you put in), you’ll be angry and dissatisfied. If, on the other hand, you are over-benefited (you get too much in proportion to what you put in), you’ll feel guilty. Some research, however, has questioned this rather neat but intuitively unsatisfying assumption and finds that the over-benefited person is often quite happy and contented; guilt from get- ting more than you deserve seems easily forgotten (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993).

Equity theory puts into clear focus the sources of relational dissatisfaction seen every day. For example, both partners in a relationship may have full-time jobs, but one partner may also be expected to do the major share of the household chores. Thus, although both may be deriving equal rewards—they have equally good cars, they live in the same three-bedroom house, and so on—one partner is paying more of the costs. According to equity theory, this partner will be dissatisfied because of this lack of equity.

Equity theory claims that you develop and maintain relationships that are equi- table. You do not develop and may terminate relationships that are inequitable. There’s considerable evidence to show that equity leads to satisfying relationships and that a lack of equity leads to dissatisfaction (Marano, 2014). The greater the inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and the greater the likelihood that the relationship will end.

Politeness Theory Still another approach to relationships looks at politeness as a major force in developing, maintaining, and deteriorating relationships. Politeness theory would go something like this: Two people develop a relationship when each respects, contributes to, and acknowledges the positive and negative face needs of the other; the same relationship deteriorates when they don’t. Positive face is the need to be thought of highly—to be valued, to be esteemed. In communication terms, respect for positive face entails the exchange of compliments, praise, and general positivity. Negative face is the need to be autonomous—to be in control of one’s own behavior, to not be obligated to do something. In communication

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 276 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Stages, Communication, and Theories 277

terms, respect for negative face entails the exchange of permission requests (rather than demands), messages indicating that a person’s time is valuable and respected, and few if any imposed obligations. It would also entail providing the other person an easy way out when a request is made.

Relationships develop and are maintained when these needs are met. And relationships deteriorate when the rules of politeness are bent, violated too often, or ignored completely. Relationship repair is encouraged when the rules of politeness are reintroduced. Figure 9.5 depicts a proposed relationship between the levels of politeness and the relationships stages discussed earlier.

Politeness, of course, is not the entire story; it’s just a piece. It won’t explain all the reasons for relationship development or dete- rioration, but it explains part of the processes. It won’t explain, for example, why so many people stay in abusive and unsatisfying rela- tionships. Its major weakness seems to be that politeness needs for specific individuals are difficult to identify—what is politeness to one person may be perceived as rude or insensitive by another.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, politeness seems to be relaxed as the relationship becomes more intimate. As the relationship becomes more intimate and long-lasting, there is greater license to violate the normal rules of politeness. This may be a mistake, at least in cer- tain relationships. Our needs for positive and negative face do not go away when a relationship becomes more intimate; they’re still there. If the definitions of politeness are relaxed by the individuals, then there seems little problem. There is a problem when the defini- tions—relaxed or original—are not shared by the individuals, when one assumes that something generally considered impolite is okay while the other does not.

When people in relationships complain that they are not respected, are not valued as they used to be when they were dating, and that their relationship is not romantic, they may well be talking about politeness. And so, on the more positive side, polite- ness theory offers very concrete suggestions for developing, maintaining, and repairing interpersonal relationships: namely, increase politeness by contributing to the positive and negative face needs of the other person.

Figure 9.5 Politeness and Relationship Stages

Politeness, according to this model, is greatest during the contact stage—you want to put your best foot forward if the relationship is to be established. At involvement the level is still relatively high; you’re still on your best behavior. As the relationship becomes intimate, you relax politeness and perhaps moved forward. During dissolution and deterioration, politeness may all but disappear. If you want to repair a relationship, your level of politeness is likely to increase considerably.

VIEWPOINTS Breaking up Politely

You want to break up your current romantic relationship of two years. You’ve fallen in love with someone else. You meet your partner for coffee to reveal your feelings. But, before you can say anything, your partner reveals the desire to break up with you. Inside, you’re overjoyed; finally, you’re free to pursue your new love. On the other hand, you feel insulted and annoyed that you got dumped; after all, you were a great partner. What would you most likely say? What would be the most polite reaction in this situation? How would you explain your likely response and the most polite response (if these are different) in terms of positive and negative face?

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 277 06/06/2018 17:05

278 Chapter 9

Though each relationship is unique, relationships for many people possess similar characteristics. These general patterns are what these theories try to explain. Taken together, the theories actually illuminate a great deal about why you develop relation- ships, the way relationships work, the ways you seek to maintain relationships, and the reasons why some relationships are satisfying and others are not. Figure 9.6 compares movement toward and away from intimacy, as seen by the various theories, and offers a nutshell summary of the first two parts of this chapter: Relationship Stages and Rela- tionship Theories.

Figure 9.6 Movement among the Stages as Predicted by Relationship Theories

You move toward intimacy when: Relationship Stages You move away from intimacy when:

Attraction Theory Attraction increases: You’re attracted to those who are similar, who are nearby, who reinforce you, and who you think are attractive.

Attraction Theory Attraction decreases.

Relationship Rules Theory Rules are followed: When rules are followed, relationships are maintained; when rules are broken, the relationship is in trouble.

Relationship Rules Theory Rules are broken, disregarded.

Relationship Dialectics Theory Tensions are at acceptable limits: Relationships experience conflicts over, for example, the desire to be free and the desire to be connected.

Relationship Dialectics Theory Tensions become too high and unacceptable.

Social Exchange Theory Rewards increase, costs decrease, profits increase: Relationships develop and are maintained when the rewards exceed the costs.

Social Exchange Theory Rewards decrease, costs increase, profits decrease.

Equity Theory Equity prevails; each derives rewards in proportion to the costs paid: Relationships are satisfying when each person’s rewards are proportional to her or his costs.

Equity Theory Inequities exist and grow greater: One person is under- benefited and one person is over-benefited.

Politeness Theory Politeness increases; positive and negative face needs are met: Relationships are satisfying when positive and negative face needs are met.

Politeness Theory Politeness decreases; positive and negative face needs are not met or are violated.

Intimacy

Deterioration

Dissolution

Involvement

Contact

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 278 06/06/2018 17:05

increase in deception, and an increase in negative messages and a decrease in positive messages.

10. General repair strategies include: Recognizing the problem, Engaging in productive communication and conflict resolution, Posing possible solutions, Affirming each other, Integrating solutions into nor- mal behavior, and Risking (REPAIR).

Relationship Theories 9.3 Summarize the major theories that explain relationship

development, deterioration, and repair (attraction, relationship rules, relationship dialectics, social exchange, equity, and politeness).

11. Attraction theory holds that you develop relation- ships with those who are similar to you, who are physically close to you, who offer you reinforcement, whom you consider attractive physically and in per- sonality, and who are of a desired socioeconomic and educational level.

12. Relationship rules theory holds that people maintain relationships with those who follow the rules that the individuals have defined as essential to their rela- tionship and dissolve relationships with those who don’t follow the rules.

13. Relationship dialectics theory holds that relation- ships involve tensions between opposing needs and desires, for example, the opposing needs of connec- tion with another person on the one hand and auton- omy and independence on the other.

14. Social exchange theory claims that we enter and maintain relationships in which the rewards are greater than the costs. When the costs become greater than the rewards, the relationship deteriorates.

15. Equity theory holds that you develop and main- tain relationships in which your ratio of rewards compared to costs is approximately equal to your partner’s.

16. Politeness theory holds that you develop and main- tain relationships with those who support your posi- tive and negative face needs.

Relationship Stages 9.1 Describe the process of relationship development—

from contact through (possible) dissolution.

1. At the contact stage of a relationship, you make per- ceptual contact and later interact with the person.

2. At the involvement stage, you test your potential partner and, if this proves satisfactory, move on to intensifying your relationship.

3. At the intimacy stage, you may make an interper- sonal commitment and later enter the stage of social bonding, in which you publicly reveal your relation- ship status.

4. At the deterioration stage, the bonds holding you together begin to weaken. Intrapersonal dissatisfac- tion later becomes interpersonal, when you discuss it with your partner and perhaps others.

5. At the repair stage, you first engage in intrapersonal repair, analyzing what went wrong and perhaps what you can do to set things right; later you may engage in interpersonal repair, in which you and your partner consider ways to mend your deteriorat- ing relationship.

6. At the dissolution stage, you separate yourself from your partner and later perhaps separate socially and publicly.

7. A variety of types of movement may be identified: stage movement, turning point movement, and rela- tionship license movement.

Relationship Communication 9.2 Explain the role of communication at the different

relationship stages.

8. Communication in developing relationships includes being nice, being open, giving assurances, shar- ing joint activities, being positive, and improving yourself.

9. Among the communication changes that occur dur- ing relationship deterioration are verbal and non- verbal withdrawal, a decline in self-disclosure, an

This chapter introduced interpersonal relationships and focused on the stages you go through in developing and perhaps dissolving relationships, the nature of communication at the various relationship stages, and the various theories of how and why interpersonal relationships develop and dissolve.

Summary

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 279 06/06/2018 17:05

280 Chapter 9

Key Terms attraction theory breadth cherishing behaviors comparison level complementarity contact costs depenetration depth

empathy equity theory intimacy involvement politeness theory profits reciprocity of liking relationship deterioration relationship dialectics theory

relationship dissolution relationship license relationship repair relationship rules theory rewards similarity social exchange theory social penetration theory turning points

M09_DEVI1843_15_GE_C09.indd 280 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types

CHAPTER TEN

Learning Objectives 10.1 Define friendship and explain how it develops.

10.2 Describe the various types of love.

10.3 Summarize the characteristics of families and distinguish among couple and family types.

10.4 Describe how to create and maintain successful workplace relationships.

10.5 Explain the nature of, and the guidelines for dealing with, jealousy and violence.

Chapter Topics Friendship Relationships

Love Relationships

Family Relationships

Workplace Relationships

The Dark Side of Interpersonal Relationships

Relationships come in different forms. Interpersonal communication needs to be adjusted to these differences.

This  chapter focuses on specific relationship types: (1) friendship, (2) love, (3) family, and (4) workplace relationships, identifying what these are and explor-

ing how interpersonal communication within each of these

relationships can be made more effective. We’ll also examine the dark side of some relationships in the final section.

All of these relationships can be face-to-face or online or, as is most often the case, some combination. Online

281

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 281 06/06/2018 17:05

282 Chapter 10

relationships have been increasing since the first online dating service was established in 1995. According to one survey, 38 percent of those who identified themselves as “single and looking” used an online dating service (Smith & Duggan, 2013). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest; pro- fessional sites such as LinkedIn; and the dating sites such as Match.com, eHarmony, and OKCupid (and the numerous apps for your phone such as Zoosk, PlentyofFish, and HowAboutWe) make it increasingly easy and interesting to meet new friends and potential romantic partners, to keep in touch with family (websites that provide family hubs are increasing in popularity), and to conduct much of the business of work. As you’ve no doubt noticed, each type of relationship has both advantages and disadvan- tages. Here we need to identify just a few of these.

One of the advantages to establishing relationships online (though some may say it’s a disadvantage) is that personality outweighs physical appearance. Online com- munication reveals people’s inner qualities first. Rapport and mutual self-disclosure become more important than physical attractiveness in promoting intimacy (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). And contrary to some popular opinion, online relationships rely just as heavily on the ideals of trust, honesty, and commitment as do face-to-face relationships (Whitty & Gavin, 2001).

Friendship and romantic interaction on the Internet are a natural boon to shut-ins and extremely shy people, for whom traditional ways of meeting others are often dif- ficult. Computer talk is empowering for those with “physical disabilities or disfigure- ments,” for whom face-to-face interactions are often superficial and often end with withdrawal (Bull & Rumsey, 1988; Lea & Spears, 1995). By eliminating the physical cues, computer talk equalizes the interaction and doesn’t put the disfigured person, for example, at an immediate disadvantage in a society where physical attractiveness is so highly valued. Online you’re free to reveal as much or as little about your physi- cal self as you wish, when you wish.

Another obvious advantage of online relationships is that the number of people you can reach is so vast that it’s relatively easy to find someone who matches what you’re looking for. The situation is like finding a book that covers just what you need from a library of millions of volumes rather than from a collection of only several hundred or even thousands. In a study of over 19,000 couples who were married between 2005 and 2012, those marriages that started online had higher marital satisfaction and were somewhat less likely to end in divorce than those that started in offline meetings (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, Gonzaga, Ogburn, & Vander- Weele, 2013).

A difference that is often in the news is that of deception. It is a lot easier to lie online than in face-to-face situations. However, most people seem to be relatively truthful in their profiles (Dean, 2010b). As noted elsewhere, women take off a few pounds and men add a bit to their height, but for the most part, the profiles prove accurate (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). But you really can’t tell how much a photo has been enhanced or how long ago the photo was taken. And depending on the technology you’re using, you may not be able to hear the person’s voice; this too hinders you as you seek to develop a total picture of the other person.

Online, people can present a false self with little chance of detection; minors may present themselves as adults, and adults may present themselves as children in order to conduct illicit sexual communications and perhaps meetings. Similarly, people can present themselves as poor when they’re rich or as serious and committed when they’re just enjoying the fun and games of this online experience. And they can crowdsource by saying it’s for some noble effort when it’s actually for totally selfish reasons. Although people can also misrepresent themselves in face-to-face relationships, the fact that it’s easier to do online probably accounts for the greater frequency of misrepresentation in computer relationships (Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001).

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 282 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 283

Friendship Relationships 10.1 Define friendship and explain how it develops.

Friendship has engaged the attention and imagination of poets, novelists, and artists of all kinds. On television, friendships have become almost as important as roman- tic pairings. And friendship also interests a range of interpersonal communication researchers (Samter, 2004). Throughout your life, you’ll encounter many people, but out of this wide array you’ll develop few face-to-face relationships you would call friend- ships. Despite the low number of friendships, you may form, however, their importance is great. On social network sites, the number of friends can easily be in the hundreds, even thousands. Of course, different definitions of friend are used in each case.

The number of friends you have on your favorite social network site depends on several factors (Awl, 2011): your willingness to make new friends and interact with them, the enjoyment you get from communicating with a wide variety of people, and your time constraints. After all, when you have hundreds of friends, it takes time to read their posts and respond as you might like.

Definition and Characteristics The type of friendship that we’re talking about is the relatively close relationship we have with someone (online or face-to-face) rather than a “friend” who you don’t really know but friended because he or she is a friend of a friend of a friend. In this context, friendship is an interpersonal relationship between two interdependent persons that is mutually productive and characterized by mutual positive regard.

• Friendship is an interpersonal relationship. Communication interactions must have taken place between the people. Further, the relationship involves a “personalistic focus” (Wright, 1978, 1984); friends react to each other as complete persons—as unique, genuine, and irreplaceable individuals.

• Friendships must be mutually productive. Friendships cannot be destructive to either person. Once destructiveness enters into a relationship, it really can’t be called a friendship. Lover relationships, marriage relationships, parent–child rela- tionships, and just about any other possible relationship can be either destruc- tive or productive, but friendship must enhance the potential of each person and can only be productive. Friendships that are destructive are best viewed as pseudo-friendships.

• Liking people is essential if we are to call them friends. Three major characteris- tics of friendship—trust, emotional support, and sharing of interests (Blieszner & Adams, 1992)—facilitate mutual positive regard. Although mutual liking seems essen- tial for a friendship, the mutuality (the degree of liking) is not necessarily identical. For exam- ple, in one study 94 percent of the people sur- veyed expected their friends to like them in the same way they liked their friends. But, actu- ally, these reciprocity rates ranged from only 34 to 53 percent (Almaatouq, Radaelli, Pent- land, & Shmueli, 2016; Murphy, 2016).

In many parts of the world, face-to-face friend- ships are clearly a matter of choice; you choose— within limits—who your friends will be. And most researchers define friendship as a voluntary rela- tionship of choice (Samter, 2004). But throughout human history, in many parts of the world—for

VIEWPOINTS Friendship Choices

Before reading any further, examine your own friendship choices. On what basis do you choose to call someone friend? On what basis do you choose to extend your friendship to another? In what ways do the reasons for these choices differ with face-to-face friendships and exclusively online social media friendships?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 283 06/06/2018 17:05

284 Chapter 10

example, in small villages miles away from urban centers, where people are born, live, and die without venturing much beyond their community—relationships traditionally have not been voluntary. In these settings, you simply form relationships with those in your village. You don’t have the luxury of selecting certain people to interact with and others to ignore. You must interact with and form friendships and romantic relationships with members of the community simply because these are the only people you come into contact with on a regular basis (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993). This situation is changing rapidly, however, as Internet use becomes universal. With access to people from all over the world via the Internet, more and more relationships will become voluntary.

Friendship Types Friendships can be viewed from a variety of perspectives. Here are just a few to give you an idea of the varied types of friends.

• Functions One way of looking at friendship types is in terms of the functions they serve. And so, for example, you might classify friends (though not necessarily consciously) according to the purposes of communication identified in Chapter 1: friends that help you learn and stimulate you, friends you can form a close relation- ship with, friends who will help you in a variety of ways (financially or emotionally, for example), friends who you can influence and get to do the things you want, and friends to play with.

• Closeness An obvious way to classify friends is in terms of closeness. For exam- ple, you probably have friends who, on closer inspection, you could classify into acquaintances, casual friends, close friends, and intimate friends. Even social media encourages you to classify your friends along this closeness dimension.

• Communication Media Another perspective may be in terms of the ways in which you communicate—online, face to face, phone, e-mail, text, or some combination— as well as how frequently you use each medium.

• Reality Base Some friendships are real in the sense that both people demonstrate the characteristic you would normally think of when you think of a friend— mutual support, availability, mutual liking, and frequent contact, for example. But, some friendships are less real, for example, the parasocial friendships you might have with a celebrity. Although only you know of this “friendship,” it somehow seems real. And then, of course, there is the friendship-of-appearance with, for example, a work colleague you really dislike but with whom you have to work cordially.

• Interactions Still another view is to classify friendships according the type of interac- tions. One time-honored system is to classify friends into three classes: reciprocity, receptivity, and association (Reisman, 1979, 1981).

• The friendship of reciprocity is based on equality: each individual shares equally in giving and receiving the benefits and rewards of the relationship.

• In the friendship of receptivity, one person is the primary giver and one is the primary receiver. This is a positive imbalance because each person (say, teacher and student or doctor and patient) gains something from the relationship.

• The friendship of association is a transitory one, the kind you often have with class- mates, neighbors, coworkers, or social media friends or connections.

Two special types of friends need to be singled out for a more complete view of friendship types: the friend with benefits and the frenemy—one that extends and one that contradicts our traditional image of the friend.

Friends with Benefits A friends with benefits relationship—which varies greatly from one couple to another—engage in sexual relationships but without any romantic

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 284 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 285

involvement, dating, or the thought of a shared future together (Mongeau, Knight, Williams, Eden, & Shaw, 2013). Only about 15% of friends with benefits relationships develop into something more serious (http://www.inquisitr.com/1982784/new- study-15-percent-friends-with-benefits-relationships-serious/). Although most often portrayed as a cross-sex relationship, it can apply to same-sex as well as opposite sex pairings. This type of relationship has been around probably throughout time, but it has only recently been given a name and today is largely associated with college students. In one study, over 60 percent of college students surveyed reported having had at least one such relationship (Bisson & Levine, 2009).

Among the advantages of such relationships are easy access to sex in a safe and comfortable environment with a trusted friend, freedom from commitment or intense involvement, gaining experience, closeness, and companionship. Among the disad- vantages are the possibilities that the friendship will suffer and getting hurt (Weaver, MacKeigan, & MacDonald, 2011). Open, sincere, and direct communication were key factors in ensuring that the relationship has more advantages than disadvantages.

Another type of relationship that is closely akin to friends with benefits is the hookup (made very easy with the numerous websites), where people meet just for sex. These relationships (and some researchers would probably not even consider this a relationship) can morph into friendships and then to friends with benefits.

Frenemies A frenemy is really not a friend in any meaningful sense of the term and yet, because it masquerades as a friend, needs to be noted. A frenemy is an enemy dis- guised as a friend, someone who appears on the surface to be a friend but on a deeper level is not your friend. And, it’s important to note, that these behaviors are repeated; there’s a pattern to such behaviors. Any friend can act the frenemy on occasion; the real frenemy does it repeatedly. Here are just a few behaviors commonly associated with the frenemy.

• Unlike a true friend, the frenemy is disconfirming rather than confirming. The frenemy doesn’t express happiness or pride in your accomplishments but is often ready to listen to your tales of woe.

• The frenemy frequently criticizes but often under the guise of humor and so you hardly notice it’s criticism. And usually the criticism from the frenemy is not con- structive; it doesn’t help you improve or better yourself in any way. The back- handed compliment is a frequent tool: “Boy, you’re looking good; another 15 pounds and you’re there.”

• The frenemy often discourages friendships with others, often as a way of maintaining control over your relationship and making you more dependent on the frenemy.

• The frenemy is both warm, kind, and understanding and at the same time cold, hurtful, and indifferent. They are bistrategic; they use warmth and similar quali- ties to keep you a friend but also coldness to hurt and maintain a superior position (Kennedy-Moore, 2014).

• The frenemy will put you down, rather than raise you up. For example, a frenemy might post an unflattering photo of you and when you ask that it be taken down, will tell you something like, “Oh, I think it’s cute.”

• The frenemy hurts rather than helps. After a true-friend interaction, you generally feel better about yourself; after a frenemy interaction, you generally feel worse. But, there is some evidence that frenemies are at times beneficial, for example, at work where a frenemy can motivate you to do better and to look at other perspectives (Melwani & Rothman, 2015).

Some theorists would argue that you need to get rid of frenemies (something that’s not always possible if the frenemy is a work colleague, relative, or neighbor). Others would claim that you should minimize the destructive effects of such relationships

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 285 06/06/2018 17:05

286 Chapter 10

(Weir, 2011). So, if talking about religion results in put-downs, avoid the topic as best you can. If your frenemy is consistently late, plan to use the time to advantage rather than just wait. Still another way to deal with the frenemy is to empathize and come to understand the need he or she has that is leading to this behavior—admittedly a diffi- cult task. And, of course, you can always respond assertively and express your distaste for the backhanded compliment or the frequent criticism.

Friendship Needs Friendships serve a variety of important needs that most medical professionals rec- ognize as important to both mental and physical health (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2016). On the basis of your experiences or your predictions, you select as friends those who help to satisfy a variety of basic needs. Selecting friends on the basis of need satisfaction is similar to choosing a marriage partner, an employee, or any person who may be in a position to satisfy your needs. For example, depending on your needs, you may look for friends such as these, whether face-to-face or online (Reiner & Blanton, 1997; Wright 1978, 1984):

• Utility Someone who may have special talents, skills, or resources that prove use- ful to you, for example, a person who is especially bright who might assist you in getting a better job or in introducing you to a possible romantic partner. Many of the “friendships” formed on professional social media sites like LinkedIn would be of this type.

• Affirmation Someone who affirms your personal value and helps you to recognize your attributes, for example, someone who communicates appreciation for your leadership abilities, athletic prowess, or sense of humor. The friend on Facebook who always comments on your photos and posts would also be serving this affirm- ing function.

• Ego support Someone who behaves in a supportive, encouraging, and helpful man- ner, for example, a person who helps you view yourself as worthy and competent.

• Stimulation Someone who introduces you to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world, for example, a person who might bring you into contact with previously unfamiliar people, issues, and experiences. Online friendships with those from other parts of the world or of different religions or cultural traditions regularly serve this function, sometimes without being aware of it.

• Security Someone who does nothing to hurt you or to call attention to your weak- nesses, for example, a person who is supportive and nonjudgmental.

Friendship and Communication Close and lasting friendships develop over time in stages. At one end of the friendship continuum are strangers, or two persons who have just met or just friended each other, and at the other end are intimate friends. What happens between these two extremes?

As you progress from the initial contact stage to intimate friendship, the depth and breadth of communications increase; you talk about issues that are closer to your inner core. Similarly, the number of communication topics increases as your friendship becomes closer. As depth and breadth increase, so does the satis- faction you derive from the friendship. This increase in depth and breadth can and does occur in all forms of communication—face- to-face as well as online. It’s interesting to note that establishing and maintaining friendships are the major reasons for Internet communication (instant messaging and texting, social network

You need to borrow $200 from your work colleague, and you have no idea when you’ll be able to pay it back. In what way would you ask for this loan?

a. “I need $200 desperately!”

b. “I’m wondering if you could lend me some money?”

c. “You have to lend me $200.”

d. Ask a mutual friend to intercede for you.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Asking a Favor

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 286 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 287

sites, and e-mail) among college students and among teens (Knox, Daniels, Sturdivant, & Zusman, 2001; Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007). And, of course, these forms of communication promote closeness and intimacy and often encourage online partners to meet face-to-face (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004).

We can identify three main stages of friendship development and integrate some of the characteristics of effective interpersonal communication (Johnson, Wittenberg, Villagran, Mazur, & Villagran, 2003). The assumption here is that, as the friendship progresses from initial contact and acquaintanceship through casual friendship, to close and intimate friendship, effective interpersonal communication increases. However, there is no assumption made that close relationships are necessarily the preferred type or that they’re better than casual or temporary relationships. We need all types.

Contact At the contact stage, the characteristics of effective interpersonal communi- cation are usually present to only a small degree. You’re guarded rather than open or expressive. Because you don’t yet know the other person, your ability to empathize with the other is limited. At this stage, there is little genuine immediacy; you see yourselves as separate and distinct rather than as a unit. Because the relationship is so new and because the people don’t know each other very well, the interaction is often character- ized by awkwardness—for example, by overlong pauses, uncertainty about topics to be discussed, and ineffective exchanges of sender and receiver roles.

Involvement In this second stage, there is a dyadic consciousness, a clear sense of “we-ness,” of togetherness; communication demonstrates a sense of immediacy. At this stage, you participate in activities as a unit rather than as separate individuals. In the involvement period, the other person can be called “friend”—someone you would go with to the movies, sit with in the cafeteria or in class, ride home with from school, or follow (really follow) on social media. At this friendship stage, you begin to see the qualities of effective interpersonal interaction more clearly. You start to express yourself openly and become interested in the other person’s disclosures. Because you’re beginning to understand this person, you empathize and demonstrate signifi- cant other-orientation. You also demonstrate supportiveness and develop a genuinely positive attitude, both toward the other person and toward mutual communication situations. There is an ease at this stage, a coordination in the interaction between the two persons. You communicate with confidence, maintain appropriate eye contact and flexibility in body posture and gesturing, and use few of the adaptors that signal discomfort.

As friendships develop, whether face-to-face or online, network convergence occurs; that is, as a relationship between two people develops, they begin to share their network of other communicators with each other (Parks, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996). And this, at least in online friendships, accounts in great part for the enormous number of friends some people have.

Close and Intimate Friendship At this stage, you and your friend see yourselves more as an exclusive unit, and each of you derives great benefits (for example, emo- tional support) from the friendship (Hays, 1989). Because you know each other well (for example, you know each other’s values, opinions, and attitudes), your uncertainty about each other has been significantly reduced—you’re able to predict each other’s behaviors with considerable accuracy. This knowledge makes significant interaction management possible, as well as greater positivity, supportiveness, and openness (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly, 2004).

You become more other-oriented and more willing to make significant sacri- fices for the other person. You empathize and exchange perspectives a great deal more, and you expect in return that your friend will also empathize with you. With a genuinely positive feeling for this individual, your supportiveness and positive

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 287 06/06/2018 17:05

288 Chapter 10

VIEWPOINTS Closeness Among Friends

Some evidence suggests that close and intimate friends are less effective at judging when someone is concealing sadness and anger than are less intimate friends (Sternglanz & DePaulo, 2004). On the basis of your own experience, how do you see the connection between closeness of a friendship and the ability to decode what another person is feeling?

stroking become spontaneous. Because you see yourselves as an exclusive unit, equality and immediacy are in clear evidence. You’re will- ing to respond openly, confidently, and expres- sively to this person and to own your feelings and thoughts. Your supportiveness and positivity are genuine expressions of the closeness you feel for this person. Each person in an intimate friend- ship is truly equal; each can initiate and each can respond; each can be active and each can be pas- sive; each speaks and each listens.

Friendship, Culture, and Gender Your friendships and the way you look at friend- ships are influenced by your culture and your gen- der. Let’s look first at culture.

Culture and Friendships In the United States, you can be friends with someone yet never really be expected to go out of your way for this person. Many Middle Easterners, Asians, and Latin Americans consider going significantly out of their way an absolutely essential ingredient in friendship; if you’re not willing to sacrifice for your friend, then this person is not really your friend (Dresser, 2005).

Generally, friendships are closer in collectivist cultures than in individualist cul- tures. In their emphasis on the group and on cooperating, collectivist cultures foster the development of close friendship bonds. Members of a collectivist culture are expected to help others in the group. When you help or do things for someone else, you increase your own attractiveness to this person, and this is certainly a good start for a friendship. Of course, the culture continues to reward these close associations.

Members of individualist cultures, on the other hand, are expected to look out for number one—themselves. Consequently, they’re more likely to compete and to try to do better than each other—conditions that don’t support, generally at least, the devel- opment of friendships.

Most people, of course, have both collectivist and individualist values, but they have them in different degrees, and that is what we are talking about here—differences in degree of the collectivist versus the individualist orientation.

Gender and Friendships Gender also influences your friendships—who becomes your friend and the way you look at friendships. Perhaps the best-documented finding—already noted in our discussion of self-disclosure—is that women self- disclose more than men (e.g., Dolgin, Meyer, & Schwartz, 1991). This difference holds through- out male and female friendships. Male friends self-disclose less often and with less intimate details than female friends do. Men generally don’t view intimacy as a neces- sary quality of their friendships (Hart, 1990).

Women engage in significantly more affectional behaviors with their friends than do males; this difference may account for the greater difficulty men experience in begin- ning and maintaining close friendships (Hays, 1989). Women engage in more casual communication; they also share greater intimacy and more confidences with their friends than do men. Communication, in all its forms and functions, seems a much more important dimension of women’s friendships.

When women and men were asked to evaluate their friendships, women rated their same-sex friendships higher in general quality, intimacy, enjoyment, and nurtur- ance than did men (Sapadin, 1988). Men, in contrast, rated their opposite-sex friend- ships higher in quality, enjoyment, and nurturance than did women. Both men and women rated their opposite-sex friendships similarly in intimacy. These differences

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 288 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 289

may be due, in part, to our society’s suspicion of male friendships; as a result, a man may be reluctant to admit to having close relationship bonds with another man. Men’s friendships are often built around shared activities—attending a ballgame, playing cards, working on a project at the office. Women’s friendships, on the other hand, are built more around a sharing of feelings, support, and “personalism.” An important element is similarity in status, in willingness to protect a friend in uncomfortable situ- ations, and in academic major.

As we move further into the twenty-first century, the ways in which men and women develop and maintain their friendships will undoubtedly change considerably— as will all gender-related variables. In the meantime, given the present state of research on gender differences, be careful not to exaggerate and to treat small differences as if they were highly significant. Avoid stereotypes and avoid stressing opposites to the neglect of the huge number of similarities between men and women (Wright, 1988; Deaux & LaFrance, 1998).

Table 10.1 provides a brief summary of this discussion of friendship.

Online and face-to-face friendships, romantic relationships, family, and workplace relationships dominate our lives. These relationships are influenced by the masculine-feminine cultural differences. The aggressive, ambitious, and competitive masculine cultural orientation will encourage relationships that are different from what the modest, tender, relationship-focused feminine culture will encourage.

THE CULTURAL MAP Masculine and Feminine Orientation

These countries are among the most strongly a�liated with masculine qualities. Masculine cultures emphasize aggressiveness, strength, and success and socialize their members to be assertive, competitive, and ambitious.

These countries are among the most strongly a�liated with feminine qualities. Feminine cultures emphasize modesty, quality of life rather than material success, and a concern for relationships.

Look at your own relationships (friendship and romantic). Are they mainly with those who have a masculine orientation or mainly with those who have a feminine orientation? If there is a difference, to what do you attribute it?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 289 06/06/2018 17:05

290 Chapter 10

Love Relationships 10.2 Describe the various types of love.

Of all the qualities of interpersonal relationships, none seems as important as love. “We are all born for love,” noted famed British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. “It is the principle of existence and its only end.” Love is a feeling characterized by closeness and caring and by intimacy, passion, and commitment (Sternberg, 1988). It’s also an interpersonal relationship developed, maintained, and sometimes destroyed through communication—and at the same time a relationship that can be greatly enhanced with communication skills (Dindia & Timmerman, 2003).

Although there are many theories about love, the conceptualization that captured the attention of interpersonal researchers and continues to receive research support is a model proposing that there is not one but six types of love, originally developed by John Alan Lee (Kimberly & Werner-Wilson, 2013; Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2013; Lee, 1976, 1988).

Aspects of Friendship Explanations

Definition Friendship is an interpersonal relationship that is mutually productive and characterized by mutual positive regard.

Types Among the types of friendship are those of reciprocity, receptivity, and association. A friend-with-benefits relationship refers to a relationship that is friendly (rather than romantic) but involves sex.

Needs served Generally, friendships serve a variety of needs such as utility, affirma- tion, ego support, stimulation, and security.

Development Close and lasting relationships develop in stages, with the communi- cation echoing the relationship stage; intimate communication takes place among intimate friends.

Influences The types of friendship developed and the needs they serve depend greatly on one’s culture and gender.

Table 10.1 In a Nutshell Friendship

You are worried that your relationship with your part- ner is deteriorating. You are confused and don’t know what to do. Samantha is your best friend and confi- dant. How much information will you disclose to her?

a. Be open and share all the details with her.

b. Share some information and hide the rest.

c. Be vague.

d. Don’t reveal anything to her.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Self-Disclosure with Friends

As a preface to this discussion of the types of love, you may wish to respond to the following statements to get an idea of your love style. For each statement, indicate if it is true (T) of your feelings about love or false (F). The discussion following will elaborate on these six styles of love and these statements.

_____ 1. I value physical attractiveness very highly.

_____ 2. I would not become romantically involved with someone who was not attractive.

_____ 3. I don’t think love should be too intense; it’s best when it’s kept light.

_____ 4. I would not love someone who was not interesting or amusing.

_____ 5. I seek a love that could be described as peaceful.

_____ 6. I don’t think sex is that important to a love relationship.

_____ 7. I would only become attracted to someone who would help me in my career.

_____ 8. I would select a romantic partner who is similar in attitudes and personality to me.

_____ 9. I think love is either a roller coaster or nothing.

_____ 10. I see love as total, intense, possessive.

_____ 11. I think love is a selfless feeling.

_____ 12. I can love someone who doesn’t love me.

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 290 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 291

Love Types Let’s look at each of these six types of love, previewed in Figure 10.1.

Eros: Beauty and Sexuality (Statements 1 and 2 in the self-test) Like Narcissus, who fell in love with the beauty of his own image, eros love focuses on beauty and physical attractiveness—sometimes to the exclusion of qualities you might consider more impor- tant and more lasting. Also like Narcissus, the erotic lover has an idealized image of beauty that is unattainable in reality. Consequently, the erotic lover often feels unfulfilled. Erotic lovers are particularly sensitive to physical imperfections in the ones they love.

Ludus: Entertainment and Excitement (Statements 3 and 4 in the self-test) Ludus love is experienced as a game, as fun. The better you can play the game, the greater the enjoy- ment. Love is not to be taken too seriously; emotions are to be held in check lest they get out of hand and make trouble; passions never rise to the point where they get out of control. A ludic lover is self-controlled, always aware of the need to manage love rather than allow it to be in control. Perhaps because of this need to control love, some research- ers have proposed that ludic love tendencies may reveal tendencies to sexual aggression (Sarwer, Kalichman, Johnson, Early, et al., 1993). The ludic lover retains a partner only as long as the partner is interesting and amusing. When interest fades, it’s time to change partners. Perhaps because love is a game, sexual fidelity is of little importance. In fact, research shows that people who score high on ludic love are more likely to engage in “extradyadic” dating and sex than those who score low on ludus (Wiederman & Hurd, 1999). Ludic lovers also score high on narcissism (Campbell, Foster, & Finkel, 2002).

Storge: Peaceful and Slow (Statements 5 and 6 in the self-test) Storge (a word that comes from the Greek for “familial love”) love lacks passion and intensity. Storgic lovers set out not to find lovers but to establish a companionable relationship with someone they know and with whom they can share interests and activities. Storgic love is a gradual process of unfolding thoughts and feelings; the changes seem to come so slowly and so gradually that it’s often difficult to define exactly where the relationship is at any point in time. Sex in storgic relationships comes late, and when it comes, it assumes no great importance.

Figure 10.1 Types of Love

Love types

Eros

Ludus

Storge

Pragma

Mania

Agape

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 291 06/06/2018 17:05

292 Chapter 10

Pragma: Practical and Traditional (Statements 7 and 8 in the self-test) The pragma lover is practical and seeks a relationship that will work. Pragma lovers want compat- ibility and a relationship in which their important needs and desires will be satisfied. They’re concerned with the social qualifications of a potential mate even more than with personal qualities; family and background are extremely important to the pragma lover, who relies not so much on feelings as on logic. The pragma lover views love as a useful relationship that makes the rest of life easier. So the pragma lover asks questions about a potential mate such as “Will this person earn a good living?” “Can this person cook?” “Will this person help me advance in my career?” Pragma lovers’ relationships rarely deteriorate. This is partly because pragma lovers choose their mates carefully and emphasize similarities. Another reason is that they have realistic romantic expectations.

Mania: Elation and Depression (Statements 9 and 10 in the self-test) Mania is char- acterized by extreme highs and extreme lows. The manic lover loves intensely and at the same time intensely worries about the loss of the love. This fear often prevents the manic lover from deriving as much pleasure as possible from the relationship. With little provocation, the manic lover may experience extreme jealousy. Manic love is obsessive; the manic lover must possess the beloved completely. In return, the manic lover wishes to be possessed—to be loved intensely. The manic lover’s poor self-image seems capable of being improved only by love; self-worth comes from being loved rather than from any sense of inner satisfaction. Because love is so important, danger signs in a relationship are often ignored; the manic lover believes that if there is love, then nothing else matters.

Agape: Compassionate and Selfless (Statements 11 and 12 in the self-test) Agape is a compassionate, egoless, self-giving love. The agapic lover loves even people with whom he or she has no close ties. This lover loves the stranger on the road even though the two of them probably will never meet again. Agape is a spiritual love, offered without concern for personal reward or gain. This lover loves without expecting that the love will be reciprocated. Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi preached this unqualified love, agape (Lee, 1976). In one sense, agape is more a philosophical kind of love than a love that most people have the strength to achieve. People who believe in yuan, a Chinese concept that comes from the Buddhist belief in predestiny, are more likely to favor agapic (and pragmatic) love and less likely to favor erotic love (Goodwin & Findlay, 1997).

Each of these varieties of love can combine with others to form new and different patterns (for example, manic and ludic or storge and pragma). These six, however, identify the major types of love and illustrate the complexity of any love relationship. The six styles should also make it clear that different people want different things, that each person seeks satisfaction in a unique way. The love that may seem lifeless or crazy

or boring to you may be ideal for someone else. At the same time, another person may see these very same negative qualities in the love you’re seeking.

Remember, too, that love changes. A relation- ship that began as pragma may develop into ludus or eros. A relationship that began as erotic may develop into mania or storge. One approach sees this developmental process as having three major stages (Duck, 1986):

• First stage: Eros, mania, and ludus (initial attraction)

• Second stage: Storge (as the relationship develops)

• Third stage: Pragma (as relationship bonds develop)

VIEWPOINTS Romantic Love

When college students were asked to identify the features that characterize romantic love, the five elements most frequently noted were trust, sexual attraction, acceptance and tolerance, spending time together, and sharing thoughts and secrets (Regan, Kocan, & Whitlock, 1998). How would you characterize love? Do you find that men and women view love differently? If so, in what ways?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 292 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 293

Love and Communication How do you communicate when you’re in love? What do you say? What do you do nonverbally? According to research, you exaggerate your beloved’s virtues and mini- mize his or her faults. You share emotions and experiences and speak tenderly, with an extra degree of politeness, to each other; “please,” “thank you,” and similar expressions abound. You frequently use personalized communication, which includes secrets you keep from other people and messages that have meaning only within your specific relationship (Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980; Knapp, Vangelisti, & Caughlin, 2014). You also create and use personal idioms (and pet names): words, phrases, and gestures that carry meaning only for the particular relationship and that say you have a special lan- guage that signifies your special bond (Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981). When outsiders try to use personal idioms—as they sometimes do—the expressions seem inappropriate, at times even an invasion of privacy. In online relationships, these romantic messages often move offline or into some private online group.

You engage in significant self-disclosure, and when the self-disclosure is extremely significant, you restrict this to this one person, often offline. There is more confirmation and less disconfirmation among lovers than among either nonlovers or those who are going through romantic breakups. You also use more constructive conflict resolution strategies if you feel your relationship is threatened (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). You’re highly aware of what is and is not appropriate to say to the person you love. You know how to reward, but also how to punish, each other. In short, you know what to do to obtain the reaction you want.

Among your most often used means for communicating love are telling the person face-to-face or by telephone (in one survey, 79 percent indicated they did it this way), expressing supportiveness, and talking things out and cooperating (Marston, Hecht, & Robers, 1987). Today, you do the same things but often through instant messaging (IM), Facebook postings, and Twitter; you change your status, post photos of the two of you in romantic settings, or simply post “We in love.”

Nonverbally, you also communicate your love. Prolonged and focused eye contact is perhaps the clearest nonverbal indicator of love. So important is eye contact that its avoidance almost always triggers a “What’s wrong?” response. You also have longer periods of silence than you do with friends (Guerrero, 1997). In addition, you display affiliative cues (signs that show you love the other person), including head nods, ges- tures, and forward leaning. And you give Duchenne smiles—smiles that are beyond vol- untary control and that signal genuine joy (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001).

Now that you have read about the different love styles, here’s a quick quiz to confirm your understanding of this topic. Read the statements below and identify the type of love that you feel these statements represent.

1. Isak saw the beautiful model’s face as she turned to face the camera. He was in love.

2. For Alejandro, life was flitting from one beautiful woman to another. Quick to lose inter- est, he was always on the lookout for his next conquest.

3. Castiel and Meg were best friends. They had common interests and spent a lot of time together. It was only natural that they would get married.

4. Rashid appeared a bit boring but he was well educated, successful, and would provide Laila with a stable married life.

5. Benjamin met Ruby online and fell heads over heels in love. He was so consumed by love that he left his country with a forged visa just to be with her. Alas! He got caught by immigration authorities and is now in jail.

6. Victoria had Alzheimer’s and didn’t recognize her husband Mark, to whom she had been married for 15 years. He still visits her every day.

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 293 06/06/2018 17:05

294 Chapter 10

These smiles give you crow’s-feet around the eyes, raise up your cheeks, and puff up the lower eyelids (Lemonick, 2005a).

You eliminate socially taboo adaptors, at least in the presence of the loved one. For example, you curtail scratching your head, picking your teeth, cleaning your ears, and passing wind. These adaptors often return after lovers have achieved a permanent relationship.

You touch more frequently and more intimately (Anderson, 2004; Guerrero, 1997). You also use more tie signs, nonverbal gestures that show that you’re together, such as holding hands, walking with arms entwined, kissing, and the like. You may even dress alike; the styles of clothes and even the colors selected by lovers are more similar than those worn by nonlovers. Posting such photos on Instagram, Pinterest, or Flickr or on any social network site communicates more publicly your pairing, your connectedness.

Love, Culture, and Gender Like friendship, love is heavily influenced by culture and gender (Dion & Dion, 1996; Wood & Smith, 2005). Let’s consider first some of the cultural influences on the way you look at love and on the type of love you’re seeking or maintaining.

Culture and Love Although most of the research on the six love styles has been done in the United States, some research has been conducted in

other cultures (Bierhoff & Klein, 1991). Here are just a few examples to illustrate that love is seen differently in different cultures. Asians, for example, have been found to be more friendship-oriented in their love style than are Europeans (Dion & Dion, 1993b). Members of individualist cultures (for example, Western Europeans) are likely to place greater emphasis on romantic love and on individual fulfillment. Members of collectiv- ist cultures are likely to spread their love over a large network of relatives (Dion & Dion, 1993a). When compared to their Chinese counterparts, American men scored higher on ludic and agapic love and lower on erotic and pragma love. American men are also less likely to view emotional satisfaction as crucial to relationship maintenance (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

One study finds a love style among Mexicans characterized as calm, compassionate, and deliberate (Leon, Philbrick, Parra, Escobedo, et al., 1994). In comparisons between love styles in the United States and France, it was found that people in the United States scored higher on storge and mania than the French; in contrast, the French scored higher on agape (Murstein, Merighi, & Vyse, 1991). In the United States, Caucasian women scored higher on mania than African-American women, whereas African-American women scored higher on agape. Caucasian and African-American men, however, scored very similarly; no statistically significant differences were found (Morrow, Clark, & Brock, 1995).

Gender and Love Gender also influences love. In the United States, the differences between men and women in love are considered great. In poetry, novels, and the mass media, women and men are depicted as acting very differently when falling in love, being in love, and ending a love relationship. As Lord Byron put it in Don Juan, “Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart,/’Tis woman’s whole existence.” Women are portrayed as emotional, men as logical. Women are supposed to love intensely; men are supposed to love with detachment.

Women and men seem to experience love to a similar degree, and research con- tinues to find great similarities between male and female conceptions of love (Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Rubin, 1973). However, women indicate greater love than men do for their same-sex friends. This may reflect a real difference between the sexes, or it may

VIEWPOINTS Love, Marriage, and Culture

Men and women from different cultures were asked if they would marry a man or a woman who had all the qualities they desired but with whom they were not in love. Fifty percent of the respondents from Pakistan said yes and 49 percent of those from India said yes. At the other extreme were those from Japan (only 2 percent said yes), the United States (only 3.5 percent), and Brazil (only 4 percent) (Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1994). How would you answer this question? How is your answer influenced by your culture?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 294 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 295

be a function of the greater social restrictions on men. A man is not supposed to admit his love for another man. Women are permitted greater freedom to communicate their love for other women.

Much research finds that men place more emphasis on romance than women. For example, when college students were asked the question “If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?” Approximately two-thirds of the men responded no, which seems to indicate that a high percentage were concerned with love and romance. However, less than one-third of the women responded no (LeVine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1994). Further, when men and women were surveyed concerning their view on love—whether basically realistic or basically romantic—it was found that married women had a more realistic (less romantic) conception of love than did married men (Knapp, Vangelisti, & Caughlin, 2014).

Additional research also supports the view that men are more romantic; for example, “Men are more likely than women to believe in love at first sight, in love as the basis for marriage and for overcoming obstacles, and to believe that their partner and relationship will be perfect” (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). This difference seems to increase as the romantic relationship develops: men become more romantic and women less romantic (Fengler, 1974).

In their reactions to broken romantic affairs, women and men exhibit similarities and differences. For example, the tendency for women and men to recall only pleasant memories and to revisit places with past associations was about equal. However, men engaged in more dreaming about the lost partner and in more daydreaming generally as a reaction to the breakup than did women.

Table 10.2 summarizes the definition, types, communication, and influences on love.

Aspects of Love Explanations

Definition Love may be viewed as a feeling of closeness and caring and be characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment.

Types Among the types of love are eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania, and agape.

Communication Communication is likely at its most intimate in a love relationship.

Influences Your culture and gender influence the type of love that you seek.

Table 10.2 In a Nutshell Love

Family Relationships 10.3 Summarize the characteristics of families and distinguish among couple and

family types.

If you had to define the term family, you might reply that a family consists of a husband, a wife, and one or more children. When pressed, you might add that some families also include other relatives—in-laws, brothers and sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and so on. But other types of relationships are, to their own members, families. One obvious example is the family without children—a pattern that has been increasing. Also on the increase is the single-parent family.

Another obvious example is people living together in an exclusive relationship who are not married. For the most part, these cohabitants live as if they were married: there is an exclusive sexual commitment; there may be children; there are shared financial responsibilities, shared time, and shared space. These relationships mirror traditional marriages except that in marriage, the union is recognized by a religious body, the state, or both.

Another example is the gay or lesbian couple who live together—whether as domes- tic partners or in marriage—in households that have all the characteristics of a family.

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 295 06/06/2018 17:05

296 Chapter 10

Many of these couples have children from previous heterosexual unions, through artificial insemination, or by adoption. Although accurate statistics are diffi- cult to secure, primary relationships among gays and lesbians seem more common than the popular media lead us to believe. And, most relationship experts agree, being in a committed relationship is the goal of most people, regardless of affectional orientation (Fitzpatrick & Caughlin, 2002; Kurdek, 2000, 2004; Patterson, 2000).

The communication principles that apply to the tra- ditional nuclear family (the mother–father–child family) also apply to these other kinds of families. In the follow- ing discussion, the term primary relationship denotes the relationship between the two principal parties—the

husband and wife, the lovers, the domestic partners, for example; the term family denotes the broader constellation that includes children, relatives, and assorted significant others.

Characteristics of Families All primary relationships and families have several qualities that further characterize this relationship type: defined roles, recognition of responsibilities, shared history and future, and shared living space.

Defined Roles Many heterosexual couples divide their roles rather traditionally, with the man as primary wage earner and maintenance person and the woman as primary cook, child rearer, and housekeeper. This is less true among more highly educated couples and those in the higher socioeconomic classes, where changes in traditional role assignments are seen first. However, among gay and lesbian couples, clear-cut, stereotypical male and female roles are not found; they do not conform to traditional “masculine” and “feminine” roles (Cloud, 2008; Peplau, 1988).

Recognition of Responsibilities Family members see themselves as having certain obligations and responsibilities to one another. For example, individuals have an obli- gation to help each other financially. There are also emotional responsibilities: to offer comfort when family members are distressed, to take pleasure in their pleasures, to feel their pain, to raise their spirits. Each person in a couple also has a temporal obligation to reserve some large block of time for the other. Sharing time seems important to all relationships, although each couple defines it differently.

Shared History and Future Primary relationships have a shared history and the pros- pect of a shared future. For a relationship to become primary, there must be some his- tory, some significant past interaction. This interaction enables the members to get to know each other, to understand each other a little better, and ideally to like and even love each other. Similarly, the individuals view the relationship as having a potential future. Despite researchers’ prediction that 50 percent of couples now entering first marriages will divorce (the rate is higher for second marriages) and that 41 percent of all persons of marriageable age will experience divorce, most couples entering a rela- tionship such as marriage view it—ideally, at least—as permanent.

Shared Living Space In general American culture, persons in primary interpersonal relationships usually share the same living space. When living space is not shared, the situation is generally seen as “abnormal” or temporary, both by the culture as a whole and by the individuals involved in the relationship. Even those who live apart for sig- nificant periods probably perceive a shared space as the ideal and, in fact, usually do share some special space at least part of the time. In some other cultures, however, men

VIEWPOINTS The Family Through Time

If you looked at the family from an evolutionary–Darwinian point of view, one research watcher notes, you’d have to conclude that families are inherently unstable and that it’s necessity, not choice, that keeps them together. If they had better opportunities elsewhere, many family members would leave immediately (Goleman, 1995b). What do you see as the greatest advantages of family? What do you see as the greatest disadvantages?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 296 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 297

and women don’t share the same living space; the women may live with the children while the men live together in a communal arrangement (Harris, 1993).

Even in the United States, the number of long-distance rela- tionships is not insignificant. For example, the Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships (www.longdistancerelationships. net) puts the number of married persons who do not share a living space at over 3,500,000, which is 2.9 percent of all U.S. mar- ried people. And the number of such relationships is increasing. Approximately 7 million couples (or 14 million people) consider themselves to be in long-distance relationships. It’s been estimated that some 75 percent of college students have been, at some point in their lives, a part of a long-distance relationship, and at any one time, some 25 to 50 percent of college students are in long-distance relationships (Stafford, 2004). Long-distance relationships do not seem to have less satisfaction, less commitment, less intimacy, or less durability than shared-space relationships, as long as the indi- viduals are able to get together about once a month (Rohlfing, 1995; Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Jiang & Hancock, 2013).

Couple Types Based on responses from more than 1,000 couples to questions concerning their degree of sharing, space needs, conflicts, and the time they spend together, researchers have identified three basic types of primary relationships: traditionals, independents, and separates (Fitzpatrick, 1983, 1988, 1991; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993).

Traditional Couples If you are part of a traditional couple, you tend to agree with statements such as these (taken from Fitzpatrick’s [1991; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993] Relational Dimensions Instrument):

• We tell each other how much we love or care about each other.

• We eat our meals at the same time every day.

• A woman should take her husband’s last name when she marries.

Traditional couples share a basic belief system and philosophy of life. They see themselves as a blending of two persons into a single couple rather than as two separate individuals. They’re interdependent and believe that each individual’s independence must be sacrificed for the good of the relationship. Traditionals believe in mutual shar- ing and do little separately. This couple holds to the traditional gender roles, and there are seldom any role conflicts. Research finds that marriages in which traditional gender roles are maintained have higher sexual frequency than those in which these roles are shared (Kornrich, Brines, & Leupp, 2012). Traditionals experience few power struggles and few conflicts in general because each person knows and adheres to a specified role within the relationship. In their communications, traditionals are highly responsive to each other. Traditionals lean toward each other, smile, talk a lot, interrupt each other, and finish each other’s sentences.

Independent Couples If you are an independent, you’ll tend to agree with statements such as these:

• In marriage or close relationships, there should be no constraints or restrictions on individual freedom.

• I have my own private work space (study, workshop, utility room, etc.).

• I feel free to interrupt my mate when he or she is concentrating on something if he or she is in my presence.

When you return from work, you prefer to be alone and avoid family chatter. How will you convey this to your family, who eagerly await your arrival every day?

a. Say that you are tired and will join them in a short while.

b. You don’t want to disappoint them, so you sit with them even though it annoys you.

c. You sit alone in your room with the door shut. You don’t owe anyone an explanation.

d. You spend some time with them and then quietly excuse yourself.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Sharing Time in Relationships

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 297 06/06/2018 17:05

298 Chapter 10

Independent couples stress their individuality. The relationship is important but never more important than each person’s individual identity. Although independents spend a great deal of time together, they don’t ritualize it, for example, with schedules. Each individual spends time with outside friends. Independents see themselves as relatively androgynous—as individuals who combine the tra- ditionally feminine and the traditionally masculine roles and qualities. The communication between independents is responsive. They engage in conflict openly and without fear. Their disclosures are quite extensive and include high-risk and negative disclo- sures that are typically absent among traditionals.

Separate Couples If you are a separate, you’ll tend to agree with statements such as these:

• If I can avoid arguing about some problems, they will disappear.

• It is better to hide your true feelings in order to avoid hurting your mate.

• In our house, we keep a fairly regular daily time schedule.

Separate couples live together but view their relationship more as a matter of con- venience than a result of their mutual love or closeness. They seem to have little desire to be together and, in fact, usually are together only at ritual functions such as mealtime or holiday get-togethers. It’s important to separates that each has his or her own physi- cal as well as psychological space. Separates share little; each seems to prefer to go his or her way. Separates hold relatively traditional values and beliefs about gender roles, and each person tries to follow the behaviors normally assigned to each role. What best characterizes this type, however, is that each person sees him- or herself as a separate individual and not as a part of a couple.

Family Types Families can be classified in any number of ways, for example, according to the number of people in the family, their affectional orientation, and the presence or absence of chil- dren or of extended family members. One interesting communication-oriented typology looks at families in terms of conformity and conversation (Arnold, 2008; Galvin, Byland, & Brommel, 2008; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997, 2004).

Conformity orientation refers to the degree to which family members express simi- lar or dissimilar attitudes, values, and beliefs. So we can speak of high-conformity fami- lies as those who express highly similar attitudes, beliefs, and values and try to avoid conflict and low-conformity families as those whose members express highly divergent attitudes, beliefs, and values and may frequently engage in conflict interactions. Fami- lies high in conformity are likely to be harmonious, with children who are expected to obey their parents, largely without question. Families low in conformity are likely to be less harmonious, with children who are given greater freedom to say or do as they wish.

Conversation orientation refers to the degree to which family members can speak their mind. A family high on conversation orientation encourages members to discuss a variety of issues and to voice their opinions. A family low on conversation orientation discourages discussion and the voicing of opinions.

With these two dimensions in mind, four types of families can be identified as consensual families, protective families, pluralistic families, and laissez-faire families:

• Consensual families: high in conversation and high in conformity. These families encourage open communication and agreement.

VIEWPOINTS Couple Combinations

In addition to these three pure types, there also are combinations (Fitzpatrick, 1991). For example, in the separate–traditional couple one individual is a separate and one a traditional. Another common pattern is the traditional–independent, in which one individual believes in the traditional view of relationships and one in autonomy and independence. How would you describe a previous, current, or hoped-for relationship in terms of traditionals, independents, separates, or some combination?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 298 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 299

• Protective families: high in conformity and low in conversation. These families stress agreement and strive to avoid conflict but with little communication.

• Pluralistic families: low in conformity and high in conversation. These family members are encouraged to express different attitudes and points of view and to engage in open communication while being supportive of each other.

• Laissez-faire families: low in conformity and low in conversation. These families avoid interaction and communication, and encourage privacy and a “do what you want” attitude.

These family types are simply descriptions and are not meant to be evaluations; no assumption is made that one family type is better or more productive than another. What works for some people does not work for others.

Family and Communication You know from your own family interactions that technology has greatly changed communication among family members. Cell phones enable parents and children to keep in close touch in case of emergencies or just to chat. College students today stay in closer touch with their parents, in part because of the cell phone but also through e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and a host of other websites.

Another change has been that, in some cases parents and in most cases children, become so absorbed with their online community that they have little time for their biological family members. Sometimes, as in South Korea, Internet use seems to be contributing further to the already significant generational conflict between children and parents (Rhee & Kim, 2004). Similarly, a study on young people (ages 10 to 17) in the United States found that for both girls and boys, those who formed close online relationships were more likely to have low levels of communication with their parents and to be more “highly troubled” than those who don’t form such close online relation- ships (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2003).

Another interesting change is that, in the case of adopted offspring, discovering birth parents is now a lot easier because of ready access to all sorts of data. Similarly, siblings that have been separated can find one another more easily—a process that may seem relatively unnecessary to most families in the United States but may be extremely important in war-torn countries, where families have been separated through occupa- tion or forced relocation.

With this as a background, let’s consider the communication patterns that dominate the family relationship. Four general communication patterns are identified here; each interpersonal relationship may then be viewed as a variation on one of these basic pat- terns (see Figure 10.2).

The Equality Pattern The equality pattern probably exists more in theory than in practice, but it’s a good starting point for looking at communication in primary relation- ships. It exists more among same-sex couples than in opposite-sex couples (Huston & Schwartz, 1995). In the equality pattern, each person shares equally in the communica- tion transactions; the roles played by each are equal. Thus, each person is accorded a similar degree of credibility; each is equally open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of the other; each engages in self-disclosure on a more or less equal basis. The communica- tion is open, honest, direct, and free of the power plays that characterize so many other interpersonal relationships. In terms of the relationship license noted earlier, there are reciprocal licenses.

Equal relationships also are equitable. According to equity theory, family or relation- ship satisfaction is highest when there is equity—when each partner gets a proportional share of the costs and the rewards of the relationship. Dissatisfaction over inequities can lead to a “re-balancing of the scales” reaction. For example, an under-benefited

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 299 06/06/2018 17:05

300 Chapter 10

partner may seek an outside affair as a way to get more relationship benefits—more love, more consideration, more support (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993; Walster, Walster, & Traupmann, 1978).

The Balanced Split Pattern In the balanced split pattern, an equality relationship is maintained but each person has authority over different domains. Each person is seen as an expert or a decision maker in different areas. For example, in the traditional nuclear family, the husband maintains high credibility in business matters and per- haps in politics. The wife maintains high credibility in matters such as child care and cooking. These gender roles are breaking down in many cultures, but they still define many families throughout the world (Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).

Conflict is generally viewed as nonthreatening by individuals in balanced split families because each has specified areas of expertise. Consequently, the outcome of any conflict is almost predetermined.

The Unbalanced Split Pattern In the unbalanced split relationship, one person domi- nates: one person is seen as an expert in more than half the areas of mutual communi- cation. In many unions, this “expertise” equates with control. Thus, in the unbalanced split, one person is regularly in control of the relationship. In some cases, this person is the more intelligent or more knowledgeable, but in many cases, he or she is more physi- cally attractive or earns more. The less attractive or lower-income partner compensates by giving in to the other person, allowing the other to win arguments or to have his or her way in decision making.

The person in control makes more assertions, tells the other person what should or will be done, gives opinions freely, plays power games to maintain control, and seldom asks for opinions in return. The noncontrolling person, conversely, asks questions, seeks opinions, and looks to the other for decision-making leadership.

The Monopoly Pattern In a monopoly relationship, one person is seen as the authority. This person lectures rather than communicates. Rarely does this person seek others’ advice, and he or she always reserves the right to have the final say. The controlling person tells the partner what is and what is not to be. The controlling person talks more frequently and goes off the topic of conversation more than does the noncontrolling

Figure 10.2 Communication Patterns in Couples and Families

This figure represents the four communication patterns discussed in the text in a much simplified form. In (a), equality, there is an equal distribution in terms of communication and decision making; each person sends and receives messages equally; each person has equal authority. In (b), the balanced spilt, each person speaks and listens equally and has equal authority but on different things. In (c), the unbalanced split, one person controls the communication and the decision making more than the other. In (d), monopoly, one person maintains total (or near total) control.

A

B

(d) Monopoly

A

BA B

(b) Balanced split

A B

(a) Equality

(c) Unbalanced split

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 300 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 301

partner (Palmer, 1989). The noncontrolling person looks to the other for permission, to voice opinion leadership, and to make decisions, almost as a child looks to an all- knowing, all-powerful parent.

In this type of couple, arguments are few—because both individuals already know who is boss and who will win any argument that may arise. When the authority is chal- lenged, however, there are arguments and bitter conflicts. One reason the conflicts are so bitter is that these individuals have had no rehearsal for adequate conflict resolution. They don’t know how to argue or how to disagree agreeably, so their conflict strategies frequently take the form of hurting the other person.

Families, Culture, and Gender As with friendship and love, families also vary from one culture to another and are viewed differently by men and women.

Culture and Families In U.S. society, it is assumed in discussions of relationship development—such as the model presented in this text—that you voluntarily choose your relationship partners. You consciously choose to pursue certain relationships and not others. In some cases, however, your husband or wife is chosen to unite two families or to bring some financial advantage to your family or village. An arrangement such as this may have been entered into by your parents when you were an infant or even before you were born. In most cultures, of course, there’s pressure to marry “the right” person and to be friends with certain people and not others.

Similarly, U.S. researchers study—and textbook authors write about—how relation- ships dissolve and how to survive relationship breakups. It’s assumed that you have the right to exit an undesirable relationship. But in some cultures, you cannot simply dissolve a relationship once it’s formed or once there are children. In Roman Catholi- cism, once people are validly married, they’re always married and cannot dissolve that relationship. In such cultures, more important issues may be “How do you maintain a relationship that has problems?” “What can you do to survive in this unpleasant rela- tionship?” or “How can you repair a troubled relationship?” (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993).

Further, your culture influences the difficulty that you go through when relation- ships do break up. For example, married persons whose religion forbids divorce and remarriage experience religious disapproval and condemnation as well as the same economic and social difficulties everyone else goes through. In the United States, child custody almost invariably goes to the woman, and this presents an added emotional burden for the man. In Iran, child custody goes to the man, which presents added emo- tional burdens for the woman. In India, women experience greater difficulty than men in divorce because of their eco- nomic dependence on men, cultural beliefs about women, and the patriarchal order of the family. And it was only as recently as 2002 that the first wife in Jordan was granted a divorce. Prior to this, only men had been granted divorces.

Gender and Families In the United States, both men and women can initiate relationships and both can dissolve them. Both men and women are expected to derive satis- faction from their interpersonal relationships; when that satisfaction isn’t present, either person may seek to exit the relationship. In Iran, on the other hand, only the man has the right to dissolve a marriage and does not have to give any reasons.

VIEWPOINTS Your Family Analyzed

How would you describe your own family in terms of (1) the characteristics of primary relationships and families discussed in this chapter (defined roles, recognition of responsibilities, shared history and future, and shared living space), (2) the communication pattern (equality, balanced split, unbalanced split, or monopoly) used most often, and (3) the rules that are most important to your family? How would you describe the ideal family?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 301 06/06/2018 17:05

302 Chapter 10

Gay and lesbian families are accepted in some cultures and condemned in others. In the United States, some states allow same-sex couples to marry legally. In other states, domestic partnerships may be registered, and these grant gay men, lesbians, and (in some cases) unmarried heterosexuals rights that were formerly reserved only for married couples; examples are health insurance benefits and the right to make deci- sions when one member is incapacitated. In Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, and Canada, same-sex couples can marry; in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, same-sex relationship partners have the same rights as married partners. In many countries, however, same-sex couples are considered criminals and could face severe punishment, even death in some cultures.

Table 10.3 offers a brief summary of this discussion of families.

Aspects of Families Explanations

Definition A family is best defined as a group of people with defined roles, respon- sibilities toward others in the group, a shared history and future, shared living space (usually), and rules for communicating.

Types of Couples Among the types of couples are traditional, independent, and separate; each type derives different benefits.

Types of Families Among the types of families are consensual, protective, pluralistic, and laissez-faire.

Communication Among the communication patterns that characterize family communica- tion are equality, balanced split, unbalanced split, and monopoly.

Influences The role and rules of the family vary greatly from one culture to another and are viewed differently by men and women.

Table 10.3 In a Nutshell Families

UNDERSTANDING INTERPERSONAL SKILLS Supportiveness: Supportive Messages Express Understanding Rather Than Evaluation

• Express your willingness to listen with an open mind and your readiness to consider changing your way of thinking and doing things.

• Ask for the opinions of others, and show that these are important to you. Resist the temptation to focus too much on your own way of seeing things.

• Avoid accusations or blame (“I should have stayed with my old job and not listened to your brother’s advice”).

• Avoid negative evaluation (“Didn’t your sister look horrible in that red dress?”).

• Avoid “preaching” (“You need to learn word processing and spreadsheet skills”).

Working With Supportiveness Consider the above suggestions for increasing supportive- ness and, consider the situations in which you have recently used or witnessed supportiveness. In what situations have others responded to you with supportiveness? How was this supportiveness expressed? What situations can you recall in which supportiveness was not used but might have helped?

Supportiveness in communication is behavior that is descriptive rather than evaluative and provisional rather than certain (Gibb, 1961). Descriptive messages state in relatively objective terms what you see or what you feel—as opposed to evaluative messages, which express your opinions and judg- ments. Descriptive messages may make others feel supported; judgmental or evaluative messages, on the other hand, may elicit defensiveness. (This doesn’t mean that all evaluative com- munications meet a defensive response, of course. For exam- ple, the would-be actor who wants to improve technique often welcomes both positive and negative evaluations.) Similarly, provisional messages express an open-minded attitude and a willingness to hear opposing viewpoints. Certainty messages, on the other hand, tolerate no differences of opinion and are likely to engender defensiveness.

Communicating with Supportiveness Here are a few suggestions for communicating supportive- ness by being descriptive and provisional, which will also increase relationship satisfaction (Cramer, 2004).

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 302 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 303

Workplace Relationships 10.4 Describe how to create and maintain successful workplace relationships.

The workplace is a context in which all forms of communication take place and all kinds of relationships may be seen. This context is especially influenced by culture—both by the wider culture and by the particular culture of a given workplace. Like all cultures, workplace cultures have their own rituals, norms, and rules for communicating. These rules, whether in an interview situation or in a friendly conversation, delineate appropri- ate and inappropriate verbal and nonverbal behavior, specify rewards (or punishments for breaking the rules), and tell you what will help you get and keep a job and what won’t. For example, the general advice given throughout this text is to emphasize your positive qualities, to highlight your abilities, and to minimize any negative characteristics or fail- ings. But in some organizations—especially within collectivist cultures such as those of China, Korea, and Japan—workers are expected to show modesty (Copeland & Griggs, 1985). If you stress your own competencies too much, you may be seen as arrogant, brash, and unfit to work in an organization where teamwork and cooperation are emphasized.

Whether in a job interview, in the early days on a new job, or in meeting new col- leagues, first impressions are especially important because they’re so long-lasting and so powerful in influencing future impressions and interactions (Flocker, 2006; Grobart, 2007; Parsons, Liden, & Bauer, 2001). Table 10.4 offers a few guidelines that will help you make a good first impression and should increase your likeability on the job.

When you join an organization, you learn the rules and norms of a culture that is dif- ferent from, say, the college culture from which you came or from a former organization for which you worked. Put differently, you become acculturated, much as you would if you moved to a foreign country. As you can appreciate, it’s essential to learn the organiza- tion’s culture to know what the rules of the game are, especially the rules of communica- tion. Here we look at a variety of workplace communication patterns and relationships.

Workplace Communication Communication within the workplace can be described as consisting of four major types: lateral communication, upward communication, downward communication, and grapevine messages.

• Lateral communication refers to messages between equals—for example, manager to manager, worker to worker. Such messages may move within the same subdivi- sion or department of the organization or across divisions. Lateral communication, for example, is the kind of communication that takes place between two history professors at Illinois State University, between a psychologist at Ohio State and a communicologist at Kent State University, and between a bond trader and an equi- ties trader at a brokerage house.

Strategy Comments

Look the Part Dress appropriately; even “casual Fridays” have dress codes.

Any drastic deviation from the standard dress for your position may communicate that you don’t fit in.

Be Positive Express positive attitudes toward the organization, the job, and your colleagues.

Avoid negative talk and sarcasm (even in humor).

Be Culturally Sensitive Avoid stereotyping and talk that might be con- sidered racist, heterosexist, ageist, or sexist.

You’re sure to offend someone with any of these isms.

Be Respectful and Friendly Be respectful of other people’s time or personal quirks.

At the same time, be available, helpful, and cooperative as appropriate.

Be Interested Focus attention on the other person and really listen. Express interest in who the person is and what he or she says and does. Maintain eye contact, a pleasant facial expression, an open pos- ture, and relatively close proximity.

Table 10.4 How to Be Liked at Work

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 303 06/06/2018 17:05

304 Chapter 10

• Upward communication consists of messages sent from the lower levels of a hierar- chy to the upper levels—for example, from line worker to manager or from faculty member to dean. This type of communication usually is concerned with job-related activities and problems; ideas for change and suggestions for improvement; and feelings about the organization, work, other workers, or similar issues.

• Downward communication consists of messages sent from the higher levels to the lower levels of the hierarchy—for example, messages sent by managers to work- ers or by deans to faculty members. Common forms of downward communication include orders; explanations of procedures, goals, and changes; and appraisals of workers.

• Grapevine messages don’t follow any of the formal lines of communication estab- lished in an organization. Much like grapevines, they seem to have a life of their own and go in all different directions. Grapevine messages address topics that you want to discuss in a more interpersonal setting, such as issues that are not yet made public; the real relationship among the regional managers; or possible changes that are being considered but not yet finalized, like new rules on personal Internet usage.

Although each of these forms of communication requires somewhat specialized rules and forms, here are a few general communication guidelines:

• Be respectful of a colleague’s time. This guideline suggests lots of specifics; for example, don’t copy those who don’t need to be copied; be brief and organized; respond to requests as soon as possible and when not possible, alert the other per- son that, for example, “the figures will be sent as soon as they arrive, probably by the end of the day.” Most important, perhaps, is to be clear. For example, recognize that your own specialty has a technical jargon that others outside your specialty might not know. Clarify when and as needed.

• Be respectful of a person’s territory. Humans, like animals, are very territorial. This is especially true in the business world where status distinctions are very important and govern the rules of territoriality. For example, don’t invade another’s office or desk space (personally or even with the scent you wear) and don’t overspend your welcome. In brief, treat another’s workspace as someone’s private territory into which you must be invited.

• Follow the rules for effective electronic communication, which will naturally differ from one workplace to another. Generally, look for rules governing the use of e-mails, Internet game playing, cell phones, social networking, and instant messaging.

• Discard your Facebook grammar, spelling, acronyms, and smiley faces. These may be seen as not showing sufficient respect for someone high in the company hierarchy. The general suggestion offered for people writing into newsgroups is appropriate here as well; watch how other people write before writing yourself. If you find no guidance here, your best bet is to write as if your e-mail is being graded by your Eng- lish professor. This means editing for conciseness, proofreading, and spell checking.

• Use the appropriate medium for sending messages. Generally, the rule is to respond in kind—for example, if a question is asked in e-mail, answer it in e-mail.

• Avoid touching except in shaking hands. Touching is often interpreted as a sexual overture, so it’s best avoided on the job. Touching may also imply a familiarity that the other person may not welcome. Your best bet is to avoid initiating touching, but don’t be offended if others put their arm on your shoulder or pat you on the back.

• Be willing to communicate. Be open to hearing others’ comments. Be willing to lis- ten to these messages, even when they’re critical, and demonstrate that willingness with appropriate eye contact, posture, and feedback cues. At the same time, when you’re offering negative comments, be sure to do so privately to avoid damaging the image of those singled out. Allow the person to save face.

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 304 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 305

• Understand the variety of purposes the grapevine serves. Its speed and general accuracy make it an ideal medium to carry many of the social communications that effectively bind work- ers together. So listen carefully; it will give you an insider’s view of the organization and will help you understand those with whom you work. But treat grapevine information as ten- tative, as possibly, but not necessarily, true. Although grape- vine information is generally accurate, it’s often incomplete and ambiguous; it may also contain crucial distortions.

• Be mindful of all your organizational communications. The potentially offensive joke that you e-mail a colleague can easily be forwarded to the very people who may take offense.

• Treat everyone politely, even the newest intern. Treat that per- son as if he or she will one day be your boss. He or she may well be.

Networking Relationships In the popular mind, networking is often viewed simply as a technique for securing a job. But it actually has much broader applications; it can be viewed as a process of using other people to help you solve your problems, or at least to offer insights that bear on your problem—for example, how to publish your manuscript, where to look for low-cost auto insurance, how to find an affordable apartment, or how to use Google Drive. At one point, networking took place largely in face-to-face situations, but today networking is largely conducted online—through Facebook and similar sites for things your friends might know or through LinkedIn or similar sites for more professional job-oriented advice and connections. The great value of network- ing, especially online networking, is that it provides you with quick access to a wealth of specialized information and experts.

Networking comes in at least two forms: informal and formal. Informal network- ing is what we do every day when we find ourselves in a new situation or are unable to answer questions. For example, if you’re new at a school, you might ask someone in your class where to eat, where to shop for new clothes, or who is the best teacher for economics. When you enter a new work environment, you might ask more experienced workers how to perform certain tasks or whom you should approach—or avoid—when you have questions.

Formal networking is the same thing, except that it’s much more systematic and strategic. It’s the establishment of connections with people who can help you—answer your questions, get you a job, help you get promoted, help you relocate, or accom- plish any task you want to accomplish. For example, you might post your question on LinkedIn or seek the advice of those on the site who are experts in your particular field.

At the most obvious level, you can network with people you already know. If you review the list of people in your acquaintance, you’ll probably discover that you know a great number of people with very specialized knowledge who can be of assistance to you in a wide variety of ways. In some cultures (Brazil is one example), friendships are established in part because of potential networking connections (Rector & Neiva, 1996). You also can network with people who know people you know. Thus, you may contact a friend’s friend to find out if the firm he or she works for is hiring. Or you may contact people you have no connection with. Perhaps you’ve read something that someone wrote or you’ve heard the person’s name raised in connection with an area in which you’re interested and you want to get more information. With e-mail addresses so readily available, it’s now quite common to e-mail individuals who have particular expertise and ask them questions you might have.

You work for a firm where the staff regularly interacts with clients. This makes proper grooming and attire a necessity for all employees. You notice that sev- eral newly appointed trainees are informally dressed, wearing jeans and t-shirts, which are against your firm’s dress code. How do you bring this to their attention?

a. Rebuke them and tell them to dress better.

b. Send an e-mail to them with a copy to their supervisors.

c. Speak to them and gently explain the importance of dressing right.

d. Do nothing.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Criticism at Work

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 305 06/06/2018 17:05

306 Chapter 10

In networking, it’s often recommended that you try to establish relationships that are mutually beneficial. Much as others are useful sources of information for you, you’re likely to be a useful source of information for others. If you can pro- vide others with helpful information, it’s more likely that they will provide helpful information for you. In this way, a mutually satisfying and productive network is established.

Some networking experts advise you to develop files and directories of potentially useful sources that you can contact for needed information. For example, if you’re a freelance artist, you might develop a list of people who might be in positions to offer you work or who might lead you to others who might offer such work. Authors, editors, art directors, administrative assistants, people in advertising, and a host of others might eventually provide useful leads for such work. Creating a directory of such people and keeping in contact with them on a fairly regular basis can often simplify your obtaining freelance work. Social networking sites such as Plaxo and LinkedIn enable you to do this quickly and easily.

Formal networking requires that you take an active part in locating and establish- ing these connections. Be proactive; initiate contacts rather than waiting for them to come to you. Of course, this can be overdone; you don’t want to rely on people to do work you can easily do yourself. Yet if you’re also willing to help others, there is noth- ing wrong in asking these same people to help you. If you’re respectful of their time and expertise, it’s likely that your networking attempts will be responded to favorably. Following up your requests with thank-you notes will help you establish networks that can be ongoing, productive relationships rather than one-shot affairs. Table 10.5 sum- marizes some of these suggestions in terms of politeness, one of the most important qualities of effective networking.

Mentoring Relationships Mentoring is a partnership in which an experienced individual (the mentor) helps someone who is less experienced (the protégé) learn how to achieve his or her goals (Caproni, 2012; Mullen, 2005). Some organizational experts argue that having a men- tor is crucial for rising in a hierarchy and for developing your skills (Dahle, 2004). Mentoring is beneficial to the organization; it improves morale, decreases turnover, and helps position junior members for advancement. Mentoring is also beneficial to the individuals, providing each with new ideas and new perspectives (Metz, 2013). An accomplished teacher, for example, might mentor a younger teacher who has newly

Rules of Politeness The Rule in Operation

Engage in networking feedforward before requesting friendship.

Sending a message complimenting the person’s latest post provides some background and eases the way for a friend- ship request.

Avoid negativity. Avoid writing negative or embarrassing messages or posting unflattering photos that may generate conflict.

Keep networking information confidential.

It’s considered inappropriate and impolite to relay information on Facebook, for example, to those who are not themselves friends.

Be gentle in refusals. Refuse any request for friendship gently or, if you wish, ignore it. If you’re refused, don’t ask for reasons; it’s considered impolite.

Avoid making potentially embarrassing requests.

Avoid asking to be friends with someone who you suspect may have reasons for not wanting to admit you. For example, your work associate may not want you to see her or his profile.

Table 10.5 Social Networking Politeness

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 306 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 307

arrived or who has never taught before (Nelson, Pearson, & Kurylo, 2008). The men- tor guides the new person through the organizational maze, teaches the strategies and techniques for success, and otherwise communicates his or her accumulated knowledge and experience to the protégé.

The mentoring relationship provides an ideal learning environment. It’s usually a one-on-one relationship between expert and novice, a relationship that is supportive and trusting. There’s a mutual and open sharing of information and thoughts about the job. The relationship enables the novice to try new skills under the guidance of an expert, to ask questions, and to obtain the feedback so necessary in learning complex skills. Mentoring is perhaps best characterized as a relationship in which the expe- rienced and powerful mentor empowers the novice, giving the novice the tools and techniques for gaining the same power the mentor holds.

Mentoring is frequently conducted online. One great advantage of e-mentoring is the flexibility it allows for communication. E-mail messages, for example, can be sent and received at times that are convenient for the individuals involved (Stewart, 2006). Because the individuals may be separated geographically, it’s possible to have mentor–protégé relationships with people in foreign countries and in widely differing cultures—relationships that would be impossible without online communication. Still another advantage is that persons with disabilities (whether mentor or protégé) who cannot travel easily can still enjoy and profit from e-mentoring relationships (Burgs- tahler, 2007).The mentoring relationship has been found to be one of the three primary paths for career achievement among African American men and women (Bridges, 1996). And in a study of middle-level managers, those who had mentors and participated in mentoring relationships were found to get more promotions and higher salaries than those who didn’t have mentors (Scandura, 1992). More recent research also finds that college students benefit in a variety of ways from having a mentor. At the end of the first year, mentored students had a higher GPA, showed a higher retention rate, and had completed more credits than students who weren’t mentored (Campbell & Campbell, 2007).

At the same time, the mentor benefits from clarifying his or her thoughts, seeing the job from the perspective of a newcomer, and considering and formulating answers to a variety of questions. Much as a teacher learns from teaching, a mentor learns from mentoring.

It should also be noted that social networking sites, designed originally as places where people could make new friends and stay in touch with old ones, are increasingly being used for both mentoring and networking. Some sites are “by invitation only” and have been compared to gated communities or exclusive country clubs. These sites seem designed not for friendships but solely for mentoring and networking (MacMillan & Lehman, 2007). For example, Reuters Space is a private online community specifically for hedge fund managers to network, and INmobile is designed for executives in the wireless industry.

Romantic Relationships at Work Unlike television depictions, in which workers are always best friends who would do anything for one another and in which the characters move in and out of office romances with little difficulty (at least with no difficulty that can’t be resolved in 24 minutes), real- life office romance can be complicated. Opinions vary widely concerning workplace romances (Heidel, 2017). Some organizations, on the assumption that romantic relation- ships are basically detrimental to the success of the workplace, have explicit rules pro- hibiting romantic involvements. And these rules are becoming stricter (Wilkie, 2013). In some organizations (including the military), members can be fired for such relationships. In other organizations, the prohibitions are unwritten and informal but nevertheless

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 307 06/06/2018 17:05

308 Chapter 10

clearly in opposition to office romances. Other organiza- tions have a more lenient policy and recognize that office romances are inevitable. And even the Huffington Post says that office romance is “not off-limits” (Paul, 2013).

Advantages of Romance at Work On the positive side, the work environment seems a perfect place to meet a potential romantic partner. After all, by virtue of the fact that you’re working in the same office, probably you are both interested in the same field, have similar training and ambitions, and can spend considerable time together—all factors that foster the development of a suc- cessful interpersonal relationship. Also, given that Ameri- cans are marrying later in life, they are less likely to meet prospective partners in school; so work seems the logical

alternative. Published figures differ about the frequency of office romances. According to a 2009 survey by CareerBuilder.com, 40 percent of U.S. workers said that they had dated a fellow worker, 18 percent reported two or more office romances, and another 12 percent are eager to engage in such relationships (Pearce, 2010). Another survey reported that 58 percent of workers had dated a coworker. Of these, 20 percent admitted to a romantic relationship with a boss and 15 percent to a relationship with someone they supervised (Hemple & Berner, 2007). Even Bill and Melinda Gates met at work.

Office romances can lead to greater work satisfaction. For example, if you’re roman- tically attracted to another worker, it can make going to work, working together, and even working added hours more enjoyable and more satisfying. If the relationship is good and mutually satisfying, the individuals are likely to develop empathy for each other and to act in ways that are supportive, cooperative, and friendly; in short, the workers are more likely to show all the characteristics of effective communication noted throughout this text.

To achieve these advantages, management consultants advise romantic couples at work to, for example (Losee & Olen, 2007; Nemko, 2013):

• Be honest about what you want, for example, a quick office fling or something potentially more permanent.

• Make sure you have enough in common to warrant a relationship.

• Enter relationships with colleagues on the same level rather than with subordinates or superiors.

• Keep your relationship private or as private as you can. Avoid public displays of affection (PDAs).

Disadvantages of Romance at Work Even when the relationship is good for the two individuals, however, it may not be good for other workers. Seeing the loving couple together every day may generate office gossip that may prove destructive. Others may think the lovers are a team that has to be confronted as a pair, and that you can’t criticize one without incurring the wrath of the other.

Workplace romantic relationships may cause problems for management when, for example, a promotion is to be made or relocation decisions are necessary. Can you legitimately ask one lover to move to Boston and the other to move to San Francisco? Will it prove difficult for management to promote one lover who then becomes the supervisor of the other?

The workplace also puts pressure on the individuals. Most organizations, at least in the United States, are highly competitive; one person’s success often means another’s failure. In this competitive context, the normal self-disclosures that regularly accom- pany increased intimacy (which often reveal weaknesses, doubts, and misgivings) may actually prove a liability.

VIEWPOINTS Romance in the Workplace

Although most organizations frown on office romance, all the main characters in TV’s Bones are in romantic relationships with people they work with. And it seems to work well for the individuals and the Jeffersonian Institute (the workplace). How would you describe television’s position on romance in the workplace? In what ways does it differ from the real-life workplace?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 308 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 309

When the romance goes bad or when it’s one-sided, there are even more disad- vantages. One obvious problem is that it can be stressful for the former lovers to see each other regularly and perhaps to work together. Other workers may feel they have to take sides, being supportive of one partner and critical of the other. This can easily cause friction throughout the organization. In addition, when an office romance breaks up, it’s usually the more competent and employable person who leaves for another job, leaving the firm with the less valuable employee and the need to retrain someone to take over the departed lover’s functions (Jones, 2004). Still another and perhaps more serious issue is the potential for charges of sexual harassment, especially if the romance was between a supervisor and a worker. Whether the charges are legitimate or are the result of an unhappy love affair and unrelated to the organization, man- agement will find itself in the middle, facing lawsuits and time and money lost from investigating and ultimately acting on the charges.

The generally negative attitude of management toward office love affairs and the problems in dealing with the normal stress of both work and romance seem to pres- ent significant obstacles to such relationships and to the workplace, so workers are generally advised by management not to romance their colleagues. Friendships, on the other hand, seem the much safer course. Companies often encourage friendships by setting up sports teams, dinners, and lounge and exercise areas. In fact, research finds that office friendships increase employees’ job satisfaction and commitment to the organization and decrease turnover (Morrison, 2004). And friendships often serve as the basis for productive mentoring and networking.

Table 10.6 provides a brief summary of workplace relationships.

The ethical issues and guidelines that operate within a friendship or romantic, family, or workplace relationship can be reviewed with the acronym ETHICS—empathy (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987), talk rather than force, honesty (Krebs, 1989), interaction management, confidentiality, and supportiveness (Johannesen, 2001).

• Empathy: People in relationships have an ethical obligation to try to understand what other individuals are feeling as well as thinking from those individuals’ points of view.

• Talk: Decisions in a relationship should be arrived at by talk rather than by force—by persuasion, not by coercion.

• Honesty: Relationship communication should be honest and truthful. • Interaction management: Relationship communication should be satisfying and comfortable and is the

responsibility of all individuals. • Confidentiality: People have a right to expect that what they say in confidence will not be revealed to

others. • Supportiveness: A supportive and cooperative climate should characterize the interpersonal interac-

tions of people in relationships.

ETHICS IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Relationship Ethics

Ethical Choice Point You’re managing a team to select an architect for your company’s new office complex. The problem is that Jack doesn’t do any work and misses most of the meetings. You spoke with him about it, and he confided that he’s going through a divorce and can’t concentrate on the project. You feel sorry for Jack and have been carrying him for the last few months, but realize now that you’ll never be able to bring the project in on time if you don’t replace Jack. Also, you don’t want to get a negative appraisal because of Jack. What would you do in this situation?

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 309 06/06/2018 17:05

310 Chapter 10

The Dark Side of Interpersonal Relationships 10.5 Explain the nature of, and the guidelines for dealing with, jealousy and

violence.

In all interpersonal relationships—friendship, love, family, and workplace—there exists the possibility for what has come to be called the dark side of relationships. In any inter- personal interaction, there exists not only the potential for productive and meaningful communication but also the potential for unproductive and destructive communication. Here we consider just a couple of dark sides: jealousy and violence.

Jealousy Jealousy is similar to envy; in both cases, we experience a negative emotion about our relationship and we often use the terms interchangeably. But they are actually very different. Envy is an emotional feeling that we experience when we desire what someone else has or has more of than we do. And so we might feel envious of a friend who has lots of friends or romantic partners or money when we have significantly less. When we feel envy, we may feel that we are inferior to, or of less importance than, someone else. Jealousy, on the other hand, is a form of anger we have when we feel our relationship is in danger due to some rival. Jealousy is a reac- tion to relationship threat: if you feel that someone is moving in on your relationship partner, you may experience jealousy—especially if you feel that this interloper is succeeding.

Jealousy is not an uncommon reaction and is actually considered a logical reaction to relationship threat (Berscheid, 1983; Knobloch & Schmeizer, 2008). Usually, the rival is a potential romantic partner, but it could also be a close friend or a job that occupies all our partner’s time and thoughts. When we feel jealousy, we may feel angry and anxious. As you can expect, the closer a relationship is, the more likely it is that jealousy would be experienced (Attridge, 2013). As you know, jealousy is a big part of social media; with increased use of Facebook comes increased jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Among the reasons for this is that, through Facebook, one partner can find out things about the other that might not have been revealed face-to-face. And of course such social media sites provide great oppor- tunities for reconnecting with former romantic partners, which can easily create or increase jealousy (Sarkis, 2011).

The Types of Jealousy Three types of jealousy are often distinguished: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Erber & Erber, 2011):

• Cognitive jealousy Cognitive jealousy involves your suspicious thinking, worry- ing, and imagining the different scenarios in which your partner may be interested in another person.

Aspects of Workplace Relationships Explanations

Definition Workplace communication may be viewed in terms of the direction of the messages: lateral, upward, downward, and grapevine.

Networking Connections with other people who have useful resources—may be formal or informal.

Mentoring A partnership between an experienced worker and one who is less experienced, is a relationship that benefits both mentor and protégé.

Romantic relationships at work Although these have both advantages and disadvantages, they are often prohibited, and most organizations have rather strict rules for what is and what is not acceptable.

Table 10.6 In a Nutshell Workplace Relationships

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 310 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 311

• Emotional jealousy Emotional jealousy involves the feelings you have when you see your partner, say, laughing or talking intimately with a rival, or kissing. Or, perhaps you become jealous if your partner spends too much time on Internet relationships.

• Behavioral jealousy Behavioral jealousy refers to what you actually do in response to the jealous feelings and emotions, for example, reading your partner’s e-mail, looking on Facebook for incriminating photos, or going through the back seat of the car with the proverbial fine-tooth comb. Sometimes you feel jealousy because of some suspicion that a rival is looking to steal your relationship partner. And so you might conceal your relationship, monopolize your partner’s free time, or avoid situations where rivals might be present—strategies refered to as mate guarding (Buss, 2000; Erber & Erber, 2011).

Much research has reported that heterosexual men and women experience jealousy for different reasons that are rooted in our evolutionary development (Buller, 2005; Buss, 2000; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004). Basically, research finds that men experience jeal- ousy from their partner being physically intimate with another man, whereas women experience jealousy from their partner being emotionally intimate with another woman. The evolutionary reason given is that men provided food and shelter for the family and would resent his partner’s physical intimacy with another because he would then be providing food and shelter for another man’s child. Women, because they depended on men for food and shelter, became especially jealous when their partner was emotionally intimate with another because this could mean he might leave her and she’d thus lose the food and shelter protection.

Not all research supports this finding and not all theory supports this evolutionary explanation (Harris, 2003). For example, among Chinese men, only 25 percent reported physical infidelity was the more distressing, while 75 percent reported emotional infi- delity to be more distressing.

Another commonly assumed gender difference is that jealous men are more prone to respond with violence. This assumption, however, does not seem to be the case; men and women apparently are equally likely to respond with violence (Harris, 2003).

Dealing with Jealousy So what do you do when you experience jealousy (short of violence)? Communication researchers find sev- eral popular but generally negative interactive responses (Dindia & Timmerman, 2003; Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). You may:

• nonverbally express your displeasure, for example, cry or express hurt.

• threaten to become violent or actually engage in violence.

• be verbally aggressive, for example, be sarcastic or accusatory.

• withdraw affection or be silent, sometimes denying that any- thing is wrong.

On the more positive side are responses known as integrative communication: messages that attempt to work things out with your partner, such as self-disclosing your feelings, being honest, practicing effective conflict management, listening actively—in short, all the skills we talk about in this text.

Violence This dark side is perhaps most obvious in the various forms of relationship violence.

Your romantic partner of the last 6 months has recently been showing signs of jealousy with absolutely no cause. This is making you feel uncomfortable and is restricting your enjoying with other friends and activites that don’t include your partner. You want to continue this relationship but you want the jealousy to stop. What are some of the things you might say?

a. Explain that there is no cause for jealousy and hope your partner believes you and changes.

b. Give an ultimatum—either the jealousy stops or you’re moving on.

c. Say nothing; the jealousy will likely get less and eventually go away.

d. Give up your other friends and activities that don’t include your partner.

e. Other

INTERPERSONAL CHOICE POINT Dealing with Jealousy

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 311 06/06/2018 17:05

312 Chapter 10

Types of Relationship Violence Three types of relationship violence may be distin- guished: verbal or emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse (Rice, 2007).

• Verbal or emotional abuse may include humiliating you; engaging in economic abuse such as controlling the finances or preventing you from working; and/or isolating, criticizing, or stalking you. Some research shows that people who use verbal or emotional abuse are more likely than others to escalate to physical abuse (Rancer & Avtgis, 2006).

• Physical abuse includes threats of violence as well as pushing, hitting, slapping, kicking, choking, throwing things at you, and breaking things.

• Sexual abuse involves touching that is unwanted, accusations of sexual infidelity without reason, forced sex, and references to you in abusive sexual terms.

Table 10.7 offers a brief comparison and summary of violent and nonviolent rela- tionships (utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/relavio/relaviol.html).

A great deal of research has centered on trying to identify the warning signs of rela- tionship violence. Here, for example, are a few signs compiled by the State University

Before reading about this important but often-neglected topic, examine your present rela- tionship for relationship violence by responding to the following questions, drawn from a variety of sources, for example, the websites of SUNY at Buffalo Counseling Services; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Women’s Heath Care Physicians; and the University of Texas at Austin, Counseling and Mental Health Center.

Do either of you:

_____ 1. get angry to the point of making the other person fearful?

_____ 2. engage in behavior that could be considered humiliating to the other person?

_____ 3. verbally abuse the other?

_____ 4. threaten the other with violence?

_____ 5. engage in slapping, hitting, or pushing the other?

_____ 6. throw things in anger?

_____ 7. make accusations of sexual infidelity?

_____ 8. force the other to have sex?

_____ 9. use abusive sexual terms in reference to the other?

These nine items are all signs of a violent relationship (it only takes one to make a relationship violent). Items 1 to 3 are examples of verbal or emotional abuse, 4 to 6 of physical abuse, and 7 to 9 of sexual abuse—all of which are explained more fully in the text. If any of these questions describes your relationship, you may wish to seek professional help (which is likely available on your campus). Additional suggestions are offered in the text and are readily available online.

Violent Relationships Nonviolent Relationships

Emotional abuse Fairness; you look for resolutions to conflict that will be fair to both of you.

Control and isolation Communication that makes the partner feel safe and comfortable expressing him- or herself.

Intimidation Mutual respect, mutual affirmation, and valuing of each other’s opinions.

Economic abuse The partners make financial decisions together.

Threats Accountability—each person accepts responsibility for his or her behavior.

Power over the other Responsibilities are distributed fairly.

Sexual abuse Trust and respect for what each person wants and doesn’t want.

Table 10.7 Violent and Nonviolent Relationships

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 312 06/06/2018 17:05

Interpersonal Relationship Types 313

of New York at Buffalo; you might want to use this list to start thinking about your own relationship or those that you know of (ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/warnings/shtml). It may be a warning sign if your partner:

• belittles, insults, or ignores you.

• controls pieces of your life, for example, the way you dress or who you can be friends with.

• gets jealous without reason.

• can’t handle sexual frustration without anger.

• is so angry or threatening that you’ve changed your life to avoid provoking addi- tional anger.

As you might expect, there are a variety of consequences to relationship violence: physical injuries, psychological injuries, and economic “injuries” (cdc.gov/ncic/fact- sheets/ipvfacts.htm). Perhaps the image that comes most quickly to mind when the issue of relationship violence comes up is that of physical violence, and that element is certainly a big part of overall relationship violence. Physical injuries may range from scratches and bruises to broken bones, knife wounds, and central nervous system damage. The results of such injuries can range from minor to death.

Even when physical injuries are relatively minor, however, psychological injuries may be major and may include, for example, depression; anxiety; fear of intimacy; and, of course, low self-esteem. In fact, relationship violence often attacks self-esteem to the point where the victims come to believe that the violence against them was and is justified.

In addition to the obvious physical and psychological injuries, consider the eco- nomic impact. It’s been estimated that, in the United States, relationship violence costs approximately $6.2 billion for physical assaults and almost $500 million for rape. Interpersonal violence also results in lost days of work. The Centers for Disease Con- trol estimates that interpersonal violence costs the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs in lost work each year in the United States. Additional economic costs are incurred when interpersonal violence prevents women from maintaining jobs or continuing their education.

Dealing with Relationship Violence Whether you’re a victim or a perpetrator of relationship violence, it is important to seek professional help (and, of course, the help of friends and family where appropriate). In addition, here are several additional sug- gestions (utexas.edu/student/cmhc/booklets/relavio/relaviol.html).

If your partner has been violent:

• Realize that you’re not alone. There are other people who suffer similarly, and there is a mechanism in place to help you.

• Realize that you’re not at fault. You did not deserve to be the victim of violence.

• Plan for your safety. Violence, if it occurred once, is likely to occur again, and part of your thinking needs to be devoted to your own safety.

• Know your resources—the phone numbers you need to contact for help, and the locations of money and a spare set of keys.

If you are the violent partner:

• Realize that you too are not alone and that help and support are available.

• Know that you can change. It won’t necessarily be easy or quick, but you can change.

• Own your own behaviors; take responsibility. This is an essential step if any change is to occur.

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 313 06/06/2018 17:05

314 Chapter 10

Relationship violence is not an inevitable part of interpersonal relationships; in fact, it occurs in a minority of relationships. Yet it’s important to know that there is the potential for violence in all relationships, as there is the potential for friendship, love, support, and all the positive things we look for in relationships. Knowing the difference between productive and destructive relationships seems the best way to make sure that your own relationships are as you want them to be.

Table 10.8 offers a brief summary of jealousy and relationship violence.

Dark Side Types Remedies or Strategies

Jealousy, a reaction to relation- ship endangerment or threat

Cognitive Emotional Behavioral

Communicate to work things out with your partner; for example, self-disclose your feel- ings, be honest, practice effective conflict management, and listen actively.

Relationship violence, the use of abusive language or actual physi- cal or sexual abuse

Verbal/emotional Physical Sexual

Know that help is available and that you’re not at fault. Plan for your safety and have ready access to resources such as a spare set of keys and a phone.

Table 10.8 In a Nutshell Two Dark Sides of Interpersonal Relationships

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 314 06/06/2018 17:05

This chapter explored some major kinds of interpersonal relationships, specifically, friendship, love, family, and workplace relationships. In addition, it explored some of the dark sides of rela- tionships, namely relationship jealousy and violence.

Friendship Relationships 10.1 Define friendship and explain how it develops.

1. Friendship is an interpersonal relationship between two persons that is mutually productive and is char- acterized by mutual positive regard.

2. One classification of the types of friendships identi- fied friendships of (1) reciprocity, which is character- ized by loyalty, self-sacrifice, mutual affection, and generosity; (2) receptivity, which is characterized by a comfortable and positive imbalance in the giving and receiving of rewards, and each person’s needs are satisfied by the exchange; and (3) association, which is a transitory relationship more like a friendly rela- tionship than a true friendship. Still another type is the friends-with-benefits relationship in which there is sexual intimacy but not romantic intimacy.

3. Friendships serve a variety of needs and give us a variety of values, among which are the values of utility, affirmation, ego support, stimulation, and security.

4. Friendships develop in stages over time, from strang- ers at one end of the continuum to close and intimate (“best”) friends at the other.

5. Friendships are influenced by culture and gender. For example, friendship demands vary between col- lectivist and individualist cultures. Women share more and are more intimate with same-sex friends than are men. Men’s friendships are often built around shared activities rather than shared intima- cies. Online friends resemble face-to-face friends in the needs that they serve, but they are often more diverse.

Love Relationships 10.2 Describe the various types of love.

6. Love is a feeling that may be characterized by closeness and caring and by intimacy, passion, and commitment.

7. Among the types of love: (1) Eros love focuses on beauty and sexuality, sometimes to the exclusion of other qualities; (2) ludus love is seen as a game and focuses on entertainment and excitement; (3) storge love is a kind of companionship, peaceful and slow;

(4) pragma love is practical and traditional; (5) mania love is obsessive and possessive, characterized by elation and depression; and (6) agape love is compas- sionate and selfless, characterized as self-giving and altruistic.

8. Verbal and nonverbal messages echo the intimacy of a love relationship. With increased intimacy, you share more, speak in a more personalized style, engage in prolonged eye contact, and touch each other more often.

9. Culture and gender impact on love. For example, members of individualist cultures tend to place greater emphasis on romantic love than do members of collectivist cultures. In terms of gender differences, men generally score higher on erotic and ludic love, whereas women score higher on manic, pragmatic, and storgic love. Men also generally score higher on romanticism than women.

Family Relationships 10.3 Summarize the characteristics of families and

distinguish among couple and family types.

10. Among the characteristics of families are: defined roles (members understand the roles each of them serves), recognition of responsibilities (members real- ize that each person has certain responsibilities to the relationship), shared history and future (members have an interactional past and an anticipated future together), and shared living space (generally, mem- bers live together).

11. Couple types have been classified into (1) tradi- tionals, who see themselves as the blending of two people into a single couple; (2) independents, who see themselves as primarily separate individuals and see their individuality as more important than the relationship or the connection between the individu- als; and (3) separates, who see their relationship as a matter of convenience rather than of mutual love or connection.

12. Family types have been classified into (1) consensual families: high in conversation and high in conformity, (2) protective families: high in conformity and low in conversation, (3) pluralistic families: low in confor- mity and high in conversation, and (4) laissez-faire families: low in conformity and low in conversation.

Summary

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 315 06/06/2018 17:05

316 Chapter 10

13. Among the prominent communication patterns in families are: (1) equality, in which each person shares equally in the communication transactions and deci- sion making; (2) balanced split, in which each per- son has authority over different but relatively equal domains; (3) unbalanced split, in which one person maintains authority and decision-making power over a wider range of issues than the other; and (4) monopoly, in which one person dominates and con- trols the relationship and the decisions made.

14. Families vary from one culture to another and are influenced in varied ways by new technologies.

Workplace Relationships 10.4 Describe how to create and maintain successful

workplace relationships.

15. Workplace communication may be viewed in terms of the direction of the messages sent: lateral, upward, downward, and grapevine.

16. Networking helps you expand your areas of exper- tise and enables you to secure information bearing

on a wide variety of problems you want to solve and questions you want to answer.

17. Mentoring relationships help you learn the ropes of an organization through the experience and knowl- edge of someone who has gone through the pro- cesses you’ll be going through.

18. Although romantic relationships in the workplace have a variety of benefits, they are often frowned upon and often entail a variety of problems that would not arise in other contexts.

The Dark Side of Interpersonal Relationships 10.5 Explain the nature of, and the guidelines for dealing

with, jealousy and violence.

19. Jealousy is a fear of losing a relationship and is often combined with anger.

20. Relationship violence may consist of verbal or emo- tional, physical, or sexual abuse and has wide-rang- ing effects.

Key Terms agape conformity orientation consensual families conversation orientation downward communication eros family frenemy friends with benefits friendship grapevine messages

independent couples jealousy laissez-faire families lateral communication love ludus mania mentoring network convergence networking pluralistic families

pragma primary relationship protective families relationship violence separate couples storge supportiveness traditional couples upward communication

M10_DEVI1843_15_GE_C10.indd 316 06/06/2018 17:05