Week 4 assignment

8.1 Relationship Maintenance

As we have just noted, relationship maintenance is crucial but is too often overlooked or vi ewed merely as work— a word that often has a negative connotation. Until just over 20 years ago, communication a nd social psychology researchers also ignored relationship maintenance processes in favor of understanding how relationships were formed and ended. However, in 1991, communic ation researchers Laura Stafford and Daniel Canary formally established relationship maint enance as a distinct and important form of interpersonal communication. Since then, hundr eds of studies have increased our understanding of how we use communication to preserve our relationships. How do you show your relational partners that you care about them? Do you help your romantic partner by washing the dishes before they get home from work? D o you post a link about an inside joke on your best friend’s Facebook wall? Do you call your parents on their wedding anniversary to tell them that you are thinking of them? When we behave in these ways, we are engaging in relationship maintenance— actions and interactions that sustain or preserve the desired states of our relationships (Di ndia & Canary, 1993). To better understand the complexity of the various messages and actions that are a part of relationship maintenance, Kathryn Dindia and Daniel Canary (1993) conducted an analysis of how researchers defined relationship maintenance. They determined that there are four common relationship maintenance definitions, identified in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Common definitions of relationship maintenance

Definition Explanation

Keeping a relationship in existence Partners sustain the presence of the relationship and avoid its termination

Keeping a relationship in a specific condition or state Partners believe certain qualities and aspects are important for maintenance so that the relationship is not terminated

Keeping a relationship in a satisfactory condition Partners experience satisfaction, in addition to stability, and desire to maintain this status

Keeping a relationship in repair Partners keep a relationship in working condition or fix a relationship that is in disrepair Source: Adapted from Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163–173.

Overall, these definitions of relationship maintenance can overlap with one another and are applicable to relationship maintenance in a variety of relationships, including romantic, fri end, family, and professional. The first, keeping a relationship in existence, is the most basic d efinition of relationship maintenance because it only involves sustaining the presence of th e relationship and avoiding its termination (Dindia & Canary, 1993). This definition thus do es not acknowledge the changing and shifting nature of relationships, nor does it account fo r the variety of maintenance behaviors and messages partners can use. The second definiti on, keeping a relationship in a specific condition or state, includes the relationship qualities or aspects that the partners believe are important for maintenance, such as intimacy, trust, st ability, and commitment, so that the relationship is not terminated. The third definition, kee ping a relationship in a satisfactory condition, emphasizes the belief that relationships can be maintained when both partners experience satisfaction, in addition to the basic stability th

at is the focus of the second definition. The fourth and final relationship maintenance defini tion is keeping a relationship in repair. There are two aspects of this definition: fixing a relati onship that is in disrepair and keeping a relationship in working condition (Dindia & Canar y, 1993). It is important to understand how relationship maintenance is defined, but it is also crucial to determine what behaviors or communication messages assist in the maintenance proces s. Relationship maintenance behaviors are the actions, messages, and tasks that assist with maintaining, managing, or repairing a relationship (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000). These behaviors and messages are conscious and strategic and specifically involve how to define and establish the parameters of the relationship and manage the tensions and threats to th e relationship’s integrity and existence (Burleson et al., 2000; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 20 00). There are many benefits to using relationship maintenance behaviors and messages. For ex ample, the more spouses engage in relationship maintenance, the greater the marital satisf action (Stafford & Canary, 2006). In addition, the more romantic partners employ maintena nce behaviors and messages, the less likely they are to terminate their relationships (Guerr ero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993). As with the definition of relationship maintenance, these behav iors and messages can occur in a number of close relationship contexts.

The next sections identify the variety of behaviors and messages that we can employ to mai ntain our relationships. There are both positive and negative behaviors for maintaining clo se relationships, which suggests that relationship maintenance is a complex interpersonal i nteraction that is not just confined to happy, satisfied couples. In other words, we may choo se or even be required to sustain and preserve a relationship that we have with another per son, such as a family member, that one friend in a tight- knit group that we don’t get along well with, or a coworker.

Positive Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

Wall’s (2013) blog post about marriage, described at the beginning of the chapter, highlight s the importance of relationship maintenance messages in a successful marriage. The same is true for other types of relationships. Conscious actions, such as cheerfully saying “good m orning” to your colleagues at work or supporting a friend or loved one when a parent passe s away, are examples of positive maintenance behaviors. There are seven positive or constr uctive behaviors that can be strategically used to maintain relationships. The first five beha viors were identified by Stafford and Canary (1991), and the remaining two behaviors were added by Stafford and colleagues (2000):

• positivity: being optimistic, cheerful, pleasant, not criticizing your partner, and showing affe ction and appreciation for the other person and the relationship

• openness: balancing self-disclosures and honest communication about the relationship • assurances: expressing commitment, love, faithfulness, emotional support, and messages th

at imply that the relationship has a future • social networks: seeking and providing support from common family and friend networks • sharing tasks: performing one’s fair share of joint jobs and responsibilities in the relationsh

ip

• advice: expressing partner- related emotions and cognitions and the willingness to communicate opinions

• conflict management: using constructive and positive behaviors such as cooperating, listeni ng, and apologizing when in conflict or disagreements with the partner

Stanislav Komogorov/iStock/Thinkstock

Using positive relationship maintenance behaviors can help partners preserve a satisfying r elationship.

Let’s consider these positive maintenance behaviors in relation to the communication betw een Sidney and Jaime, a couple who have been married for 12 years. Sidney and Jaime work full- time and have two children. In addition, Jaime is taking online business courses in order to move up in his company. In other words, they are a typical, busy adult couple. However, des pite all of these family and professional responsibilities, Sidney and Jaime make conscious e fforts to maintain their relationship. They communicate all of the above positive maintenan ce behaviors: They tell each other “thank you” when one does something nice for the other (positivity), and they discuss issues and are truthful and kind to each other when they disag ree (openness and conflict management). Sidney and Jaime try to be clear about who compl etes which task, such as emptying the dishwasher or running errands (sharing tasks), and t hey ask Sidney’s sister, who lives nearby, for help with the kids when Jaime is working on h is courses (social networks). Finally, Sidney and Jaime make sure to tell each other that the y love each other, and they express that love by offering support and by seeking out and list ening to each other’s advice when work or parenting issues arise (assurances and advice).

Using these positive maintenance messages in your close relationships can have a number of payoffs. Spouses who were more committed to their relationships also used maintenanc e behaviors more frequently (Stafford et al., 2000). It certainly seems that Sidney and Jaime have a close, committed, and satisfying marriage, in large part because they treat each othe r with respect and kindness by virtue of the above seven positive maintenance behaviors. I n addition, using assurances is most strongly related to positive relationship characteristics (Stafford et al., 2000). In both heterosexual and same- sex romantic relationships, the most frequently used relationship maintenance behavior is sharing tasks (Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Haas, 2002). Positive maintenance behaviors thus help both partners preserve a satisfying relationship.

Negative Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

Though it is preferable to focus on the positive behaviors that we can use to maintain our r elationships, sometimes partners use negative behaviors. For example, expressing jealousy or engaging in avoidance can be used to retain a specific relationship status. Marianne Dain ton and Jamie Gross (2008) explored such behaviors and identified six negative, antisocial behaviors that can be used to maintain romantic relationships:

• jealousy induction: flirting with and commenting on others’ attractiveness to elicit the part ner’s jealousy

• avoidance: sidestepping discussions about a specific topic or evading the partner • spying: checking up on the partner by looking at the partner’s e-

mails and phone or talking to others for information • infidelity: flirting with others and engaging in affairs to keep from being bored and dissatisf

ied with the relationship • destructive conflict: being controlling, starting fights, and bossing the partner around • allowing control: giving the partner control in the relationship by not seeing other people a

nd letting the partner make decisions Think back to the example of Sidney and Jaime. Consider what their relationship might look like if they used negative maintenance behaviors instead of positive ones. For example, inst ead of being kind and respectful in their everyday interactions and when they are arguing, Sidney instead seeks to control and manipulate Jaime by threatening him and saying negati ve things about him to their children (destructive conflict). Sidney also accesses Jaime’s e- mail and mobile phone to see who else he is talking to and what they are discussing (spying ). To keep the peace and keep their marriage and family intact, Jaime tries to avoid Sidney a nd lets her make most major household decisions (avoidance and allowing control). In esse nce, Sidney and Jaime are maintaining their marriage with these negative maintenance beh aviors but are doing so in a much more destructive manner.

Overall, as you might predict, communicating via negative relationship maintenance is relat ed to decreased liking, commitment, sharing of responsibility, and respect, and such behavi ors tend to be used more by individuals who are insecure and have negative views of thems elves (Goodboy & Bolkan, 2011; Goodboy, Myers, & Members of Investigating Communicati on, 2010). In addition, the more partners use these negative relationship maintenance beha viors, the less satisfied they are with their relationships (Dainton & Gross, 2008). In the cas

e of Sidney and Jaime, if they rely on negative relationship maintenance behaviors, they are likely to view each other, as well as themselves, with dislike and disrespect and be dissatisfi ed with the very marriage they are trying to preserve. Thus, it is advisable to avoid consiste ntly using these negative messages to maintain your close relationships; instead, try to inte grate more positive maintenance messages with those to whom you are closest.

8.2 How Communication Helps Support Commitment and Intimacy

In addition to relationship maintenance, commitment and intimacy are two essential factor s for building and fostering interpersonal relationships (Lang et al., 2003). Communication is important because it allows partners to express how they feel about each other and the r elationship that they share. This section thus discusses how communication supports com mitment and intimacy.

Commitment

If you are committed to a relationship, you are dedicated to your partner and are unlikely t o leave if something goes awry. In other words, commitment is one’s “long- term orientation toward a relationship, including feelings of psychological attachment and i ntentions to persist through good and bad times” (Cox, Wexler, Rusbult, & Gaines, 1997, p. 80). Partners in a committed relationship make the extra effort to work at and improve thei r relationships, and, in turn, this increased commitment benefits the relationship because it is associated with increased relationship quality (Byers, Shue, & Marshall, 2004). However, if you are not committed to a relationship, you are unlikely to protect it if difficult ies arise. For example, romantic partners who are more committed to the relationship are l ess likely to give each other the silent treatment and are more likely to admit they are upset (Wright & Roloff, 2009), which can then initiate discussions about an upsetting issue. In th e next sections, we explore commitment in two different forms: first as a central componen t of a theory about relationship maintenance, and second as a motivating force for how one communicatively responds to dissatisfaction in one’s interpersonal relationships.

The Investment Model

One of the primary theories used to understand how and why individuals remain in and wo rk to maintain close relationships is the investment model (Dindia, 2000). The investment model predicts that our commitment to a relationship is the most helpful relationship chara cteristic for determining if a relationship will continue and remain stable or deteriorate an d end (Rusbult, 1980). Specifically, Caryl Rusbult (1980) stated that relationship commitme nt is enhanced by three relationship components:

• high relationship satisfaction, which involves positive emotion and attraction toward the re lationship

• high investment in the relationship, which involves tangible and intangible resources such a s children, property, or shared feelings and experiences that improve the relationship

• low quality of relationship alternatives, which are options other than the relationship, such as other partners, spending time with friends, and even being alone, that could be viewed a s more appealing than being in the relationship

Research has determined that the structure of the investment model can help explain elem ents of heterosexual and homosexual romances and friendships; it is also applicable in othe r situations and contexts where commitment is relevant— such as professional organizations and educational settings (Le & Agnew, 2003).

Think again about the example scenarios for Sidney and Jaime. In one scenario, the couple i s maintaining their relationship with positive messages such as sharing tasks and assuranc es. As we noted, communicating using these positive relationship maintenance behaviors h elps Sidney and Jaime feel more satisfied and committed to their marriage. According to the investment model, the more satisfied and invested Sidney and Jaime are in their relationsh ip and the fewer quality alternatives to their relationship they perceive, the more committe d they are to their relationship.

The investment model has also been a useful theoretical structure for understanding a vari ety of interpersonal communication situations and contexts. The model has helped researc hers identify connections between commitment and predicting the continuation of differen t types of relationships in the following situations:

• why dating partners forgive each other and communicate shortly after committing relation ship transgressions such as infidelity, deception, and dating or flirting with someone else ( Guerrero & Bachman, 2008, 2010)

• how friends communicate with one another (Eyal & Dailey, 2012) • if supervisors use verbal aggression toward employees at work (Madlock & Dillow, 2012)

In the relationships that are important to you, you can apply the tenets of the investment m odel by considering your levels of satisfaction and investment and the extent to which you perceive that you have alternatives to the relationship. How does each of these contribute t o your overall commitment to the relationship? Could focusing on improving one specific re lationship factor—such as becoming more invested in the relationship— increase your commitment? What might this mean for the relationship and your communic ation with your partner? (The Web Field Trip feature gives you a chance to put the investme nt model into practice.)

Web Field Trip

Communicative Responses to Dissatisfaction

Rusbult and her colleagues (1982) next sought to examine how relationship commitment c onnects with communication when a partner is unhappy or dissatisfied in the relationship. They created a typology of four responses that is based on how partners communicated the ir dissatisfaction. The responses varied on two sets of related factors: (1) positive versus ne gative (i.e., how kind or constructive versus how hurtful or destructive one acts), and (2) ac tive versus passive (i.e., how direct or dynamic versus how avoidant or static one’s behavio rs are). Each of the typologies is identified and explained in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Responses to relationship dissatisfaction

Typology Active versus passive Positive versus negative Examples

Exit Active Negative Breaking up, threatening to leave, or moving out

Voice Active Positive Discussing issues, suggesting solutions, or entering into therapy

Loyalty Passive Positive Being patient and waiting out problems that might arise

Neglect Passive Negative Ignoring the partner, refusing to discuss issues, or spending less time together Source: Adapted from Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissa

tisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230–1242.

Based on the above descriptions, Rusbult and her colleagues (1982) found that voice and lo yalty behaviors were more likely when romantic partners were more committed to each ot her and had greater satisfaction with the relationship before the problems arose. Conversel y, exit and neglect were less likely in committed and satisfied romantic relationships, and ex pressing dissatisfaction via voice or loyalty also resulted in positive immediate and later co nsequences, including greater satisfaction and commitment over the long term (Rusbult et al., 1982). In addition, Farrell and Rusbult (1992) found that using voice and loyalty— and not using exit or neglect— when expressing dissatisfaction in the workplace was also associated with higher employe e job satisfaction. These studies indicate that using positive and active responses, specifically voice responses , are the best course of action when partners are dealing with issues but want to preserve t heir relationship. Whether active or passive in nature, positive messages are more direct an d show consideration. Though loyalty behaviors can have the same benefits, such actions m ight go unnoticed because they are less direct and thus more difficult for a partner to detect (Drigotas, Whitney, & Rusbult, 1995).

Intimacy

Relationships rarely remain static. One important change can be growth toward greater inti macy. The root meaning of the word intimacy is “making known to a close friend what is inn ermost” (Kasulis, 2002, p. 24). Intimacy involves growing closer by verbally and nonverball y sharing your deepest thoughts, feelings, and ideas with another person. All relationships —romantic, friend, family, and even professional— have the potential for intimacy. Social psychologist Karen Prager (2000) even goes so far as to say that intimacy is “the distinguishing mark of a person’s most important and valued re lationships,” contributing to the greatest levels of satisfaction, trust, closeness, and love (p. 229).

Comstock Images/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

In an interpersonal relationship, intimacy can grow over time as partners begin to share m ore about their innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives.

As its definition suggests, communication is inherent in intimacy; in fact, Prager (2000) arg ues that intimate relationships become so as a result of intimate interactions that are chara cterized by frequent, emotional, personal, and private disclosures. Though we can have an i ntimate conversation with someone whom we do not know well, such as sharing personal i nformation with a seatmate on an airplane or someone we meet on vacation, we cannot hav e intimate relationships without personal and private disclosures (Prager, 2000). In other words, intimate communication is a necessary condition for having an intimate relationshi p.

What messages do you use when you want to convey intimacy to your close relational part ners? Most likely, you use a combination of words, gestures, facial expressions, and touch. I ndeed, research consistently finds that verbal and nonverbal communication each uniquely contributes to our experiences in intimate relationships. Self- disclosure, an idea covered in Chapter 7, is the primary verbal message that characterizes i ntimacy. Not only does disclosing private and personal information about you foster intima cy, it also serves as a tool for building intimacy in newly formed relationships (Prager, 2000 ). Self-disclosure can particularly amplify partners’ intimacy when it

• focuses on topics that are particularly personal and private; • uncovers feelings, emotions, and meanings of events, in addition to the events themselves;

• involves immediacy behaviors that show that both partners are attentive to and focusing u pon the interaction; and

• is met with verbal responsiveness and interest from the listener (Prager, 2000). Nonverbal communication is also important for building and sustaining intimacy. Prager (2 000) points out that involvement behaviors, which show that you are attentive, interested, and active in the conversation, are important when showing intimacy. Examples of specific nonverbal involvement behaviors that convey intimacy include

• sharing mutual eye gaze; • having open body posture; • leaning forward toward your partner; • gesturing; • smiling and being facially animated; • nodding your head while speaking and listening; and • touching your partner, particularly on the face or the torso area of the body (Prager, 1995).

In the sections we have just concluded, we illustrated the importance of interpersonal com munication in commitment and intimacy processes. Quite simply, we cannot experience int imate, committed relationships without engaging in personal disclosures and close, involve d nonverbal behaviors. We turn now to the role of empathy and social support in maintaini ng interpersonal relationships.

8.3 Empathy and Social Support

The next two important relationship characteristics that contribute to relationship mainten ance are empathy and social support. As you will see, these two concepts are considered to gether in this section because both emphasize the importance of taking your partner’s pers pective instead of focusing solely on your own. Empathy and social support also highlight t he importance of assisting and understanding each partner and his or her respective needs in the relationship. Each can help in creating shared meaning and in contributing to you bei ng a more active and effective listener.

Empathy

If you have access to your feelings and understand them, you can develop the ability to und erstand and be sensitive to the feelings of others as well. This sensitivity can bring you clos er to people and enable you to feel empathy for them. Empathy is defined as putting yourse lf in another person’s shoes or imagining another person’s thoughts, feelings, and perspecti ves. When you feel empathy for another person, you identify with him or her and accuratel y understand his or her thoughts and feelings (Rogers, 1957). Empathy is different from sympathy, where you convey sorrow for what a person is going t hrough without identifying with or relating to what the person is dealing with. In other wor ds, sympathy means that you feel for the other person, but you do not necessarily know wh at they are experiencing. To be empathic, you must take the other person’s perspective and consider his or her thoughts and feelings. When someone shares their feelings with you, try to recall experiences you have had that have generated similar feelings for you. Your identi fication of a similar feeling or experience in yourself can help you understand others. In tur

n, this can help you and your conversation partner better achieve shared meaning, even wh en you are not drawing from the same experience. For example, suppose your friend Jake tells you that he is terrified of flying in an airplane. If you love to fly, you may have a difficult time understanding why Jake feels fear on a plane. I t is important here not to devalue or judge Jake’s experience. Instead, try to recognize it an d identify a similar experience of yours that will allow you to better understand and talk wi th Jake about how he feels. Specifically, think of an experience that terrified you— for example, when you saw a rattlesnake in front of you while walking on a trail. Think abo ut the fear you had then, and you will be able to better understand the feeling Jake experien ces when on an airplane and empathize with him when discussing it. However, do not focus too much on your own experience, as this could take away from your ability to empathize with your friend.

Expressing Empathy

One of the primary benefits of relational partners sharing their thoughts and feelings with e ach other is that doing so helps each partner understand the emotions of the other person. I t is for this reason that researchers call empathy “a central and crucial” component of healt hy romantic couple functioning (Busby & Gardner, 2008, p. 232). Dean Busby and Brandt G ardner (2008) found that expressing empathy positively influenced couples’ relationship sa tisfaction one year later— evidence of the power that empathy can have in sustaining close relationships.

Empathy is clearly an important quality to have in interpersonal communication with other s. Being empathic also helps one view the world in a more balanced and objective way. The re are many different ways to express empathy in close relationships. Generally, communic ation that is helpful and supportive of others can be considered empathic. Here are some sp ecific guidelines that will help you be a more empathic communicator (Orban, 2001):

• Be an active listener— one who listens long enough to form a perspective before asking questions or responding with your reaction.

• Attend to the interaction and use supportive and engaged body language. • Show the other communicator that you are sensitive to his or her feelings. • Put yourself in the place of the other communicator to see how you would feel in a similar s

ituation. • Ask questions—

ones that are relevant to the situation and that attempt to clarify your view of the situation. • Once you have identified the other communicator’s feelings, reply in a way that is consisten

t with his or her emotions. • Indicate that you are willing to assist or help, if doing so is appropriate. • If you disagree with the other communicator, be honest and express your different opinion

while also acknowledging the person’s right to feel the way that he or she does. Another specific way to communicate more empathically is to engage in active- empathic listening (AEL), which occurs when a listener is genuinely focused and emotional ly involved in a particular interaction and when this “involvement is conscious on the part

of the listener but is also perceived by the speaker” (Bodie, 2011, p. 278). When AEL is bein g properly employed, both communicators recognize that the listener is being actively emp athic during their conversation. According to Graham Bodie (2011), and further described by Weger (2018), AEL has three stages:

• Sensing: The listener indicates that she is actively involved and taking in the information pr ovided by the speaker. Focusing on the speaker’s nonverbal messages can assist with under standing the content and relational meanings of the message.

• Processing: The listener shows engagement by remembering what the other says and clarif ying points made by the speaker. In essence, the speaker’s message is evaluated by the liste ner.

• Response: The listener asks questions, paraphrases, and nonverbally indicates involvement in and understanding of the interaction. According to one study (Weger, 2018), in the college classroom, greater AEL on the part of t he instructor—as perceived by their students— was positively related to perceived nonverbal immediacy of the instructor and negatively li nked to a higher number of uncivil communication behaviors from students, such as texting , leaving class early, reading nonclass material, and even being disruptive by talking loudly or swearing. Thus, listening empathically can be a modeling behavior that sets a tone for th e interpersonal communication in a classroom setting to be one of courtesy and respect (W eger, 2018). In this way, AEL can be linked with the competent interpersonal communicatio n principle of respecting others as well as oneself. Take the Self- Test in the following feature to determine how active- empathic a listener you are in your conversations with your relational partners.

Self-Assessment Bodie's Active-Empathic Listening Scale

Indicate how frequently you perceive each of the following statements to be true of you using a seven-point scale, where 1 indicates never or almost never true of me, 4 indicates occasionally true, and 7 indicates always or almost always true. There are a total of 11 statements for you to review.

1. I am sensitive to what others are not saying.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true 2. I assure others that I am receptive to their ideas.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true 3. I assure others that I will remember what they say.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true 4. I am aware of what others imply but do not say.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true 5. I assure others that I am listening by using verbal acknowledgments.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true 6. I summarize points of agreement and disagreement when appropriate.

1 never or almost never true of me

2

3

4 occasionally true

5

6

7 always or almost always true

Types of Social Support

John Warburton-Lee/AWL Images/Getty Images

A desire for social support is a fundamental reason that we communicate with one another. We turn to others for information, comfort, and guidance when we encounter difficult or p ainful situations.

When you are upset or have had something bad happen to you, one of your first instincts is likely to reach out to others. When talking to those around you about your thoughts and fee lings in response to a painful situation, you hope that they will listen, validate you, offer you a shoulder to cry on, and even be willing to help out or assist in some way. These behaviors are all examples of social support, which most communication scholars recognize as a fund amental reason why we communicate with one another— one that is as important as sharing information, forming relationships, and persuading othe rs (Albrecht & Goldsmith, 2003). Specifically, social support occurs when people who are co

nfronting daily problems or major life stresses turn to others in their social network who c an “provide information, comfort, perspective, and aid” (Goldsmith, 2004, p. 11); this act of social support then bolsters one’s ability to effectively cope and respond to the situation. W e cope when we are able to manage stressful situations by changing what can be changed th rough problem solving and by adapting and adjusting to what we cannot change (du Pré, 2 009). Communication researchers have been instrumental in advancing scholarly understanding of social support. These scholars have identified the different types of social support that p eople can use. Athena du Pré (2009) examined this social support research and identified t wo broad categories of social support, each with its own individual social support types. W e will explain each by using an example of a situation where social support is extremely im portant in a close relationship: a husband named JaBari providing support to his wife Emm a, who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. The first category is action- facilitating support, which involves support that is tangible and problem solving in nature. Action- facilitating support includes two specific types of support. The first is instrumental support, in which support is provided by performing tasks and favors for the person in need. Infor mational support, on the other hand, entails collecting and organizing information. In our example, JaBari provides instrumental support to Emma when he runs errands such as picking up her prescriptions from the pharmacy. He offers informational support when h e writes down information during Emma’s medical appointments and researches her diagn osis and treatment options on the Internet. Terrance Albrecht and Daena Goldsmith (2003) point out that action- facilitating support is most helpful in particularly serious and stressful situations such as a major health crisis like JaBari and Emma’s. In minor or less severe social support situations , such as simply having a bad day, using these types of social support could actually be view ed as criticizing or intrusive in nature.

According to du Pré (2009), the second broad social support category is nurturing support, which focuses on helping the person in need to cope and feel better emotionally. There are three types of nurturing support:

1. Esteem support, in which the individual in need is made to feel competent and valued. Este em support includes offering encouraging words and supportively listening, which many w ho need support find to be more valuable than being given advice. When JaBari tells Emma that she is strong and will get through this, and also tells her that he is there to listen when she simply wants to talk, he is providing her with esteem support. In fact, messages of prais e and expressions of love and concern when offering esteem support can have a beneficial i mpact on the person in need’s self-esteem. (Holmstrom, 2012)

2. Emotional support involves acknowledging and understanding what the person in need is f eeling and providing care, empathy, trust, and love. Emma is seeking emotional support fro m JaBari when she tells him how she feels, and he listens and tells her that those feelings ar e OK.

3. Social network support refers to ongoing relationships that are maintained before, during, and after a crisis. JaBari can provide social network support by staying with Emma as she b attles her cancer. He can also ask others—their family and friends— to assist them, or he can accept their offers to help.

These types of nurturing support, especially emotional support, are viewed as helpful and v aluable across many different social support situations, from minor to extremely severe (Al brecht & Goldsmith, 2003).

How do we actually employ these various types of social support? Albrecht and Goldsmith ( 2003) offer five forms of supportive communication that can be helpful in a variety of social support situations:

• Assist the person in need to gain perspective about the situation, particularly if it is beyond the person’s control.

• Enhance the person in need’s skills or training relevant to the stressful situation. • Promote actions or behaviors that provide tangible assistance without the person in need f

eeling an excess obligation to reciprocate in the future. • Offer the person in need the option to engage in private disclosures or to vent their pent-

up emotions and thoughts. • Offer accepting and reassuring messages for the person in need’s sense of dignity, face, and

self-worth. One other important caution regarding how and when we provide social support to others i s to remember that more is not always better; du Pré (2009) cautions against engaging in o versupport, in which excessive, unwanted, and unnecessary help is provided, including offe ring unsolicited advice, providing too much information, and empathizing too much with th e person in need. Instances of oversupport can overwhelm the person in need and make th e person feel exhausted and overly dependent on others.

Social Support and Health

Not only can social support help someone feel better emotionally and psychologically, this f orm of communication also benefits physical health and well- being. As we discussed in Chapter 1, many different forms of communication can be linked t o improved health, and social support is one of the most significant of these beneficial facto rs. Research has found that receiving support from others can be an important factor in the improved functioning of three of our physiological systems: (1) the cardiovascular system, which includes heart functioning and blood and lymphatic circulation; (2) the immune syst em, which buffers our bodies against the effects of diseases and illnesses; and (3) the endoc rine system, which consists of the glands that secrete hormones such as adrenaline and nor epinephrine into the bloodstream and that control our stress reactions and metabolism. So cial support also improves our ability to recover from an illness, cope with and adapt to a c hronic illness, remain healthy, and reduce our mortality (DiMatteo, 2004). For example, in one study, when husbands received more social support from their wives after having coro nary artery bypass surgery, they needed less pain medicine, were discharged more quickly from the intensive care unit, and returned home from the hospital sooner than husbands re ceiving less spousal social support (Kulik & Mahler, 1989).

Albrecht and Goldsmith (2003) suggest a number of ways in which social support and phys ical health can be linked:

• Receiving social support encourages the person to more adaptively and usefully cope with stress.

• Social support from others can improve the health behaviors of the person in need; in esse nce, the individual is encouraged to live healthier by eating better, exercising more, or follo wing their doctor’s treatment regimen.

• Receiving social support helps the individual feel better psychologically, contributing to the person’s self-esteem and positive view of life.

• Social support can give the individual hope for the future and a deeper sense of life purpose . Returning to the example of JaBari and Emma and her breast cancer diagnosis, if Emma kno ws that she can rely on JaBari and their family and friends, she can focus on getting well an d following through with her treatment rather than on being stressed and feeling unable to cope with her cancer diagnosis. Knowing that others are there for her and that she can dep end on them can also make Emma feel good about herself, which can then make her even m ore determined to beat her cancer. Social support can be thought of as a protective net that catches and holds the person in need, allowing the individual a safe place to heal or cope. B eing there for someone you care about can therefore assist in maintaining your relationshi p with the person and can also contribute to the person’s improved psychological and physi cal health.

8.4 Challenges of Relationship Maintenance

Thus far in this chapter we have focused on the many things that we can do to maintain our relationships. We have discussed the importance of relationship maintenance and consider ed how using positive relationship maintenance behaviors— intimacy, commitment, empathy, and support— can benefit ourselves and others in all types of relationships. Now we consider some situati ons where preserving the relationship can be difficult. These situations— which include having an inequitable relationship and navigating a relationship via mediate d channels or over a geographic distance— are important to understand and manage so that the relationship does not deteriorate or e nd entirely. We thus consider each with regard to relationship maintenance.

Restoring Equity

One of the most basic things we want out of our interpersonal relationships is to feel rewar ded. We seek to benefit from our relationships, and our partners also seek rewards in retur n. The forms of these rewards can be tangible, such as money, jewelry, and material wealth, or intangible, such as feelings of love, understanding, security, and joy.

Though the idea of rewarding relationships sounds simple and logical, relationship scholar s initially had difficulty formally explaining the role of these tangible and intangible reward s in forming and maintaining relationships. Social exchange theory was therefore proposed by Harold Kelley and John Thibaut (1978) as a way to extend the economic notion of rewar

ds versus costs to our relationships with others. According to the theory, we seek to maxim ize our rewards and minimize our costs in our relationships. Initially, social exchange theor y was hailed as an intuitive, simple explanation for what we seek to get out of relationships. Over time, however, the theory proved difficult to test. For example, what one couple migh t consider a reward (e.g., “Money is helpful to us because we agree that we can use it to put a down payment on a house”), another could see as a cost (e.g., “We can’t agree on money is sues, and it is causing us a great deal of conflict”). In addition, those who seemingly receive very few rewards and are shouldering great relational costs (e.g., those who are being physi cally abused by their partners) do not always leave the relationship, as the theory predicts t hey would.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

Equity exists in a relationship when both partners feel they are putting in and obtaining si milar levels of relationship rewards. If an imbalance exists, one way to restore equity in a r elationship is to change one’s behaviors.

Elaine Hatfield and her colleagues (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985) prop osed equity theory as a way to reconsider the concept of a relationship reward. Equity theo ry considers relationship rewards in relation to fairness, providing an alternative to social e xchange theory. Equity theory formally asserts that relational partners attempt to balance t he amount of rewards they each receive with the amount received by the other partner in o rder to maintain equity within the relationship. In other words, equity exists when both par

tners subjectively believe that they are putting in and obtaining equal or similar levels of re lationship rewards. When inequity arises in a relationship, there is a discernible imbalance for one or both partners that can take one of two forms: being underbenefited, gaining fewe r rewards than one’s partner, and being overbenefited, obtaining more rewards than one’s partner. We might see many different inequities in our relationships. For example, maybe your pare nts allowed your brother to do something that you weren’t allowed to do, or perhaps your f riend consistently shares less about themselves than you do about yourself. Even the differ ence in annual salaries between a husband and wife is an example of inequity in a relations hip. When inequity is detected, it is often an upsetting experience for both partners. Underb enefited individuals feel unhappy, hurt, angry, and resentful toward their partners, are less satisfied in their relationships, and are less likely to like their partners. Overbenefited partn ers experience guilt, believe that they do not deserve these rewards, and, despite receiving the most out of the relationship, feel less satisfied and content than those in equitable relati onships. It is thus no surprise that inequitable relationships are more likely to end. In contr ast, individuals in equitable relationships feel emotionally rewarded and are relationally sa tisfied.

One way to restore equity is to change behavior— either your own or your partner’s. A study by Catherine Westerman, Hee Sun Park, and Hye Eun Lee (2007) found that individuals in inequitable coworker relationships dealt with the ir inequity in this manner. Westerman and her colleagues noted that their findings fit the p attern that underbenefited individuals would feel disadvantaged and thus seek change, and overbenefited people would feel the need to change how they acted because they felt as if t hey were taking advantage of their partners. Specifically, the study revealed that underben efited coworkers were more likely to ask their overbenefited partners to act differently, wh ile the overbenefited coworkers responded to the inequity by changing their own behavior s (Westerman et al., 2007).

Though it seems somewhat cold and businesslike, we do have a tendency to evaluate our cl ose relationships in terms of having equitable rewards and costs with our partner. You enc ounter a significant challenge when you find yourself in a relationship where you are consis tently overbenefited or underbenefited. However, you might be able to restore the equity in the relationship by changing how you engage in relationship maintenance or by changing t he behaviors and communication messages—both yours and your partner’s— that are primarily responsible for the imbalance.

Distance

We first discussed geographic distance in Chapter 1, where we described long- distance relationships (LDRs) as having a unique set of communication patterns and challe nges. We return to distance here because it is specifically relevant to how we maintain our close relationships. Long- distance relationships are a common experience today, with commuter marriages; geograp hically separated romantic, family, and friend relationships; and military deployments cont ributing to this growth (Merolla, 2010a). Those in LDRs must adjust how they maintain thei

r relationships and communicate intimacy and satisfaction to one another to account for th e miles between them. However, rather than giving up, LDR partners often show extra moti vation to make up for the distance between them by communicating in specific ways, such a s scheduling specific times to talk to and visit one another, making a point to engage in inti mate and positive conversations, and using multiple forms of social media and technologies such as texting and video chatting (Jiang & Hancock, 2013).

Blend Images/Ariel Skelley/Vetta/Getty Images

Relationship maintenance might be more complicated overall for partners in long- distance relationships, but the quality of such relationships is more similar to geographicall y-close relationships than different.

Though the common belief is that individuals in LDRs have lower relationship quality than those in geographically- close relationships, research has found this is actually not the case. A 2010 review of resear ch by Laura Stafford, a communication scholar who specializes in distance and relationship maintenance, determined that the relationships of distant romantic partners are as trusting , satisfying, and stable as those of romantic partners who are in close proximity to each oth er. There were also no differences in relationship satisfaction and closeness between distan t and close college- age friends (Johnson, 2001). In fact, in one study, LDR partners were in longer romantic rel ationships, had more intimate interactions, and reported greater commitment to each othe r than did geographically-close partners (Jiang & Hancock, 2013).

When distance relationships were compared with geographically- close relationships, there were no significant differences for the openness, positivity, and as surances relationship maintenance behaviors (Johnson, 2001). However, there were certai n distinctions related to other maintenance behaviors between geographically- distant and close relationships:

• Long- distance romantic partners in ongoing, unresolved conflicts engaged in more constructive a nd direct conflict strategies (e.g., calm discussions) and avoided the conflict more than geog raphically-close partners (Cionea, Wilson Mumpower, & Bassick, 2019).

• Geographically- close friends used the social network and joint activities behaviors more, whereas distant fr iends relied more on sending cards and letters and calling to maintain their relationships (J ohnson, 2001).

• Wives of deployed U.S. soldiers noted that their attempts to maintain their relationships we re often complicated by communication environments that were not private, preventing int imate conversation, and that placed restrictions and time limits on communications; they al so indicated they would prefer more frequent interactions (Merolla, 2010b).

• Partners in LDRs uniquely maintain their relationships by thinking about the previous time s they were geographically close and looking forward to the times that will be spent togeth er in the future (Merolla, 2010a). Together, the research on LDRs shows that relationship quality in such relationships is mor e similar than different to geographically- close partnerships. This conclusion goes against the prevailing belief about the difficulty of managing LDRs, suggesting they may not be as much of a challenge as is assumed. However , LDR partners do use a number of positive relational maintenance behaviors and messages that are different from those used by proximal partners, suggesting that people in both typ es of relationships work to maintain their relationships, but in different ways. Relationship maintenance overall may also be more complicated for distant partners, which could prese nt a challenge for some individuals in LDRs. But, if partners acknowledge the difficulty of di stance and strive to compensate for it, LDRs have as much a chance for success as geograph ically-close relationships.

Mediated Communication

Think about the interactions that you had today with your friends, family, and romantic par tner. How many were face-to- face? How many involved some form of mediated communication, such as a mobile phone o r the Internet? How many involved a combination of both? It is likely that mediated commu nication comprises at least half of your interactions on a given day. We now rely on many di fferent communication channels in our day-to- day conversations with those who are close to us. In fact, we frequently use mediated chan nels of communication such as cell phones and text messaging to communicate with roman tic partners, and when we wish to express affection to our romantic partners, we choose th ese channels most often (Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011). It is thus not sur

prising that mediated communication has become an instrumental tool for developing and maintaining relationships.

Interacting via mediated channels has many benefits: It is convenient, allowing us to comm unicate from almost anywhere and with almost anyone we wish; we can use it to keep in to uch and maintain relationships with friends and acquaintances from different periods of ou r lives or with those who live far away; and we can meet people whom we would otherwise never have met. However, despite these benefits, there are a number of challenges associat ed with maintaining relationships via mediated communication channels.

First, communicating via text messaging or e- mail can leave too much room for interpretation, causing miscommunication. Texting or e- mailing can also cause frustration because thoughts, feelings, and ideas cannot be fully expr essed through these channels, which have traditionally been mostly limited to written text or basic symbols. The upgrades in both of these technologies, though, now allow us to share photos, live and recorded videos, emojis, and gifs, which offer a wider form of expression a nd narrow the likelihood that miscommunication will occur and shared meaning will not be achieved.

Second, maintaining relationships by way of social networks such as Facebook may contrib ute to stress, compromised health, and difficulty in adjusting to parenthood, though researc h on the topic is inconsistent. Almost 86% of Facebook users in one study reported experie ncing Facebook- induced stress (Campisi et al., 2012). In addition, the more new mothers checked their Face book accounts and managed what they uploaded and posted on their Facebook pages, the more stress they experienced about parenting (Bartholomew, Schoppe- Sullivan, Glassman, Dush, & Sullivan, 2012). However, a more large- scale study of public health data in California determined that individuals with Facebook ac counts were 12% less likely to die in any given year when compared to non- Facebook users (Hobbs, Burke, Christakis, & Fowler, 2016). The authors of this study noted that the online social networks seem to have the same link to our health that off- line social networks do, particularly for individuals with more online friends (Hobbs et al., 2016). It is possible that we may have initially been overwhelmed by the increasing numbe r of relationships we felt we must maintain due to the exponential growth of mediated com munication but have learned to better manage and integrate this channel into our lives.

Third, when we communicate via mediated channels, we are often creating a permanent re cord of our messages. Research has found that self- disclosure is an important part of online relationship maintenance (Craig & Wright, 2012). Yet, revealing private and personal information online can be risky because the disclosures could be shared with others or used against you. Self- disclosure online is also linked to increased predictability about that partner, which could b ecome boring for the other partner over time (Craig & Wright, 2012). Stepping away from mediated channels, however, can allow us to feel less overwhelmed with the constant abilit y to interact with and maintain relationships with others. Elizabeth Craig and Kevin Wright (2012) recommend that relational partners supplement their online interactions with face-

to- face communications to clarify misunderstandings and that they use other relationship mai ntenance behaviors. These are sensible suggestions that would be wise to use with all form s of mediated communication. Communicating via a mixture of online and off- line interactions is beneficial to maintaining close relationships.

8.5 Strategies for Communicating Competently When Maintaining Inter

personal Relationships

This chapter has shown the importance of behaviors in maintaining close, loving relationsh ips: We must consistently show our partners that we care about them through our behavio rs and our communication. We also can tell our partners that we care for them by being em pathic and offering them social support when they need it. If we do not maintain our relatio nships in the communicative ways described in this chapter, the relationship quality will un doubtedly suffer. We thus close this chapter by offering some specific strategies for improvi ng your relationship maintenance competence.

Strive to Engage in Positive Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

Research has shown that actions and messages that we may usually consider routine, even mundane, are important for preserving the relationships that are important to us. In additi on, communication competence is strongly related to using positive maintenance behaviors in your relationships (Hwang, 2011). Reflect on how you (and your partner) use maintena nce behaviors and messages in your close relationships, particularly the sharing tasks and offering assurances strategies. Try to use positive maintenance behaviors, which enhance r elationship satisfaction and liking, rather than negative maintenance behaviors, which can damage the very relationship that you are trying to preserve. Remember that assisting with even the smallest tasks and telling your partner that you care about him or her can go a lon g way!

Consider Your Relationships

We saw in this chapter that a number of relational characteristics can contribute to underst anding whether a relationship will succeed or fail. Now that you have a better grasp of the i mportance of intimacy, commitment, satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment in close relationships, use this knowledge to help determine why you communicate the way th at you do with your relational partners. Consider specifically how much (or how little) you experience these five relationship characteristics and how your levels may or may not corr espond with your partners’ levels. If you are experiencing reduced levels of one or more of these characteristics, think about how it might be improved. How might distance or the exc essive use of mediated communication be contributing to these reduced levels? How might you communicate differently to improve your relationship’s long- term outlook? How can your partner do the same?

Engage in Social Support, but Don’t Oversupport

Social support clearly has many positive implications, for relationships, for individuals, and for one’s health. It is also a fundamental reason why we communicate with others. But it is important to verify that someone needs or is seeking social support before offering it, even in less stressful or ordinary situations. Recall that providing too much support or the wron g type of support can make the situation worse and can cause the person in need to feel eve n more stressed and overwhelmed. It is always best to step back and evaluate the social su pport situation to see how you can best contribute. Consider the different types of social su pport discussed in this chapter, and try to tailor your support to the situation by offering on e or two types that seem as if they will be most beneficial. You might do this by asking the p erson in need or others close to the person what you can do to assist. Be empathic in order to understand the needs of the person you are trying to help.