as “a complex, situated social process in which people who have established a communicative relationship exchange messages in an effort to generate shared meanings and accomplish social goals” (p. 151). Burleson (2010) further explains that people form a communicative relationship when “the recipient recognizes the source’s intention to convey an internal state, and the source recognizes the recipient’s intention to interpret” (p. 152).

Burleson’s definition of interpersonal communication has several implications. First, Burleson’s definition is different than traditional definitions in that it does not limit interpersonal communication to that which occurs in a face-to-face relationship or a dyadic context where only two people are present. For example, interpersonal communication still occurs over e-mail and phone, and even the presence of other people does not halt interpersonal communication. Second, interpersonal communication is not always effective. In other words, communicators do not always have shared understanding about the intentions and interpretations of messages. This is what makes the study of interpersonal communication so fascinating. Interpersonal scholars are often interested in studying relationships, not because the communication is so good and harmonious but rather to gain an understanding of a problematic issue in a relationship. To learn more about these problems, scholars can focus their study on certain communication episodes such as conflicts, support messages, influence attempts, or expressions of affection. Third, to be in a communicative relationship does not require that one is in a close, intimate relationship. Interpersonal communication can include the study of public, short-term relationships where the interactants do not know each other well (e.g., a grocery clerk and a customer). However, interpersonal scholars have devoted extraordinary time to studying how people communicate in close, intimate relationships given that such relationships impact our well-being so deeply.

The goal of this chapter is to explore interpersonal communication scholarship in just one type of relationship—the development and maintenance of romantic relationships. Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists argue that humans have a fundamental need for social connection and are compelled to form romantic pair bonds (Fisher, 1992; Schmitt, 2008). The first part of the unit examines partner attributes and preferences that influence the kinds of people we seek out for romantic relationships, followed by an analysis of the communication that occurs in relationship development. Even though people are drawn toward romantic relationships and have high hopes for maintaining them, 50% of all first marriages end in divorce or separation within the first 20 years (Bramlett & Mosher, 2001; Kreider, 2005), and an even greater percentage of dating relationships dissolve. Divorce, or the dissolution of any romantic relationship, can be one of the most serious stressors a person will face in a lifetime, with the potential to strain one’s mental and physical health (Segrin & Flora, 2011). The latter part of the chapter considers how people communicate in an attempt to maintain their romantic relationships, with a focus on behaviors that promote relationship well-being.

Section 1: Relationship Initiation and Development

Jeanne Flora

Objectives

· Define interpersonal communication

· Examine individual and contextual factors that influence the initiation and development of romantic relationships.

· Explore how communication in romantic relationships changes as relationships develop.

Individual and contextual factors together influence ideas about romantic relationships and how to communicate in them. Individual factors include considerations such as a person’s romantic beliefs, age, and past relationship or family experiences. For example, teenagers tend to have more idealized views of romantic relationships (e.g., they are more likely to believe in love at first sight or that love can overcome all problems) as compared to adults over 20 (Knox, Schacht, & Zusman, 1999). As people get older, they also pay less attention to physical features in their choice of partners, such as whether the partner is “trendy” or “seductive,” and focus more on “communal characteristics” like sensitivity, intelligence, and conventionality (Wood & Brumbaugh, 2009). Further, the average age of people when they first marry has risen dramatically in the last several decades. In 1956, the average age at first marriage was 22.5 years for men and 20.1 years for women in the United States. Comparable averages in 2011 were 28.6 for men and 26.7 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). People are not delaying romantic relationships; they are just delaying getting married, with many opting instead to cohabit (i.e., live together) as a prelude to marriage or an alternative to marriage. Besides age, past relationship experiences influence readiness for a romantic relationship. When past romantic relationships have a sense of closure or people can see clear reasons why the relationship failed, they have an easier time entering a new relationship (Merolla, Weber, Myers, & Booth-Butterfield, 2004). Even past or present family relationships are influential because they often serve as a training school for how to interact in intimate relationships. For example, adolescents who have a “reliable alliance” with their parents are more likely to experience adult romantic relationships characterized by happiness, friendship, trust, and acceptance (Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman, & Klessinger, 2001).

Contextual factors refer to sociocultural forces that impact romantic relationships, for example: media and societal messages about romantic relationships as well as proximity to available partners. The media presents both explicit and implicit messages about how to conduct romantic relationships. For instance, nearly every issue of Cosmopolitan, and other magazines of the same genre, provides explicit advice on topics such as how to communicate better or how to have better sex. Films and television shows also present messages about romantic relationships, sometimes portraying romantic relationships with realism, but often depicting such relationships as “trivialized, sexualized, oversimplified, and stereotyped in order to offer audiences tantalizing, humorous, satirical, or short-term glimpses of dating life” (Segrin & Flora, 2005, p. 104). Although many people interpret dating reality shows as fictional comedies or fairytales, others, and in particular children, can be seduced by the implicit messages in such shows that emphasize superficial and sex-related qualities over important social-psychological qualities (Hestroni, 2000). Media messages, along with other family and societal messages and models, shape people’s views about romantic relationships. Relationship scholar Steven Duck argues that “we do not think about such cultural underpinnings of our own relationships . . . because they are hidden parts of the cultural ideology to which we all unwittingly subscribe” (1998, p. 5). What prompts us to consider our own relational ideology, besides taking a course like this, is meeting someone who has a different ideology than our own. For example, relational ideologies may differ regarding whether marriages should be arranged or initiated by individual choice, whether men and women have fluid or set gender roles, how to deal with conflict, whether having children is an expectation or not, or whether a good relationship rests on passion and emotional fulfillment and/ or the ability to support dependents and uphold religious and family tradition. Even dating partners who think they come from similar backgrounds often realize that they have critically different ideas about how to run a relationship, in part because no two people come from the same family system.

Arguably, the number one contextual factor that affects one’s ability to find a partner is proximity. In other words, if one is to develop a romantic relationship with a person, he or she must have the opportunity to come into contact with that person. In addition, the opportunity for repeated interactions (e.g., seeing a person regularly at work or in a class) allows one to size up a person over time. Through repeated exposure and interaction, one may even grow to view a person as a potential partner, even if one only viewed the person as a friend or colleague at first. My own grandparents grew up on farms in a small community in Ohio. My grandmother lived a few farms away from my grandfather growing up, which allowed them the physical proximity to meet each other and come into repeated contact. Today, people can access travel and technological advances that allow them to come into contact with many more people and even to maintain long-distance relationships. Indeed, a quarter to half of all university students’ dating relationships are estimated to be long-distance relationships (Cameron & Ross, 2007; Maguire, 2007). In addition, online dating sites make it possible for people to meet many more potential partners than in prior times. Around 25% of single people in the United States report using an online dating service (Miley, 2009). Online dating appears to be just as common if not more so among single people approaching middle age and old age. Traditional-age university students are already in close physical proximity to a lot of other single adults, but some middle and older adults, who have other life factors that limit their exposure to potential mates, might find appeal in an online service that can increase their proximity to others—even if it is only online proximity. Thus, it seems as if people have so many more choices of potential partners now as compared to past times. Yet, as we will explore in the next section, people often have very specific preferences that they desire in a partner, and they must be able to communicate with that partner in such a way as to develop a successful relationship. In other words, just being around a lot of people does not necessarily lead to a relationship. Sometimes the loneliest people are those who are around a lot of people but are not able to develop an emotional connection with any of them.

Partner Attributes and Matching

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), there were 112,806,642 people between the ages of 18–44 in the United States in 2010. This may seem like a lot of potential mates, but some are already taken; some are too old or young; some you will never meet; and some may not like you even if you like them! Plus, most people have some standards and preferences when it comes to partner attributes. This section explores what people say they prefer in a mate, keeping in mind that people do not always act on their preferences.

 can transform with time. Buss et al. found that over the course of their analysis people gradually devalued mate qualities such as chastity or a woman’s ability to cook and keep house. These qualities used to be very highly valued and still are by some, but it’s a shrinking number. Also, both men and women reported increased preferences for a physically attractive partner and a partner who has good financial prospects. Thus, looks matter more now than in the past as does a partner’s ability to make money—a noted change for women who were faced with a different set of expectations in prior times. It was not until 1967 that preferences for a mate with whom one shared (1) love and (2) mutual attraction entered as the top two mate preferences, and these two preferences have remained at the top of the list across more recent time periods (Buss et al.). Why is it that physical attractiveness has become an increasingly valued mate quality—and is that good? One reason might be that people simply come into contact, primarily through media, with so many more images of physically attractive people now as compared to the past. Perhaps this tricks the brain into thinking that there are so many more physically beautiful people available or exposes people to more images of a collective ideal that they could try to attain. For sure, the diet, fashion, cosmetic, and cosmetic surgery industries are happy to take people’s money in exchange for helping them attain this collective image. However, it is not as if physical appearance never mattered in the past. One of human beings’ best senses is their sense of sight. How someone looks is a primary means by which we recognize and distinguish people, as compared to dogs, for example, who recognize people by their smell. While there may be some merit to the adage that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” there is actually considerable consensus across individuals and, to some extent, across cultures about what makes for a physically attractive person (Segrin & Flora, 2011). Body and facial symmetry as well as indicators of good physical health and youthfulness appear to be universal qualities of physical attractiveness. These qualities are also noted by biologists for their connection to reproduction and survival (Kowner, 2001). Even though men do not bear children, the survival of children is boosted by men’s ability to contribute to their care and resources, which often depends on good health (unless one can trade other resources in exchange for good looks—like lots of money). Yet even if appearances may attract people’s attention, Riggio, Widaman, Tucker, and Salinas (1991) assert that attractiveness is a “multifaceted” concept. Beyond how someone looks in a still photo, dynamic expressions and communication abilities can make people become much more attractive over time in the eye of the beholder. Thus, if given the chance, an average-looking person with excellent relational and communication skills may have the edge after all when compared to a good-looking person who lacks such skills.

© Pand P Studio/Shutterstock.com

 (Trenholm & Jensen, 2013). It is flattering for people to learn that someone likes them—so much so that it may prompt them to consider a romantic relationship with that person even if they only ever considered the other a friend.

Partner Interactio n

How do partners communicate in romantic relationships? The following section describes work by scholars who have attempted to provide examples of communication that is typical at various stages in romantic relationship development. The relationship stages are useful for discussion, but it is imperative to understand that real-life relationships do not necessarily progress through linear stages. That is, people engage in relationships at different rates, skip stages, or even go backward. In real-life relationships, there can be upturns, downturns, stagnation, or even chaos in relationship commitment and communication. Events that spark an upturn in commitment in one relationship could trigger a downturn or chaos in another. Think, for example, about how people might respond differently to relational events like the following: a big fight, sharing with a partner that you are pregnant, sharing with a partner that you will be deployed or got accepted to graduate school. With these complicating factors in mind, following are relational stages and representative scripts, as originally described by Knapp (1978, 1984), along with additional descriptions of the behaviors common to each stage, as described by Welch and Rubin (2002).

Initiating Stage

Typically first, this stage is about catching another’s attention, presenting oneself as intriguing, and initiating communication. In this stage, communication is highly scripted. People use scripted lines for greeting and acknowledging people, such as “Hey” or “Good to meet you” or “Hi, I’m Alicia.” Flirting is a hallmark of this stage. Moore (1998, 2002) identified typical nonverbal behaviors—such as a glance, smile, touch, hair flip or toss, or a laugh—used to flirt and attract attention. The nonverbal behaviors often precede the verbal lines. Sometimes all it takes is looking at another person or hearing the first line out of his or her mouth to know that there is no potential for a relationship. But if the initiation sparks intrigue, then the avenue for interaction has been opened.

Experimenting Stage

A stage that commonly follows initiation is experimenting. This stage is about getting to know the other, often through self-disclosure. For many people, this occurs in gradual ways, as described by a common theory of relationship development: Altman and Taylor’s (1973) Social Penetration Theory. The theory uses the analogy of peeling an onion to describe how people self-disclose and get to know each other gradually, first by peeling off the outer layers and, not until later, penetrating the inner core. The experimenting stage is about getting to know the “outer layer.” It can be prompted by scripted small talk characterized by questions and statements about one’s interests, hobbies, and background. It sounds like: “Where are you from?” “Do you like to ski?” “I play volleyball.” “What is your major?” The questions are superficial at first. This small talk is important because it gives partners a chance to explore each other without risking the disclosure of significant information, especially when it is unclear how a partner will respond. Knapp explains that most relationships do not progress beyond this stage (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2005). Something in the process gives one or both persons pause, and the relationship settles at the status of friendship or dissipates to something less. Finding out that a person is not a potential romantic partner is highly informative. Before moving to the next stage, it is important to point out that in some cases people skip the experimenting stage at first. For example, they may become physically intimate and then later feel they want to get to know each other. However, the experimenting stage is critical for most couples and is characterized by a type of communication in which committed partners still engage as they realize that part of maintaining intimacy is staying updated on a partner’s likes, dislikes, feelings, and events of the day.

Intensifying Stage

Couples who respond positively to the experimenting begin to intensify their interactions. They do so by self-disclosing more personal information and values, expressing emotional and physical affection for one another, spending more time together, and expressing their own commitment and liking for one another. Romantic relationships are voluntary, and confirmation that the partner is similarly committed is important. The talk in this stage may sound like: “I’m really scared of. . . .”, “I’ve got some stress in my family now because of. . . .”, “My faith is really important to me because. . . .”, “I really like you”, “I think I love you, too.” The nonverbal behaviors include increased physical intimacy, more mutual gaze and postural matching, more forward lean, as well as more shared space and things. Some relationships halt at the intensifying stage for a variety of reasons. Perhaps all the increased closeness makes one realize that this is not the right partner for them or the time for a serious relationship. The increased closeness can lead to conflict.

Integrating Stage

Continued integration leads partners to think of themselves as a couple. They begin to refer to themselves as “we,” plan their schedules around each other, get invited to places together given others’ view them as a couple, and in some cases begin to fuse their interests, social networks, and even wear things (e.g., a gift) or display objects (e.g., pictures) that remind themselves and others of their relationships. Nonverbally, they express tie-signs (i.e., public behaviors, like holding hands, that display the relationship to others). Their physical intimacy also increases. But again, all the togetherness can lead to problems. Thus, this is also a time when partners often experience their first big fight. Solomon and Knobloch (2004) assert that the move from casual dating to serious involvement can be marked by relational turbulence. The turbulence results from relational uncertainties and relational interference (Solomon & Knobloch). Partners may question, “Is my partner as committed as I am to the relationship?” “Is my partner being faithful to me?” “Is this really the right person for me for the future?” Serious relationships also interfere with one’s independence, and partners may disagree about how to coordinate their schedules and plans, how to integrate friend and family networks, and whether their life goals are compatible in the future. Some couples draw closer as they deal with uncertainties and find a comfortable level of interdependence. Some never figure a way to commit their lives to one another even though they felt passionate about the partner for a period of time. In these negotiations, some partners learn how to argue constructively—a crucial ability for the future of the relationship. Others discover conflictive issues that will get in the way of a future relationship or, more importantly, discover that they or their partner lack the problem-solving and perspective-taking skills to deal with conflict effectively. Why should partners pay so much attention to how they deal with conflict in a dating relationship? Because it often predicts how they will deal with conflict if they proceed to marriage or a committed partnership (Segrin & Flora, 2011). What is unfortunate is that so many people proceed into marriage or have a child together in spite of serious relationship problems, relationship violence, and negative ways of dealing with conflict. The reality is that most of these problems do not get better with marriage or with having a baby together.

Bonding

The bonding stage is marked by the decision to publically formalize one’s union, perhaps through engagement, marriage, or a commitment ceremony. Most of these public ceremonies are culturally based and serve to garner social and legal support for the relationship as well as stand as a relational, moral, and legal contract between the partners. Bonded relationships are more difficult to exit but also more supported by social and legal networks. People progress into formal relationship commitments in different ways. Some date for a short time; some for years. Some enter with strong, realistic knowledge of their partner’s strengths and weaknesses; some enter with fairytale dreams. Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, and George (2001) model the different ways people progress into marriage. The disillusionment model explains that some people progress into marriage with unrealistically high expectations for a perfect relationship. After working to manage these impressions of a trouble-free relationship, partners soon become disillusioned with the work it takes to keep the relationship going. They then become dissatisfied with the marriage when the positive illusions are replaced with reality. An alternative to the disillusionment model is the enduring dynamics model. This model posits that other partners progress into marriage well aware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They carry the patterns of interaction, both good and bad ones, established during courtship into marriage. A third model, the emergent distress model, describes that some people enter into marriage fairly satisfied with the relationship, but negative interactions and destructive conflict behaviors begin to emerge and erode satisfaction.

This section defined interpersonal communication and explored processes of interpersonal communication in the context of developing romantic relationships. We began by addressing questions like “What do people say they are looking for in a mate?” “How do contextual factors influence processes of mate selection?” and “What makes for partner compatibility?” A primary focus of this section examined “How do people communicate in dating relationships?” Although no romantic relationship is the same, we reviewed common stages of romantic relationship development and communication that is characteristic of each stage. In the section to come, we move beyond romantic relationship initiation to explore how people communicate to maintain the relationships they have developed.

Unit 3 Section 1 Discussion Questions

How might the following factors influence a person’s readiness to be in a romantic relationship or success in a relationship?

How have individual preferences for mate qualities (e.g., physical attractiveness) changed or remained stable over time?

· romantic beliefs

· age

· past relationship or family experiences

· media and societal messages about romantic relationships

· proximity to available partners

Consider how communication and interaction may change depending on a couple’s relational stage: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding.