4330 Relational Theory Lecture

8/13/2019 4330 Relational Theory Lecture

1/12

COMM 4330, THEORIES OF IPC

RELATIONAL THEORY

I. DEFINITION OF DYADIC RELATIONSHIPS

A. In general, a dyadic interpersonal relationship can be defined as an association of two peoplein which the parties meet each other's interpersonal and social needs.

B. Functions as a complete unit; interdependent

C. Communication within such a relationship is transactional (each person influences and isinfluenced by the other; direct immediate feedbac!; dyadic effect occurs, etc."

#. $ach dyad is uni%ue and has its own culture rituals

$. #yads are the building bloc!s for other relationships (e.g. families"

II. GENERAL TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS(to be e&plored more later"

A. Friendships (range from casual ac%uaintances to close friends"

B. omantic relationships (crossse& and samese&"

C. Family, or primary relationships (those we grew up in, those we form later"

#. Functional (wor! or tas! related relationships with colleagues"

III. FUNCTIONS OF IP RELATIONSHIPS)hy do we form relationships*

A. )eiss notes that relationships pro+ide intimacy, social integration, nurturance, ressurance ofworth, assistance guidance.

B. Bennis, et al. describe functions-

. e&pression of feelings/. confirmation0. influence of change. creation1wor! (instrumental"

C. #e2ito notes the following four functions-

. to lessen loneliness/. to secure stimulation (see types of intimacy, abo+e"0. to gain self!nowledge selfesteem (recent research suggests that the better we feelabout oursel+es, the less li!ely we are to suffer a heart attac!". to ma&imi3e pleasure and minimi3e pain

IV. DIMENSIONS OF IP RELATIONSHIPS


2/12

A. Context-remember from the de+elopmental definition, a more intimate relationship will ha+e aminimum of stereotyping, increased selfdisclosure, more trust, and the de+elopment of uni%uerules

B. Timeduration plays a part, in that deeper relationships usually ta!e time to de+elop.4owe+er, not all long term relationships are +ery deep. 5ime also plays a part in so far as wechoose to be together.

C. Intimacy levelAltman and 5aylor's model of social penetration notes that the more intimatethe relationship, the more breadth and depth of selfdisclosure. 5hree types of intimacy in dyadicrelationships (no one dyad li!ely to pro+ide all three"-

. emotional

/. intellectual

0. physical (needn't be se&ual"

#. Relational dimensionsalso studied by Burgoon et al, who came up with / communicationaspects of relationships which they call 6the fundamental topoi of relational communication,6which they group into 4 basic, independent dimensions:

. emotional arousal, composure, formality

/. intimacy similarity

0. immediacy li!ing

. dominance1submission

V. STAGES OF IP RELATIONSHIPS

A. #e2ito's si&stage model (see Figure 7., p. /89, :th ed., #e2ito"

. Contact (perceptual interactional". Contact e&press a desire for contact (greetingmessages; e.g. 64i, my name is . . . 6 or 6)hat's a nice guy li!e you doing in a place li!ethis*6".

/. Involvement(testing intensifying". Closeness is e&pressed by a desire for increasedintimacy in+ol+ement (e.g. 6I'd li!e to see you more often6; 6I can really relate to whatyou're saying6- etc.". tabili3ing messages e&press a desire to stabili3e the relationship at aparticular stage (e.g. 6


3/12

or mo+e apart from a relationships (e.g. 6I need more space6; 6we need some time apart6;etc."

9. Repair (may or may not occur". epair e&presses a desire to fi& the problems in therelationship (e.g. 6we need to tal!6; 6I'm sorry6- 6can't we wor! things out*6 etc."

7. Dissolution(separation". #issolution e&presses a desire to brea! up (e.g. 6it's =ust notwor!ing out6; 6I thin! we should see others6- etc."

B. >napp and 2angelistielational tages of coming together coming apart (see ?al+in Cooper"

. Coming Togeter(establishment maintenance"9 stages (see ?al+in Cooper fore&amples of tal! at each stage"-

a. initiatingbrief ritualistic e&changes, phatic comm.

b. e&perimenting6auditioning6 persons; small tal!, gossip, superficial selfdisclosure, ideae&change, etc.

c. intensi!yingrelationship e&pands w1deeper selfdisclosure; less stereotypedinteractions; sharing feelings, etc.

d. integratingrelationship ta!es on an identity as a social unitsense of 6weness6; deep selfdisclosure, etc.

e. bondingnot all deep relationships reach this le+el; e&tension of integrationthrough public rituals of connection (e.g. marriage, partnership, friendship rings,

etc."

/. Coming "part(deterioration decay"; 9 stages-

a. di!!erentiating@reestablishment of 6I6; lst occurs during times of stress conflict (remember, conflict is ine+itable; can strengthen or further wea!en arelationship"; statements li!e 6I need to find myself6 or 6I need space.6 ?oodrelationships often mo+e bac! forth between differentiating integrating1bondingb. circumscribingrelationship becomes curtailed, both in time spent in amountof tal! (comm. decreases in %uantity %uality"; interest commitment decreases5$- many long term relationships ha+e periods li!e these, esp. dual incomecouples with children. roblem is when people continue to withdraw.

c. stagnating-If relationship not renewed, circumscribing leads to stagnationrelationship has no growth, feels 6stale6 and predictable. Can go on for years;needn't lead to ne&t stage if relationship is renewed periodically.

d. avoidingcreating distance (both psychological and physical"; can use e&cusesfor not getting together or tal!ing about issues; may remo+e self from scene; etc.


4/12

(e.g. )ar of the oses".

e. terminatingthe end of the relationship; parado&ically communication cansuddenly increase (in part because already made decision to lea+e what is thereto lose*"; can be %uic! or drawn out; can be formal or informal; can be mutual ornot. Cody found that the more intimate the relationship, the more the feeling ofobligation to =ustify terminating it (see also Dnit E for strategies ofdisengagement".

0. According to >napp, mo+ement through these stages is generally se%uential and systematic(we usually don't s!ip steps, though may go through them %uic!ly; not e+eryone would agree".o+ement can be forward or bac!ward, and steps can be repeated in new cycles. elationshipscan stabili3e indefinitely at any stage.

. o+ement through stages is usually rapid through areas where positi+e rewards ha+e beenachie+ed.

9. o+ement is also facilitated whene+er time is short (e.g. summer romances", pro&imity is high,certain situational factors (e.g. e&periencing a crisis together, doing =oint acti+ities, etc.", andusually during the early stages.

7. o+ement also is influenced by interpersonal needs and personalities.

:. o+ement in deterioration may be increased if one person +iolates a particularly sacred part ofthe co+enant (e.g. a betrayal of trust"this is esp. so when the offended person has ta!en a strongstand and issued warnings to the other, and there is no redress for the +iolation.

E. o+ement is also rapid when both parties agree the relationship has reached a 6turning point.6

C. ocial enetration 5heory

. ocial enetration theory in+ol+es the process of increasing intimacy in a relationshipthemore we !now, the more interpersonal our relationships become. Increased !nowledge leads toincreased penetration. >nowledge can be of three types-

a. Cultural (+alues, beliefs, language, attitudes, etc.", e.g. 6I'm an American li+ing in theidwest.6

b. ociological (roles, group norms, etc.", e.g. 6I am a student at DC.6

c. sychological (traits, feelings, personal beliefs and attitudes, etc.", e.g. 6I'm basicallyhappy with my life,6 or 6I'm an e&tro+erted person.6

/. ocial penetration mo+es from cultural to psychological interaction, whereas depenetrationmo+es from psychological to cultural. 5he Altman and 5aylor wheel e&plains this mo+ement.nly the psychological le+el of communication is considered to be interpersonal.0. 5he theory is related to #ocial $xcange teory, since as a relationship de+elops we not only


5/12

gauge the costs and rewards we ha+e now, we forecast future rewards as a way of deciding toincrease breadth and depth of communication (see below". Can also be connected as well toDncertainty eduction 5heory (D5", Berger Calabrese.

. 4 stages o! development !or arelationship-

a. rientation (sharing impersonal information"b. $&ploratory (beginning affecti+e e&change plus small tal!"c. Affecti+e e&change (more feelings"d. table e&change (highly intimate, +ery rewarding, permits ma&imum prediction"

9. "ltman-Taylor %eel. 5his model, by I. Altman and #. 5aylor, suggests that relationshipsde+elop incrementally, mo+ing from superficial le+els of disclosure to more personal le+els ofdisclosure.

a. ocial penetration means that the breadth and depth of communication increases as therelationship progresses.

b. #epenetration (also !nown as the re+ersal hypothesis" means that as relationshipsdeteriorate, generally the depth and breadth of communication decreases.c. Breadth- efers to the number of different topics a+ailable during interaction with theactual amount !nown as breadth fre%uence.d. #epth- efers to the le+el or depth of information discussed; how personal or intimateit is.

7. eople ha+e a basic orientation to selfdisclosing, but it also changes with differentrelationships at different times. 4 general orientations-

a. low breadth, low depth (e.g. the underdiscloser; the new relationship"

b. low breadth, high depth (e.g. the therapeutic relationship; close friends"c. high breadth, low depth (e.g. an ac%uaintance1casual friend relationship"d. high breadth, high depth (e.g. the o+erdiscloser; the intimate relationship"

#. ocial $&change 5heory (Costreward" and relational de+elopment.

. elational de+elopment is influenced by ocial $&change 5heory, or the rewards or costs in arelationship (see below for additional de+elopment of ocial $&change 5heory".

/. ewards refers to 6the pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications, the person en=oys. 5hepro+ision of a means whereby a dri+e is reduced or a need fulfilled constitutes a reward.6

0. Costs refer to 6any factors that operate to inhibit or deter a performance of se%uencingbeha+ior.6 5he greater the deterrents or inhibitions, the greater the costs (e.g. costs are highwhen great effort is re%uired, when the potential for embarrassment is high, when there areconflicting desires, when there are mental or physical punishments, etc.".

. In general, then, we de+elop relationships that enable us to ma&imi3e profits, from which wederi+e more rewards than costs.


6/12


7/12

way (either resol+e the dialectic in fa+or of one pole, or learn to li+e with the tension".

0. Contextual dialecticswhat is the place of the relationship in the society at large*

a. public e&pectations +ersus pri+ate elementsb. ideal notions about relationships +ersus reality

. Relational dialecticsin+ol+e tensions within the relationship.

a. autonomyconnectiontension between independence and connection." 5here may be a se& difference (men may be more li!ely to see! autonomy andwomen more li!ely to see! connection through relationships./" 5his can create communication difficulties between women and men (e.g. herattempts to emphasi3e with him may be construed as competition or control; see5annen".

b. noveltypredictabilitywe see! no+elty, but also li!e predictability and consistency.c. closednessopennesstension between desires to be e&clusi+e +s. e&pansi+e.

d. controle)ualitythe tension between attempts to ha+e power o+er +s. sharing power.

9. Also, remember the difference between complementary and symmetrical patterns ofcommunication. 5here also are additional dialectics depending on type of relationship (e.g.friendship"

VI. RELATIONAL ATTRACTIONwhy how we are drawn to others to formrelationships.A. e+eral factors influencing attraction-

. "ppearance.

a. Appearance is most important early in a relationship.b. ercei+ed attraction aids desirability as a potential partner.c. Attracti+e people are seen as more li!eable, trustworthy, competent, credible,intelligent, etc. (and tend to ha+e more success in life, as there is discriminationagainst those our culture considers plain or homely".

d. Appearance attracti+eness is culturally learned, and +aries o+er time.For e&ample, weight. In our culture, thin is considered attracti+e, esp. forwomen, and o+erweight is considered +ery unattracti+e (although studiesdiffer on what is considered o+erweight; usually men in the D.. are notattracted to women who are as thin as most models". 5his is not true insome cultures (e.g. in some $uropean and iddle $astern countries, menli!e plump women". or was it true a century or more in the past, whereobesity was a sign of wealth. $+en in midtwentieth century, women wereconsidered attracti+e at larger si3es (e.g. arilyn onroe ranged betweensi3e /7 (in today's si3ing, si3e G; e+en gi+en differences in si3esfrom then to now, she still was not a s!inny woman"; the a+erage si3e ofAmerican women today is a si3e (thirty years ago this was probably asi3e 7, and still is in the D.>.".


8/12

e. leasant personalities and grooming can ma!e us seem more attracti+ephysically.f. 5he importance of this factor decreases o+er time and with age.

*. +roximity.

a. )e are attracted to those with whom we interact most fre%uently.b. )e de+elop relationships with those with whom we are familiar, or see e+eryday (e.g. roommates, people who li+e ne&t to us, those we wor! with, etc.".c. 5here is some e+idence that =ust being e&posed to people increases ourattraction for them, as long as our initial encounters are positi+e or neutral(remember the primacy effect".d. As an e&ample, >napp disco+ered that persons in a residence hall were moreli!ely to become friends with those on the same floor rather than on differentfloors.

0. #imilarity

a. demographicsb. +alues and beliefsc. alance teorywe li!e people who li!e what we li!e (or whom we thin! li!ewhat we li!e", and disli!e those who don't. )e also don't want someone wedisli!e to li!e what we li!e, as it creates imbalance. )hen those we li!e, li!e thesame things we do, it pro+ides social +alidation and aids our predicti+e abilities(reduces uncertainty".d. te matcing ypotesispredicts that we will date and mate with people wepercei+e as similar to us in physical attracti+eness (though there are e&ceptions".

. Complementarity6opposites attract.6

a. )e often see! out those who are different from us in some ways, especially inways that we'd li!e to be. 5herefore, and intro+ert may be attracted to ane&tro+ert, a sensor to an intuiti+e, etc. )e might find people of different religionsor bac!grounds e&citing.b. If too different, may ha+e some difficulties ad=usting, but usually theserelationships are as solid as those formed on similarity factors.

9. Reciprocitywe li!e those who are reciprocal in their beha+iors (who share theburdens and commitments of the relationship".

7. Competencywe are attracted to successful persons (as long as not too competentH".

:. Rein!orcementwe are more attracted to those who reinforce us or reward us. )ealso tend to li!e those whom we reward.

B. "!!inity-seeing strategies

. 5hese are ways to increase our attracti+eness to others


9/12

/. ome ways to do so include being altruistic, appearing to be in control, presentingoneself as an e%ual, presenting oneself as rela&ed and confident, seeming to be warm andfriendly, etc.

0. eople who are high selfmonitors are more li!ely to use such strategies, as are thosewho indicate positi+e immediacy beha+iors (e.g. smiling, positi+e touching, eye contact,etc.".

VIII. RELATIONAL REPAIR & DISSOLUTION

A. #eterioration occurs when rewards are reduced and costs increase. )e often stay in badrelationships for a number of reasons, such as con+enience, children, fear, financial considerations,and =ust plain inertia. e+eral theories discuss dissolution, but the primary theories are fromte+e #uc!, the 6#issolution ap,6 and


10/12


11/12

/. ilateral. 5his type includes both indirect and direct strategies, such as

a. 0ading a/aybilateral situation in which both persons see less and less of eachother, and by this implicitly ac!nowledge that it's o+er.b. 1utual pseudo de-escalationboth agree to pretend to be 6friends6 to helpsa+e face and a+oid hurt. 5his is what I thought I was doing with my e&husband,but it turned out to be unilateral (he actually didn't mean for us to stop beinglo+ers, =ust to not be married".c. Fait accomplione partner ma!es a blunt, direct statement to the other that 6it'so+er.6 5he other may or may not agree, but there is usually no further discussion(this is what I finally did with my e&husband".d. #tate o! te relationsip tal(both parties dissect and analy3e the relationship,as a type of postmortem; can also be unilateral"e. "ttributional con!licta direct, bilateral fight in which each person blames theother for the problems in the relationship.f. 2egotiated !are/ella mutual parting of the ways without hostility or blame.

0. trategies that indicate a lac! of concern for others include withdrawal, costescalation, fait accompli, and attributional conflict. 5he others indicate some attempt tosmooth the waters and sa+e face.

. #irectness may be the primary issue in deciding how to disengage from a relationship.

9. )e learn more methods as we mo+e from childhood to adulthood. #irectness is both apersonality characteristic and related to age. oung children ha+e few strategies, and tendto be more direct than either adolescents or adults. Adults are more indirect thanadolescents, since indirect strategies usually try to a+oid hurt.

7. Ba&ter found no gender difference, e&cept that androgynous persons tend to be moredirect than those who are highly 6feminine6 or 6masculine6 (those types ha+e differentreasons for indirectness".:. eople who ha+e high communication apprehension tend to be more indirect.E. 5he more intimate the relationship, the greater the tendency to use caring directstrategies. Finally, all ages ha+e more strategies for starting relationships than for endingthem.8.


12/12

/. "mbivalent indirectnessattempts are made to repair the relationshipbefore gi+ing in and terminating it.0. #/i!t explicit mutualitythe use of bilateral, direct, and e&pedient(%uic!" strategies (a clean brea!, mutually desired".. 1utual ambivalencethe use of indirect strategies, in+ol+ing se+eralattempts at repair, ta!ing a long time.

)hen combined with #uc!'s concepts, Ba&ter's concepts pro+ide a much fuller picture ofrelational dissolution.

IX. CRITICISM OF RELATIONAL THEORY

A. trengths-

. 5he trend in many of these theories, especially those related to stages, is to deemphasi3e indi+idual traits and focus instead on interacti+e and relational dynamics.

/. 5hus, many of these theories reinforce the de+elopmental model of IC.

0. 5hese theories ha+e been +ery heuristic, leading to a lot of important research.

. any of them appeal to us because of intuiti+e 6fit6 with our own li+esthey ha+ee&planatory power for us. 5hey 6ma!e sense6 on a gut le+el.

9. ocial $&change 5heory is +ery parsimonious (able to e&plain almost any aspect ofsocial beha+ior with +ery few ideas".

B. )ea!nesses-

. ost of these theories indicate conceptual confusion (relationship is as difficult todefine as communication". ome ideas are hard to distinguish from others./. )ith ocial $&change theory in particular, it is not always clear what is punishing andwhat is rewarding.0. ost of these theories ha+e a limited focusthey show part of a pu33le, but not thewhole; each lea+es out important elements.

a. esearch often limited to obser+able data, ignoring important cogniti+eprocesses, emotional data, etc.b. ocial $&change and ocial enetration in particular 6put all their eggs in thecostreward bas!et6 and fail to deal with both relational and cogniti+e processesthat might affect the ways in which costs and rewards are defined (moreindi+idualistic than relational, in that see relationships as a series of choicesmoti+ated solely by personal gain".c. any are o+erly rationalistic (does real life really wor! this way*".

. 5end to be reductionist and thus o+ersimplify the processes of relational de+elopmentthis is especially true of ocial enetration and ocial $&change theories.9. 5oo mechanical and orderly (linear".

4330 Relational Theory Lecture

Documents

Transcript of 4330 Relational Theory Lecture