Kenya Association of Professional Counsellors

Higher Diploma in Counselling Studies, 2011-2012

Question:

With reference to relevant literature, give an evaluative account of your personal

experience on any psychological issue of self and relationship.

Title:

“The Process of a Close Relationship – my experience in relation to

literature”

Facilitators: Beatrice Otieno

Briggid Muisyo

Student: Albert Muraya

Due Date: 15th September 2011

Submission Date: 24th March 2014

Words: 3350

Copy: Final Copy

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

Stages of Relationships ..................................................................................................... 1

Relationship Escalation .................................................................................................... 2

i) Initiation...................................................................................................................... 2

ii) Experimenting ........................................................................................................... 2

iii) Intensifying ............................................................................................................... 3

iv) Integrating................................................................................................................. 4

v) Bonding ...................................................................................................................... 4

Relationship Termination ................................................................................................ 7

vi) Differentiation........................................................................................................... 7

vii) Circumscribing ........................................................................................................ 8

viii) Stagnating ............................................................................................................... 8

ix) Avoidance.................................................................................................................. 9

x) Termination................................................................................................................ 9

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 10

References........................................................................................................................ 11

Introduction

This paper is about my experience in the processes of a close relationship. I will examine

what the literature says about such relationships and then compare my own experience. I

will look at the factors that influenced the initial attraction, the progression into intimacy

and love, and the sources of relational satisfaction. Next I will examine how and why

conflicts arose and what was done about them, before rounding up with an analysis of the

termination of the relationship and implications for the partners.

My definition of a close relationship is an ‘extended relationship’ in which, according to

Harvey and Pauwels (1999), there is an understanding of closeness and mutual

behaviours that support and indicate such closeness. Central to this definition is

interdependence in thought, feeling and behaviours - an intertwining of their lives (Clark

and Reis, 1988).Using Knapp’s Model of Relationships (1978, 2008) as a framework, I

will briefly review those theories that analyse the various processes involved in the

conduct of such relationships, namely “Interdependence Theory” (Thibaut and Kelley,

1959); “Investment Model of Commitment” (Rusbult and Buunk, 1993); “Attachment

Theory” (Hazan and Shaver, 1994); “Equity Theory” (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011); “Self-

determination Theory” (La Guardia and Patrick, 2008); and the “Triangular Theory of

Love” (Sternberg, 1986).

Stages of Relationships

Mark Knapp (1984) has described a ten-stage process through which relationships form,

grow and mature and eventually terminate. The stages are divided into two domains

which he calls “relationship escalation” and “relationship termination”. Whilst this model

describes interpersonal communication primarily, it may also be used to understand the

interactions underlying the relationship as it proceeds. In addition, whilst it applies to

different types of voluntary relationships such as platonic friendships and business

relationships, it has particular application in close, intimate relationships (Knapp, 1984).

During each stage, the behaviour of each partner may be understood by any of the

theories of close relationships enumerated above. The stages themselves are:

2

A) Escalating – i) initiating; ii) experimenting; iii) intensifying; iv) integrating; v)

bonding.

B) Terminating – i) differentiating; ii) circumscribing; iii) stagnating; iv) avoiding; v)

terminating.

Relationship Escalation

i) Initiation

This is a sparring process where either partner to a potential relationship is gauging the

other for the possibility that they are suitable, appropriate and available for further

interaction; they also announce to the other, by their non-verbal communication, that they

are open to the possibility of further engagement (Knapp, 2008). In my case, I met my

fiancée at a Christian forum where I was immediately struck by her forthrightness in

identifying herself as a single mother; she was the facilitator so in a position of relative

authority. I did not think much of the possibility of a relationship, but noted that she was

attractive and strong – for me, attractive characteristics. This stage does not last long, and

in my experience amounted to a few hours of interaction run over several weeks.

ii) Experimenting

This is Knapp’s second stage within the relationship escalation domain. Couples will

begin probing to establish the possibility of further interaction for common interests,

worldviews and ambitions – in short appropriateness and suitability of the other. This

process is described by the Matching Hypothesis of Attraction (Sprecher and Hatfield,

2009) which states that people will generally settle for a mate who is close to them in

attractiveness by their own estimation. In our case whilst I was in my early forties and

therefore a little beyond the consensus age for a first marriage, she was a single mother

and unemployed at the time. In a sense these drawbacks or negatives cancelled the other

out. On the positive I had a good job with the trappings; she was very attractive –

beautiful, intelligent and ambitious. According to Smith and Mackie (2007) at this stage

of mate selection the man is concerned with identifying signs of reproductive capacity

seen in the woman’s youth and beauty; the woman looks for evidence of status and

earning potential for security. This is because as a woman she is more vulnerable to

3

physical and social security concerns for provision and future prospects, whereas I as the

man, according to the authors, would be more interested in securing my posterity through

her evident reproductive capacity (wide hips) and the status that an intelligent, beautiful

woman would give me.

It would be months later when she consulted with me on a professional matter, and I

learned of her social situation, that I began to seriously consider her as a potential mate.

This interpersonal process gelled with idea that the greater the proximity and interaction

between two people, the greater the likelihood of attraction (Smith and Mackie, 2007).

This starts a process of their spending more time with each other because they help the

other master their world, increasing familiarity and perceived similarity. Since people are

predisposed to people who are like them, this process is reinforcing and they will desire

to spend even more time together and so on (Hatfield et al, 2009). My experience was of

very positive interactions in the beginning and a growing connectedness. This need to

connect is described in Self-determination Theory of close relationships (La Guardia and

Patrick, 2008) which states that relationships fulfil three basic psychological needs,

namely: autonomy or self-endorsement of own behaviour; competence or mastery over

challenges; and relatedness or belongingness. This last predisposes human beings to

forming interpersonal bonds and thus appreciating others.

iii) Intensifying

According to Knapp, the third stage is one in which the dyad becomes more intense and

open, as the partners reveal more about themselves, and the communication begins to go

beyond the superficial to more revealing and intimate levels. At this time we were both

concerned about fairness in our dealings with one another and this matched the Equity

Theory in close relationships (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011) which states that people are

most satisfied when they get an equitable outcome or reward for their input in a

relationship. In our case this took the form of me paying for our outings which she would

balance with her preparing sumptuous meals for us when we would stay in; she discipling

me in matters of faith, whilst her payoff was exposure to a middle class way of life she

valued but had previously not been able to enjoy.

4

iv) Integrating

Knapp describes this fourth stage as one where the partners become much more

intertwined into each others lives. The level of self-disclosure intensifies; this becomes its

own reward. According to Smith and Mackie (2007), all relationships start out as

exchange relationships where both parties are driven by self-interest: “what is in it for

me?” However in time this transforms to a communal relationship where concern for the

other’s welfare becomes the principle motivator. The transition is governed by the flow

of reward exchange and smoothness of self-disclosure since intimacy and closeness are

primary rewards of such relationships. In our case we began to spend much more time

together with frequent communication on the phone. This led to satisfaction experienced

both cognitively and emotionally – a sense of wellbeing and reduced stress reported by

both of us. Thus through increasing interrelatedness we were at the point of being in a

close relationship (Clark and Reis, 1988).

v) Bonding

The fifth stage in Knapp’s framework is bonding. This involves a public or overt display

of relational exclusivity and commitment such as an engagement or even marriage. It

signifies the end of the protracted mate selection process and typically relationships

become more settled. ‘I’ becomes ‘we’ or ‘us’ (Hatfield and Rapson, 2011). Per Equity

Theory” at this point any temporary inequity tends to be overlooked as the greater

wellbeing of the relationship takes precedence for the partners over individual desires.

This also reflects the long-term view of the relationship partners, and there is a belief that

whatever short-term unequalness there is will balance out in the long run.

Bonding takes place at a cognitive, behavioural and emotional level and is evidenced by

increasing interrelatedness, where the partner becomes part of the self. This comes from

increasing self-disclosure such that the partners begin to share perspectives, mimic one

another, and have intimate knowledge of the other’s inner life (Smith and Mackie, 2007).

They experience a “transformation of motivation” described in the “Investment Model”

of commitment (Rusbult, 1983), where the partners subordinate their own interests in

5

favour of their partner’s. This is because the partner has become part of the self, thus so

do their needs (Smith and Mackie, 2007).

The “Interdependence Theory” of close relationships (Thibaut and Kelley, 1978) states

that satisfaction in a relationship is derived by comparing the balance of rewards

(pleasure or gratification) and costs (distress or pain) against one’s expectations based on

previous experience, those of peers and the outcomes for the partner (as they express it).

In my case the interaction was very rewarding as I felt validated by it and the interest she

took in my life and work. In turn I found her very stimulating, and as we were both

committed Christians, our shared faith provided a common platform from which to

engage. Given our respective social situations – my relatively advanced age and her being

an unemployed single mother at the time – our comparison level for alternatives was low,

meaning at that stage, there weren’t many alternative or competing relationship partners

for our attention, further increasing our commitment to one another and to the

relationship. Finally we invested all our social and emotional capital, and in my case a

significant financial stake, into the relationship by befriending one another’s close friends

and reaching out to the other’s family. Per the theory then, we had a high degree of

commitment (Thibaut and Kelley, 1978; Rusbult and Buunk, 1993).

Another perspective of relationships became evident at this point in that individual

differences in how we approached and conducted the relationship began to exert

themselves. In Attachment Theory which describes a behavioural system for monitoring

threats to relationship security and responsiveness by the partner, relationship quality is

assessed on the basis of the relationship partner’s availability, responsiveness and

attentiveness (Etcheverry et al, 2013). There are three dimensions of attachment to which

individuals will subscribe, namely secure, anxious and avoidant. These are based on

internal mental working models about relationship expectations formed through early

childhood experiences. The significance of this framework for understanding adult

relationships is that the working models create expectations for relationships. In my case,

my partner was very open whereby she was eager to share what I considered to be the

most intimate information about herself and her past early into the relationship. She also

6

tended to cast aspersions on my claims of love for her, requiring me to prove it with

actions and never being quite satisfied with whatever demonstrations of affection I

showed towards her. She in turn expected me to be as open about myself as I could be,

something I found intimidating; when I did make revelations, I felt exposed and

vulnerable. She was very expressive about her feelings as she had an outgoing personality

and was highly social. I tended to be more introverted and less willing to meet people,

being tired at weekends and wanting to rest; she would be energetic, desiring to go out

and do leisurely activities.

Whilst confusing, these individual differences were a source of amusement at first, only

later becoming a cause for irritation and eventually conflict. Upon research, I now realise

that she had an anxious/ambivalent attachment style which made her hypervigilant in

protecting her attachment relationship (us), very focused on the relationship and overly

intimate. According to Bowlby (1977), this attachment style emanates from an

inconsistent meeting of attachment needs in infancy, leading to learned insecurity about

the partner’s engagement in the relationship accompanied with fears of abandonment. On

the other hand, I was uncomfortable in getting “too” close, often feeling smothered by her

constant need for attention. This was consistent with an avoidant attachment style

characterised by a deactivation of the attachment system, devaluing of close

relationships, not relying on them to fulfil attachment needs (Etcheverry et al, 2013).

Bowlby (1977) ascribed this attachment style to a failure by the attachment figure

(usually mother) to meet the attachment needs of the infant. This leads one to care less

for, and to rely less on, close relationships due to mistrust and low expectations from

them. When I felt inclined to maintain a distance, keep my feelings to myself, viewing

her emotional responses as unreliable, this was consistent with the theory (Hazan and

Shaver, 1994).

At this time however, despite these differences, we were enjoying the benefits of being in

relationship, experienced as enjoying time spent together (me) and intimacy and shared

feelings (her). We both reported a sense of wellbeing and were largely optimistic about a

future together. Our intensely passionate feelings were gradually replaced by a greater

7

intimacy and commitment, consistent with Sternberg’s “Triangular Theory of Love”

(1986) which describes a trichotomy of love variables between companionate, romantic

and fatuous love all of which are dissatisfactory and frustrating. Companionate is

commitment and intimacy without passion; romantic is passion and intimacy without

commitment; fatuous is commitment and passion without intimacy. At different points

we experienced all three domains of this disharmony in love, never quite achieving

consummate love which is the presence of all three love variables. This set the stage for

what Knapp calls the Termination Model of his ten stage relationships framework, where

the relationship begins to unravel.

Relationship Termination

vi) Differentiation

According to Mark Knapp (2008) differences begin to challenge the previously held

notion of bliss and the sense that the relationship can only improve. As expressed above

our difficulties arose due to differences in attachment style and orientation, though

lacking awareness of this we attributed them to other things. One theory that expresses

what we were experiencing is “Self-determination Theory” (La Guardia and Patrick,

2008). This hypothesis explains relationship choices from the perspective of the

motivations that underlie relational processes like attachment styles, interdependence,

intimacy, and predicts that satisfaction is attained when the basic psychological needs of

autonomy (internal locus of control) or self-rule, competence or mastery over challenges

and relatedness or belongingness are met. In my experience, optimal relational

functioning suffered as my partner was excessively controlling such that I experienced

heteronomy rather than autonomy, invalidating me as a man and adult. My choices

became increasingly disparaged and I responded by being passive aggressive, consistent

with my avoidant attachment style, withdrawing and becoming ever more reluctant to

voice my preferences. On her part, her controlling nature was part of her

anxious/ambivalent style of attachment, being hypervigilant about my relational

engagement, and leading her to keep crossing the boundaries of the relationship which

were primarily in the form of expectations. This is because she was never satisfied and

8

sought constant reassurance by raising expectations. This conflicted with a sense of

relational mastery or competence on my part further leaving me feeling emasculated,

whilst it gave her an over-inflated sense of her own competence or relationships skill. A

typical example was how to spend resources (time and money), where to attend church,

lifestyle choices and so on.

vii) Circumscribing

This is a point in Knapp’s framework where because of ongoing conflict, the partners,

ever weary of arguments, choose to erect boundaries to their communication. They avoid

the real issues fearing more conflict, and instead dwell on the superficial. Given the

forgoing, the need for relatedness or belonging became increasingly compromised and

unmet; thus what should have been a safe haven from the turmoil of life (the relationship)

increasingly became a place to avoid (La Guardia and Patrick, 2008). Nonetheless as we

had already made public commitments to each other in the form of an engagement to be

married, we persisted with the relationship even though intimacy and trust were being

broken. Reis and Shaver (1988) define intimacy as emotionally relevant self-disclosure

by one partner being reciprocated by the other partner’s responsiveness to it. In this phase

of circumscribing or avoidance, we both turned to significant others to share the pain and

frustration we were both experiencing. In terms of “Interdependence Theory” we were

experiencing reduced satisfaction (lack of validation, care and acceptance) and the

comparison levels for alternatives were increasingly attractive, including not being in

relationship. However at this time, the level of investments made were still so high, it

kept us together a while longer. She did make a remark that we should not avoid breaking

off our engagement simply because of the shame of doing so.

viii) Stagnating

According to Knapp’s framework, this stage happens when the relationship partners

cease communication. The partners will remain together but all semblance of intimacy is

lost, and their interaction is purely to preserve whatever social investments they have

made e.g. children, social networks, shared assets etc. According to Rusbult’s

“Investment Model of Commitment” (1983), relationship maintenance behaviours kick in

9

to try to recover the relationship; these comprise adaptive social comparison where

following “Attribution Theory” (Kelley, 1967), one or both partners perceive the

relationship as being superior to near alternatives; accommodative behaviour during

conflict where the aggrieved partner turns a blind eye literally; derogation of attractive

alternatives in which the partners devalue potential alternative relationships including

being out of relationship entirely; managing jealousy whereby this emotional reaction

becomes preventive as a defence against a potential competitor, or reactive to an existing

threat by an outsider; willingness to sacrifice where one of the partners chooses not to

pursue an alternative relationship or relationship-threatening activity. This last happened

when I chose to cancel a bible school course I wanted to do but which did not have her

agreement so as to appease her.

ix) Avoidance

As it suggests, this is a point when in the dying relationship the partners avoid each other

spending only whatever time is absolutely necessary together. In my case we stopped

attending church together, and given the previously central role this had taken in our

lives, this was a major break. At this point our respective attachment styles became very

pronounced with she trying to escalate the conflict by involving my mother, and me

doing even more to avoid the situation by ignoring it as much as I could and evading

questions about it from members of my family.

x) Termination

This is Knapp’s final stage where the partners completely break off the relationship. In

theory this would involve separating whatever belongings they own in common, living

separately where relevant, breaking off from social networks (making public their

disengagement) and so on. Smith and Mackie (2007) state that women tend to experience

more distress than men and that both have a tendency to ascribe blame to the other party

whilst maintaining that the decision to break off was ones own. We broke up due to

frustration and lack of satisfaction borne by a basic incompatibility that we were blinded

by neediness to see. There was a precipitating incident that involved a public display of

discord. The aftermath was swift and relatively lacking in distress. The weeks following

10

were a period of adjustment with two ill-advised attempts at reconciliation on my part.

With hindsight I see that I was trying to preserve the social investments we had made.

Wisely she declined.

Conclusion

Writing this essay has allowed me to understand better why I was attracted to my ex-

fiancée and why our relationship took the pattern that it did. I realise now that with more

relational knowledge, we might have understood the rifts that took place and possibly

weathered the storms that we experienced better. It is also instructive to me that I found it

difficult to complete this essay as it is well overdue and that difficulty has probably more

to do with my attachment style than anything else!

Researching and writing it has thus been cathartic, and gives me the encouragement to

look at myself more constructively going forward. The other gain I have made in doing

this assignment is that it has introduced me to social psychology, a branch of psychology

I previously had only the most cursory acquaintance, and I am looking forward to reading

much more about it.

11

References

Bowlby J. (1977) The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds: Aetiology and

Psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. The British Journal of Psychiatry,

Vol:130, Part: 3, Pages: 201-210

Clark M. and Reis H.T. (1988) Interpersonal Processes in Close Relationships. Annual

Review of Psychology, Vol:39, Pages: 609-672

Etcheverry P.E., Le B., Wu T-F and Wei M (2013) Attachment and the investment

model: Predictors of relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal

Relationships, Vol:20. Issue: 3, Pages 546-567

Harvey J.H., Pauwels B.G. (1999) Recent Developments in Close Relationships Theory.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol:8, No.3, Pages 93-95

Hatfield E. and Rapson R.L. (2011) Equity Theory in Close Relationships. In Van Lange

P.A.M., Kruglanski A.W., & Higgins E.T. (Eds.) Handbook of Theories of Social

Psychology. London: Glyph International

Hazan C. and Shaver P.R. (1994) Attachment as an Organisational Framework for

Research on Close Relationships. Psychological Enquiry, Vol:5, No:1, Pages: 1-22

Kelley H.H. (1967) Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In Levine D. (Ed) (1967)

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol.15, Pages 192-240. Cited in Aron A. and Aron

E.N. (1986) The Heart of Social Psychology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Knapp M.L. (1984). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon

12

La Guardia J. and Patrick H. (2008). Self Determination Theory as a Fundamental Theory

of Close Relationships. Canadian Psychology. Vol:49, No:3, Pages 201-209

Reis, H.T. and Shaver, P.R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (Pages 367–389). Chichester: Wiley, Ltd.

Cited in Self Determination Theory as a Fundamental Theory of Close Relationships.

Canadian Psychology. Vol:49, No:3, Pages 201-209

Rusbult C.E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and

deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. Vol: 45, Pages: 101–117. Cited in Etcheverry P.E.,

Le B., Wu T-F and Wei M (2013) Attachment and the investment model: Predictors of

relationship commitment, maintenance, and persistence. Personal Relationships, Vol:20.

Issue: 3, Pages 546-567

Rusbult C.E. and Buunk B.P. (1993). Commitment Processes in Relationships: An

Interdependence Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Vol:10, No:2,

Pages 175-204

Sprecher S. and Hatfield E. (2009) Matching hypothesis. In Reis H. and Sprecher S.

(Eds.) Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. New York: SAGE.

Smith E. and Mackie D. (2007) Social Psychology, New York: Psychology Press.

Sternberg R.J. (1986) A Triangular Theory of Love, Psychological Review, Vol:93, No:2,

Pages:119-135

Thibaut J.W. and Kelley H.H. (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of

Interdependence, New York: John Wiley and Sons