15 Chapter 9 – Romantic Relationships

Opening Thoughts

Ahh love. There’s nothing quite like romantic love. The sun shines a bit brighter, the birds sing a bit more rhythmically, and the pop of dopamine that we receive when that special someone texts us hits extra hard. Okay, enough of that mushy nonsense. What’s interesting about love is not necessarily how relatable it is, but rather how difficult it is to bottle up! In fact, why don’t you try it right now? Before you go any further, see if you can pinpoint an exact definition of romantic love…

Did you try? Was it easy or hard? Let us guess, it involved something like mutual sacrifice, an intense feeling of longing, and a whole bunch of time spent together. Maybe some of you drew from the pop-culture phenomenon of love languages. You wouldn’t be wrong to do so! And although the love languages are mostly bunk in terms of scientific rigor, our preference for simple, relatable expressions of romantic love seems to be a primary driving factor in how we conceptualize it. This chapter will go a step further, providing multiple perspectives on what romantic love is, how it works, and why us humans seem to pine for it so dang much! Let’s begin.

9.1 Defining & Distinguishing Romantic Relationships 

_{(Image: © Cathy Thorne/www.everydaypeoplecartoons.com; printed with permission for use in I.C.A.T.)}

A=Broadly, a relationship can be defined as the expectations that two people have for each other based on their previous pattern of interactions[1]. Throughout our lives, we will be involved in a variety of relationships ranging from superficial to intimate. Intimate relationships  involve physical and/or emotional intimacy and are characterized by friendship, trust, and love (platonic or romantic). Intimate relationships can include friendships, romantic relationships, and/or familial relationships.

In addition to ranging from intimate to superficial, relationships can be characterized as impersonal or personal, voluntary or involuntary, and platonic or romantic [2].

• Impersonal and Personal:
  An impersonal relationship is formed with another person in order to satisfy a need or goal. For example, when we interact with a cashier at a grocery store, we are typically engaging in an impersonal relationship. Conversely, a personal relationship “is one in which people care about each other, share at least some personal information, and meet at least some of each other’s interpersonal needs. [2] p. 163.”

• Voluntary and Involuntary:
  A voluntary relationship is one in which we choose the person who we interact with, such as in the case of friendships. Conversely, involuntary relationships are imposed upon us and we do not have the choice of whether or not to interact with that person [3]. For example, when we are paired up with a stranger in class to complete a project, then we would be in an involuntary relationship with them.

• Platonic and Romantic:
  A platonic relationship is a ‘friendly’ relationship where there is an absence of romance and sex. A romantic relationship occurs when people act on said sexual attraction and/or form a mutual emotional romantic attachment.

When describing relationships, it is important to note that relationships are dynamic, and that these characterizations can and do change. For example, we might initially be in an involuntary relationship with someone because we were paired up to work on a project, but then find out we share similar interests and form a voluntary friendship after the project ends. Or two people may start off as platonic and then become involved in a romantic relationship (or vice versa). One big determining factor here is the extent to which we find someone attractive. To better understand the role that attraction plays in all relationships, but especially romantic ones, we should take a minute to further unpack that construct.

Understanding Attraction

Researchers have identified three primary types of attraction: physical, social, and task. Physical attraction refers to the degree to which you find another person aesthetically pleasing. What is deemed aesthetically pleasing can alter greatly from one culture to the next. We also know that pop culture can greatly define what is considered to be physically appealing from one era to the next. Very important: physical attraction is not necessarily the same thing as sexual attraction. You may, for example, be able to identify someone with a variety of physically appealing characteristics, but something about them gives you the “ick.” An easy way to understand this is to think of the gender/sex that you’re not attracted to. Now, surely, you can acknowledge that attractive people from this gender exist, but that doesn’t mean you want to jump into bed with them! Less common is the opposite effect, feeling a sexual attraction to someone that is physically unattractive. Consider the curious case of Adam Driver. He’s not…really all that attractive, not by Western standards at least. But something about him is just…appealing

The second type of attraction is social attraction, or the degree to which an individual sees another person as entertaining, intriguing, and fun to be around. We all have finite sources when it comes to the amount of time we have in a given day. We prefer to socialize with people that we think are fun. These people may entertain us or they may just fascinate us. No matter the reason, we find some people more socially desirable than others. Social attraction can also be a factor of power, for example, in situations where there are kids in the “in-group” and those that are not. In this case, those that are considered popular hold more power and are perceived as being more socially desirable to associate with. This relationship becomes problematic when these individuals decide to use this social desirability as a tool or weapon against others.

The final type of attraction is task attraction, or people we are attracted to because they possess specific knowledge and/or skills that help us accomplish specific goals. The first part of this definition requires that the target of task attraction possess specific knowledge and/or skills. Maybe you have a friend who is good with computers who will always fix your computer when something goes wrong. Maybe you have a friend who is good in math and can tutor you. Consider the classic group project! There are some folks in your group who are just…better at doing the work. Those folks have more task appeal and are therefore more attractive.

It should come as no surprise that attractive people often come in many different forms. We can be attracted to someone because they’re cute, sexy, and capable of doing things for us. It is these people that we’re the most likely to form romantic relationships with. That said, much in the way that all attraction is not created equal, types of love are created unequal as well. Enter Sternberg’s triangular theory of love.

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

We typically love the people with whom we form relationships, but the type of love we have for our family, friends, and lovers differs. Robert Sternberg proposed that there are three components of love: intimacy (the warm), passion (the hot), and commitment (the cool) [4]. These three components form a triangle that defines multiple types of love: this is known as Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (Figure 9.2). Intimacy is the sharing of details and intimate thoughts and emotions. Passion is the physical attraction—the flame in the fire. Commitment is standing by the person—the “in sickness and health” part of the relationship.

Now, here’s the deal, you might not necessarily be  experiencing all three of these things with the same person. For example, maybe you just really, really like someone. You’re extremely socially attracted to them. Perhaps this is a fling, someone who you met over the summer in between semesters. You know it can’t last, so there’s not much commitment, and even though you like them, the spark either isn’t there, or didn’t have time to develop. We hold this kind of love for friends, peers, and even some acquaintances.

Then, of course, there’s the good old fashion booty call relationship, or perhaps a one night stand. You meet someone, you hit it off, things get intense, and you engage with them physically. You don’t really know them, so you never get much of an opportunity to be intimate. Similarly, meeting them only one time doesn’t allow for commitment to blossom. Alternatively, consider a high school crush. A crush, by definition, it s a bit impersonal. You don’t really know the person, you’re just super into them because, well, dangit they’re hot! That’s what we’d call infatuation – high passion, no intimacy or commitment.

Lastly, there are those relationships that feature high levels of commitment, but not a whole lot of intimacy or passion. Consider empty nest relationships. If you’re unfamiliar with the colloquialism, empty-nesters are parents that raised their kid(s) fully. the baby birds have left the nest, if you will. Now, these partners look across the table at each other, not really knowing who the other person is beyond “Mom” or “Dad.” after 18+ years of child rearing, these couples are clearly committed to each other, but the passion and actual liking has faded in place of responsibility. We call this empty love. You’ll notice that there’s likely a lot of task attraction in this kind of relationship, but not much else.

Figure 9.2 According to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, seven types of love can be described from combinations of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. (credit: modification of work by “Lnesa”/Wikimedia Commons)

Okay, so we know that there are at least three types of love, but that figure above kind of spoils the surprise; mainly that these three types of love can blend! So, what might we call a type of love that features intimacy and commitment but no passion? That would be companionate love. Perhaps a stretch, but this is very much the sort of love that we have for our pets. Like em, love em, would do anything to protect em, but obviously there’s no passion there. This is also very much best friend territory, or what some folks might deem a “platonic life partner.” On the other hand, Romantic Love is that relationship that just…never got a chance to unfold fully. Imaging being in your senior lear of College, knowing you’re going to move once you graduate and then meeting someone who would be “the one.” You only get four months with them, but they’re so amazing. Sadly, Summer comes and it’s time to go. There’s your romantic love. Third, there’s the most confusing, which is fatuous love. The easiest example of this type of love occurs in relationships where you’re committed to someone through marriage or perhaps children, and you just keep on coming back to them, despite the fact that you have little in common beyond sexual attraction. Sadly, these types of relationships are more common than they should be – bound by legality, connected by raw passion, distinguished by a mutual dislike.

So then, what should we aim for? Theoretically, we should try and throw a dart that lands right in the center of the triangle. That’s how we get what’s known as consumate love. Obviously, consumate love is a blend of intimacy, passion, and commitment. That said, it’s not always an even blend. You can throw a dart that hits any part of the triangle, featuring more or less of any of the three points. Consumate love is the ideal insomuch as healthy relationships have a good blend of the hot, warm and cool. That said, this development takes time. One big mistake that people (especially young adults) make is. trying to force love right out of the gate! Love is a mutual experience that takes months, sometimes even years to form! So, before we get to all that stuff, we should spend some time talking about how we get to know people in the first place.

7.2 Relationship Development 

The first method that we use to recuse our uncertainty is passive in nature. Back when the theory was written, passive observations involved unobtrusive…watching. Sounds a bit creepy. Imagine being at a bar, party, or social gathering and turning to see that you’re quite literally being watched. It’s obviously not that simple, and the advent of technology makes this method much more reasonable that you’d think. for example, there’s this website that people use to share ancient memes and scream about politics called Facebook. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Did you know that Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook so that he and his buddies could rate all the women in their dorms based on attractiveness? It’s true, and it’s technically an act of passive information seeking. Established relationships, especially fledgling ones, will engage in some healthy “facebook stalking” if they worry about their new partner or just want to learn more without asking [7]. You can, of course, extend this method to snapchat, tiktok, twitter (X) and “the gram” as it’s often called. In fact, if you’ve ever used tinder, hinge, mutual, or any other dating app, you’ve been passively seeking information without even knowing it! Every picture you look at and bio you read reduces your uncertainty about this person, ultimately informing your decision on whether to swipe left or right

Next is active information seeking. Contrary to the name, active information seeking really quite passive, and is usually remarked by third party participation. The most classic example we can think of is ordering a drink for someone at the bar and having the bartender deliver it to them. Perhaps more applicable, consider what you’d do if you had a crush on a friend of a friend. Might you not approach your mutual friend to ask if that person is single, or if they’d be into you? Interestingly, technology can once again act as an agent here, serving as the third party buffer between you and other parties. For example, Lin et al.  found that people disclose more personal information when they use more uncertainty reduction behaviors online. In other words, people might be more willing to disclosure their own personal information if that coincides with them getting information they want (e.g., when they are seeking information about a prescription) [8].

And then, of course, there’s the interactive method, which is exactly what it sounds like. Quite literally approaching someone (virtually or face-to-face) and interacting with them. Asking questions, disclosing information about yourself, etc. For a relationship to truly begin and develop, this method is mandatory. You can skip the other two if you want! For example, you can just march right on up to your crush and say “Hey! I think you’re really cool! I like you a lot! Maybe we should…hang out or something.”

The biggest problem with this method is that it is extremely face threatening at times (see Chapter 2 for a reminder on face and politeness). Another problem is that you don’t always know what you need to know about another person to approach them! For example, what if this person isn’t single? What if they’re attracted to people of the gender/sex that you are not? Thus, people will often revert to passive or active methods of uncertainty reduction. perhaps to test the waters, before getting interactive with things. Part of the reason why we choose this method is because once we do interact with someone there’s no going back – and interaction must occur. And, of course, when interactions occur, they rely heavily on reciprocation and an implicit calculation of how rewarding vs. costly this person is to you. We’ll tackle those two issues with our next theory: SET.

Social Exchange Theory

We have discussed why we form relationships, what attracts us to others, and different types of love. But what determines whether we are satisfied with and stay in a relationship? One theory that provides an explanation is social exchange theory. According to social exchange theory, we act as naïve economists in keeping a tally of the ratio of costs and benefits of forming and maintaining a relationship with others [9].

This theory actually comes from the field of economics, in case you oculdn’t tell. According to SET, People are motivated to maximize the benefits of social exchanges, or relationships, and minimize the costs. People prefer to have more benefits than costs, or to have nearly equal costs and benefits, but most people are dissatisfied if their social exchanges create more costs than benefits. Let’s discuss an example. If you have ever decided to commit to a romantic relationship, you probably considered the advantages and disadvantages of your decision. What are the benefits of being in a committed romantic relationship? You may have considered having companionship, intimacy, and passion, but also being comfortable with a person you know well. What are the costs of being in a committed romantic relationship? You may think that over time boredom from being with only one person may set in; moreover, it may be expensive to share activities such as attending movies and going to dinner. However, the benefits of dating your romantic partner presumably outweigh the costs, or you wouldn’t continue the relationship.

Two important caveats to SET. First, like URT, SET is a very old and mostly outdated theory. These foundational theories have more heuristic value than anything else – meaning that many more modern theories have stemmed from them. In the case of social exchange theory, the most pivotal evolution is known as equity theory. According to equity theory, it is not the rewards/cost ratio that affects our view of a relationship per se, but rather it is the interaction between our R/C ratio and our partner’s [10]. So, Imagine if the scale in the image above was placed on one side of an even larger scale, with another person’s individual scale on the other end. If you’re putting in a 8/10 into a relationship and only getting a 4/10, SET says that the relationship is too costly and that it’s time to break up. Alternatively, equity theory says not so fast…what if your partner is also putting in an 8/10 and getting back a 4/10? In that instance, things aren’t going great, but they are equitable, and that could lead to a reconsideration of whether or not this relationship should end. Moreover, the theory goes on to say that we take that ratio (us vs. our partner) and compare it to the other R/C ratios of our friends’ relationships, our family’s relationships, and the relationships we see in the media. Equity theory is a much more complete version of SET, because it acknowledges that there are multiple players in a relationship and that decisions about ending or continuing relationships are made based on a bevy of factors, as opposed to just our own individual assessments.

The second thing about SET worth noting is that there’s no…like…running tally in our brain. We don’t sit down every evening and say “Okay well Janea did ask me to drive her to work today so there’s one in the ‘cost’ column…oh but she did make me laugh with that doofy Instagram meme so there’s one for ‘rewards’…” It’s just not like that. Instead, we have a more general, sweeping sense of how beneficial vs. costly the relationship is. Consider the “friend tab.” When you go out with a really close friend, sometimes you might pay for whatever activity you’re getting into, sometimes they might. You don’t calculate exactly what dollars and cents are spent because you know, eventually, it’ll all even out. That said, if your friend starts to rely on you to pay for EVERYTHING you’re definitely going to notice it! It’s for this reason that in all relationships – acquaintances to betrothed, we need to put in work to maintain things. What we’ll come to find in just a moment is that the word “maintain” is very strategic, and perhaps more broad than you may have initially thought.

 7.3 Relationship Maintenance 

As mentioned above, all relationships have a beginning, middle, and end. We’ve made it past the beginning. Great, we did it! We;ve met someone new and formed a relationship. Now comes the actual work! The thing is, in romantic relationships you don’t just court or woo someone for a few months and then enter autopilot. You have to continue to show effort, care, compassion, and interest in the other person. What does this look like? Well, like most things in the realm of communication, it depends. One big thing all this effort depends on is what we want out of the relationship. We’ll tackle that question from two perspectives: relationship maintenance and rational dialectics theory.

Relationship Formation and Maintenance

Much of the research on romantic relationships distinguishes between premarital and marital couples. However, given the changes in marriage and the diversification of recognized ways to couple, we will use the following distinctions: dating, cohabitating, and partnered couples. The category for dating couples encompasses the courtship period, which may range from a first date through several years. Once a couple moves in together, they fit into the category of cohabitating couple. Partnered couples take additional steps to verbally, ceremonially, or legally claim their intentions to be together in a long-term committed relationship. The romantic relationships people have before they become partnered provide important foundations for later relationships. But how do we choose our romantic partners, and what communication patterns affect how these relationships come together and apart?

Family background, values, physical attractiveness, and communication styles are just some of the factors that influence our selection of romantic relationships[11]. Attachment theory relates to the bond that a child feels with their primary caregiver. Research has shown that the attachment style (secure, anxious, or avoidant) formed as a child influences adult romantic relationships. Other research shows that adolescents who feel like they have a reliable relationship with their parents feel more connection and attraction in their adult romantic relationships[12]. Aside from attachment, which stems more from individual experiences as a child, relationship values, which stem more from societal expectations and norms, also affect romantic attraction. We don’t have the time to get all the way into attachment theory, but the important part is that we learn from a very young age what “normal” relationship maintenance looks like, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse

In other words, communication at one life stage affects the way we perceive communication at subsequent life stages. We can see the important influence that communication has on the way we perceive relationships by examining the ways in which relational values have changed over recent decades. Over the course of the twentieth century, for example, the preference for chastity as a valued part of relationship selection decreased significantly. While people used to indicate that it was very important that the person they partner with not have had any previous sexual partners, today people list several characteristics they view as more important in mate selection[11]. In addition, characteristics like income and cooking/housekeeping skills were once more highly rated as qualities in a potential mate. Today, mutual attraction and love are the top mate-selection values.

In terms of mutual attraction, over the past sixty years, men and women have more frequently reported that physical attraction is an important aspect of mate selection. But what characteristics lead to physical attraction? Despite the saying that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” there is much research that indicates body and facial symmetry are the universal basics of judging attractiveness. Further, the matching hypothesis states that people with similar levels of attractiveness will pair together despite the fact that people may idealize more spectacularly attractive people [13]. this all comes back to aspiration vs. reality. What we would love to have vs. what we realistically think we can have. That that sounds shallow and selfish…we’ve got bad news for you about the tendencies of human beings.

However, judgments of attractiveness are also communicative and not just physical. Other research has shown that verbal and nonverbal expressiveness are judged as attractive, meaning that a person’s ability to communicate in an engaging and dynamic way may be able to supplement for some lack of physical attractiveness. In order for a relationship to be successful, the people in it must be able to function with each other on a day-to-day basis, once the initial attraction stage is over. Similarity in preferences for fun activities and hobbies like attending sports and cultural events, relaxation, television and movie tastes, and socializing were correlated to more loving and well-maintained relationships. Similarity in role preference means that couples agree whether one or the other or both of them should engage in activities like indoor and outdoor housekeeping, cooking, and handling the finances and shopping. Couples who were not similar in these areas reported more conflict in their relationship[14].

What does all of this mean for maintenance? Well, it means that the tactics you use when you’re trying to escalate, de-escalate, or keep steady a romantic relationship are going to differ wildly! In turth, we’ve been talking about relationship maintenance behaviors this whole time, and will continue to do so throughout the chapter (and in the coming chapters). Let’s go back to URT. You’re asking a potential significant other questions, telling them about yourself, and attempting to see what you both have in common…those are all maintenance behaviors! They’re designed to escalate the relationship. Alternatively, listening to your partner when they tell you their favorite brand of clothing and then getting them an item from that brand for their birthday is also relationship maintenance! You’re showing them that you care, that you’re listening to them, and that you want to keep things going the way they are. Interestingly, anti-scial behaviors like ducking, ghosting, and button-pushing are also relationship maintenance behaviors – just not in the direction you’d think. If our maintenance strategy is to de-escalate then, yes, we’re going to do things that maintain a downward path. Sounds kind of silly, but it’s how we do things here on planet earth. Oh, and one final note, those love languages everyone is so obsessed with? They’re just relational maintenance behaviors. Totally normal, mundane acts. There’s nothing special about them. Everyone likes gifts, everyone likes quality time, everyone wants to feel affirmed. We should not be making decisions on whether to start or end a relationship because another person’s supposed love language is different from yours. This is an issue that deserves more attention, so maybe email your professor if you want to learn more about why the love languages are bunk…or you can watch this podcast episode recorded by the author of this chapter!

Now, one big remaining question (especially in the wake of this podcast episode) is “how do we know what our partner wants in terms of specific maintenance behaviors?” One way to begin answering this is by acknowledging that not only does every person have differing needs, so too does every relationship. We can think of a couple as three distinct entities: the self, the partner, and the relationship as a unit. Behaviors that meet the needs of one or both people in a relationship might combat the needs of the relationship itself. We call this delicate balance a dialectic, and it’s the focus of the next section.

Relationship Dialectics

We know that all relationships go through change. The changes in a relationship are usually dependent on communication. When a relationship starts, there is a lot of positive and ample communication between the parties. However, sometimes couples go through a redundant problem, and it is important to learn how to deal with this problem. Partners can’t always know what their significant other desires or needs from them. Dialectics had been a concept known well to many scholars for many years, and in fact dates back to the ancient Chinese philosophy of dualism.

So what is a dialectic tension? Put simply, it’s a situation involving two opposing but equally important needs/desires that do battle in our brain. To borrof from Leslie A. Baxter, the author of the theory, relational dialectics highlight a “dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies[15].” Remember the discussion of face from Chapter 2? Positive and negative face are a perfect example of a dialectic tension. Such tensions can exist at the individual or dyadic level.

Conversation involves people who must learn to adapt to each other while still maintaining their individuality[16]. The theory emphasizes interactions allowing for more flexibility to explain how couples maintain a satisfactory, cohesive union. This perspective views relationships as simply managing the tensions that arise because they cannot be fully resolved. The management of the tensions is usually based on past experiences; what worked for a person in the past will be what they decide to use in the future. These tensions are both contradictory and interdependent because without one, the other is not understood.

The concept of contradiction is crucial to understanding relational dialectics. Again, dialectics are two equally important, but contradicting desires. In relationships, these contradictions tend to arise when both parties are considered interdependent. Dialectical tension is natural and inevitable. All relationships are complex because human beings are complex, and this fact is reflected in our communicative processes. Baxter and Montgomery argue that tension arises because we are drawn to the antitheses of opposing sides. These contradictions must be met with a “both/and” approach as opposed to the “either/ or” mindset. However, the “both/and” approach lends to tension and pressure, which almost always guarantees that relationships are not easy.

Som what are the most common tensions that couples encounter? In truth, there are a few different ways of categorizing such tensions. First, we must separate tensions that internal (occurring in the mind of one person in a relationship) versus external (experienced by the couple as a unit. The three big tensions are referred to as separation-integration, certainty-uncertainty, and expression-nonexpression[17]. There are internal and external manifestations of each of these tensions, which we will discuss below. But first, here’s a fun little table to help you follow along:

The integration-separation tension has everything to do with other people. Specifically how close or distant we are from others. At the individual level, this tension emerges as connection-autonomy. On one hand, we want to connect with our partner, but on the other hand, we want to remain an individual, distinct from this person. For example, ever had a partner who was too “clingy?” Or perhaps dated someone who was a bit too aloof? These are examples of folks who fall too far to one or the other side of that connection-autonomy continuum. At the dyadic level, things do chance a bit, and the tension presents itself as inclusion-seclusion. Yes, of course, we want to be included, as a couple in family gatherings, friendship circles, and various other social organizations. At the same time, we need that special alone time that couples experience. It’s a balance. Too much of one or the other can gravely damage the relationship.

The second beg tension is certainty-uncertainty. You’ll note that we’ve already defined and probed uncertainty quite a bit in this chapter, but that was for merely forming a relationship. To maintain a relationship, we balance uncertainty at the individual level through predictability-novelty. We definitely need someone dependable, someone who is there for us…but not so there for us that we know everything about them. As we mentioned earlier, that’s boring! As humans we seek at least some novelty in our relationships. Spontaneity is the spice of life! However, we can’t have someone so spontaneous that they, for example, leave us at the alter. Perhaps a bit extreme, but surely you get the idea. As a couple this tension manifests as conventionality-uniqueness. Social comparisons create norms and, as a result, we have an innate desire as a couple for our relationship to resemble the norm. However, we also want to view our relationship as special in some way. There must be that distinct blend of intimacy, passion, and commitment that makes our relationship unlike any other. That balance is key to success

Finally, there’s expression-nonexpression. For individuals, this one is pretty simple, it’s called openness-closedness. We grapple with the extent to which we disclose information to our significant other. How, for example, might we communicate to them what our preferences are in the bedroom without saying too much about our previous sexual partners? It’s the same ideas as not over-disclosing on a first date, versus not being so opaque that the person learns nothing about you, just on a more long-term scale. For the relationship unit, this tension is known as revealment-concealment, and it’s mostly about how couples decide who, how, and when to tell people about certain elements of their relationship. When might this happen? Well, consider a lesbian couple belonging to two orthodox religious families. They may not feel comfortable telling their parents about the status of their romantic entanglement. Another classic example is (and we’re dating ourselves here, but oh well) the concept of going “facebook official.” You see, 55 years ago, in 2010, one wasn’t in a “real” relationship until you declared so, alongside the other person, on facebook. If we’ve lost you, just google “facebook official” and cringe the night away.

Importantly, different scholars have labeled these tensions in slightly different ways. So, if you encounter them later on in your academic career under a different name, no need to freak out, that’s just sort of how the social sciences work sometimes. More importantly, not every couple deals with dialectical tensions in the same way. Some will use a certain strategy during specific situations, and others will use the same strategy every time there is tension. You have to decide what is best for you based on the situation. Too many wrong decisions and your relationship may be put at risk! As such, your relationship may start to wind down. That process is the final piece of your three-part relational trajectory.

7.4 Coming apart 

Expectancy Violations Theory

Let’s begin by returning to our first date. In this hypothetical, we’ve been out with our new potential significant other for an hour or so and things are going pretty well. our uncertainty has been effectively reduced, at least in part, and we’e noting some commonalities that exist between us. Then, apropos of nothing, this person takes your hand from across the table, looks you in the eye and says “I know we just met, but it’s so clear to me that you’re the one. I love you. I need to be with you forever.” What are you going to do?! Maybe laugh it off and pretend it was a joke? Pretend like you have to go to the bathroom and run for your life? Something else? I’ll tell you what you probably won’t do, reciprocate that feeling. Why? Well, in part, it’s because this person has egregiously violated the expectations you have of them, the budding relationship, and the concept of “first dates” in general.

The idea of an unexpected social faux pa on a first date isn’t unheard of, but the mechanisms behind these sorts of interactions are the focus of our next theory. Expectancy violations theory (EVT) initially explained the consequences of when people violate social norms and expectations about individuals’ nonverbal behaviors, specifically those about personal space [19, 20, 21]. Consider the following video:

Expectancy violations theory articulates that the reason this video is so awkward is because people have general expectations about public behavior. When those expectations are violated, they become immediately apparent and need to be dealt with. The more interdependent we are with a person, the more gravity behind the violation and, presumably, the more pressing the need to address it becomes.

Beyond it’s initial focus on nonverbal idioms, EVT was later applied to both verbal and nonverbal encounters in a variety of communication contexts, such as emotional communication [20] and computer-mediated communication [22]. The primary assumption of EVT is that individuals hold expectations/expectancies for interpersonal encounters and use them as frameworks to make sense of the world around them.

These expectancies are influenced by individual, relational, and contextual factors. When individuals’ expectations are violated (i.e., expectancy violations), their attention is deviated from the event to the violation; they experience heightened emotional and physiological reactions, and they try to assess and explain the violation [19]. In essence, EVT explains both how people respond to unexpected communication incidents and why they do so.

Let’s go back to the example presented at the beginning. The unusual behaviors of your date will certainly violate your expectation. As such, you’ll probably stop what you are doing (deviate your attention to the violation), blush and perhaps get a bit queasy (heightened emotional and physiological reactions), and try to figure out what in the world prompted this person to say what they said to you (assess and explain the violation). When we do this we consider two basic continua: reward potential and valence.

According to Burgoon [20], communicator reward potential is the extent to which a communicator is positively or negatively perceived following an expectancy violation. Reward value comes in a variety of flavors, such as physical attractiveness, competence, resources, and intelligence. People often make a quick calculation of all the available characteristics of a communicator and then assess the potential benefits interaction with the communicator might offer. In other words, our assessment of how rewarding someone is or is not is usually automatic and borderline unconscious. Sometimes this is because we already know the person in question and have a general assessment of how rewarding they are to us. Other times it’s because we lean heavily on our heuristic assessments – what is immediately available to us through sight, sound, etc.

But why does this matter? Communicator reward potential affects how people interpret and evaluate expectancy violations. In other words, the extent to which someone is rewarding or not changes how we view (or respond to) the expectation.  Let’s return to our first date example. Now, regardless of reward potential, a declaration of unflinching love and desire is a bit much from anyone on a first date. That said, might you receive that message a bit better if the person in question had, oh, say, a net worth of $85,000,000? What if they were stunningly attractive, articulate, caring, kind, and genuine? Alternatively, what if the person who said this to you was disheveled, stinky, and awkward? Do you see what we’re getting at here? You might be a bit weirded out either way, but the tremendous reward potential of that first opion might help soften the blow.

The biggest way in which a person’s reward potential can affect how we interpret their violating behavior is by altering what’s known as violation valence. The word “valence” just means how positive or negative something is. Importantly, violation valence entails both the direction (i.e., positive or negative) and the magnitude (e.g., how much a violation deviates from an individual’s expectation) of the behavior in question.

It is important to note that early literature on expectancy violations in relationships generally views violations as negative, but EVT explains that not all violations are negative and some are even favorable [21]. Think about that time when an attractive stranger pays for your coffee order. Or imagine you walk into your home and BAM! All your friends have thrown you a surprise party for your 4.0 GPA this semester. Both of those would be quite unexpected, but delightful, surprises, right? So keep in mind that “expectancy violations” can be both positive and negative.

As you have likely experienced, our expectations are often violated by many different people, such as our friends, family members, romantic partners, and even strangers. One way that our expectations are often violated is in how people manage or share our private information. For example, if your friend were to share one of your biggest secrets with someone else, that might violate your expectation for how your friend was supposed to behave and specifically how they were supposed to protect your information. Communication privacy management theory will tackle this issue in a bit more detail later on in the book, but for now know that this process all begins with an expectancy violation.

So what do we do once we’ve finished assessing the reward value of our violating counterpart and the valence of their act? Well, that’s kind of up to you! We make decision about how to interact with the people in our lives. A first time violation might be met with forgiveness, ignorance (that is, ignore-ance) or some other pro-social behavior to cover up the faux pa. Alternatively, grand violations or repeated offenses may result in retaliatory behaviors. Imagine your partner saying that they were going to stay in for the night only to share to their social media several pictures of them and an attractive stranger. In a hasty response, we may choose to meet that violation with one of our own, sharing pictures of us with other good looking people. This sort of negative reciprocation does not bode well for the relationship, and it can even lead to termination – a process we must now discuss.

Now, this might be where most chapters on romantic relationships would end. Obviously, there’s much more to discuss in terms of relationship theories – we’ve just scratched the surface. That said, there is one more important phenomenon that needs to be touched on before we conclude. Specifically, and as we’ve alluded to in previous sections, we need to spend some time discussing the people who surround a relationship in addition to the relationship itself.

7.5 Romantic Relationships and Social Networks

Diane Felmlee famously wrote back in 2001 that “No couple is an island. [28]” What she meant by this is that there’s no such thing as a romantic relationship that happens independent of the world. There are other humans involved. From family to friends, co-workers, peers, community members, mentors, and everyone in between! And these folks are good at predicting relationship fate. Really good, in fact, as high as 90% at times! We should also note that our network members often purposefully interfere with our relationships, especially when they disapprove of those relationships [30].

Okay, so we know that relationships may be altered by social network members, but we haven’t covered how this occurs. There are a few mechanisms that are at play here. The most obvious is network overlap, which refers to the number of shared associations, including friends and family, that a couple has [31]. For example, let’s say Mycha and Sandra are partners. Mycha knows about 75% of Sandra’s network, and Sandra knows about 25% of Mycha’s network. Thus, this couple has 50% network overlap. Here’s a fun little problem, recent data collected by one of the authors of this book has shown that couples are positively terrible at locating how much overlap exists in their relationship. For example, couples report that they have roughly 79% overlap; however, when asked to sit down and actually comprise their network, that number drops all the way down to about 47% [32].

Network overlap creates some structural and interpersonal elements that affect relational outcomes. Friends and family who are invested in both relational  partners may be more likely to support the couple when one or both parties need it. In general, having more points of connection to provide instrumental support through the granting of favors or emotional support in the form of empathetic listening and validation during times of conflict can help a couple manage common stressors of relationships that may otherwise lead a partnership to deteriorate [14].

In addition to providing a supporting structure, shared associations can also help create and sustain a positive relational culture. For example, mutual friends of a couple may validate the relationship by discussing the partners as a “couple” or “pair” and communicate their approval of the relationship to the couple separately or together, which creates and maintains a connection [14]. Indeed, couples tend to worry about the extent to which friends or family approve of their relationship, accept them as the “significant other” of their partner, and actually like them as a person [33].

7.6 exercises and activities

Activity 1: Identifying Factors of Expectancy Violations

1. Review the video clip from the movie “Love Actually:” https://youtu.be/2y-8vxObugM
2. Gather student perceptions of the context and what is happening.

• In short, Karen accidentally finds out a fancy gold necklace in her husband, Harry’s coat pocket, and assumes that it is his Christmas gift for her. However, she ends up unwrapping a Joni Mitchell CD from Harry. Clearly, the gold necklace is not meant for her but for someone else. Although Karen is not fully aware of what is going on, we as audience know that Harry has an extramarital relationship with his secretary Mia.

3. Ask students to apply expectancy violations theory to this situation using the following prompt:

• Based on what we know about EVT, what factors might influence Karen’s interpretation and evaluation of the fact that her husband gives a fancy necklace to someone other than her?

Activity 2: Online Dating – “Catching Catfish”

Ask students to answer the following questions:

(1) Is online dating a desirable option for you? Make two columns (pro and con) for the advantages and disadvantages of online dating.

(2) One of the reasons people are apprehensive about online dating is because of people posting misleading profiles on dating sites (“catfishing”). How can you tell just by looking at a profile that it may be questionable? Make a list of things that may signal “red flags” when examining an online dating profile.

References:

1. Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2008) Theories of Human Communication (9^th ed). Belmont, CA: Tompson Wadsworth
2. Verderber, K.S. & Verderber, R.F. (2013). Inter-Act (13th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-992194-2
3. Jackson-Dwyer, D. (2014). Foundations of Psychology. Routledge.
4. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of intelligence. Viking-Penguin.
5. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
6. Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. Edward Arnold.
7. Blight, M. G., Ruppel, E. K., & Jagiello, K. (2019). “Using Facebook lets me know what he is doing”: Relational uncertainty, breakups, and renewals in on-again/off-again relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 84, 328-339. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641836
8. Lin, W. Y., Zhang, X., Song, H., & Omori, K. (2016). Health information seeking in the Web 2.0 age: Trust in social media, uncertainty reduction, and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 289-294. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.055
9. Rusbult CE, Van Lange PA. Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:351-75. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.
10. Rapson, R. L., & Hatfield, E. (2012). Equity theory in close relationships. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 200-217). SAGE Publications Ltd.
11. Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora, Family Communication (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), 106
12. Inge Seiffge-Krenke, Shmuel Shulman, and Nicolai Kiessinger, “Adolescent Precursors of Romantic Relationships in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18, no. 3 (2001): 327–46
13. Elaine Walster, Vera Aronson, Darcy Abrahams, and Leon Rottman, “Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, no. 5 (1966): 508–16
14. Robert M. Milardo and Heather Helms-Erikson, “Network Overlap and Third-Party Influence in Close Relationships,” in Close Relationships: A Sourcebook, eds. Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 33.
15. Baxter, L.A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4 (3 & 4), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130
16. Griffin, E.M. (2009). A first look at communication theory. McGraw Hill, pg. 115
17. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.
18. Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relationship dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite
    & L. A. Baxter (Eds.). Engaging in family communication. (pp. 130-145). Sage.
19. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.
20. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
21. Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1-9). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
22. Ramirez Jr, A., & Wang, Z. (2008). When online meets offline: An expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 58, 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00372.x
23. Duck, S. W. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships: Vol. 4. Dissolving personal relationships (pp.1-30). Academic Press.
24. Duck, S. W. (2005). How do you tell someone you’re letting go? A new model of relationship break up. The Psychologist, 18, 210-213.
25. LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2015). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook: Extending the relationship dissolution model to social networking environments. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 78-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514524848
26. Koenig Kellas, J., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories, turning points, and adjustment in the development of post-dissolution relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 23-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507086804
27. Dailey, R. M., Rossetto, K. R., McCracken, A. A., Jin, B., & Green, E. W. (2012). Negotiating breakups and renewals in on-again/off-again dating relationships: Traversing the transitions. Communication Quarterly, 60, 165-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.668847
28. Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79(4), 1259-1287. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2675472
29. Parks M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983).  Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory.  Human Communication Research, 10, 55-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00004.x
30. Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01330.x
31. Stephen R. Marks, Three Corners: Exploring Marriage and the Self (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986), 5.
32. Stein, J. B., Rios, L. (in press). Using dyadic data to analyze couples’ social networks: A duocentric approach. Southern Communication Journal.
33. Stein, J. B., Mongeau, P. A., & Truscelli, N. I. (2020). Measuring the sources and content of network-based relational uncertainty: Looking outside of the dyadic bubble. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519865022
34. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s
35. Anderson, T. L., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.
36. Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2009). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly 49, 172-188. DOI: 10.1080/01463370109385624