2.1 Predicted outcome value theory

Predicted outcome value theory uses social exchange principles to explain the relationship development activities embedded within initial interactions. Like other social exchange perspectives, the theory assumes that the anticipation of rewards motivates relationship development. Predicted outcome value theory, however, focuses specifically on early interactions and how people use communication to diagnose the potential for rewards in the future. This theory claims that people’s primary concern during initial interaction is gathering information that allows them to predict the value of future engagement with a partner.

As articulated by Sunnafrank (1986), a central premise of predicted outcome value theory is that attraction to an interaction partner increases with the predicted value of future outcomes. In turn, people who predict positive future outcomes have longer conversations and seek to promote future opportunities to communicate. Conversely, anticipating negative future outcomes leads people to truncate their interactions and circumvent further exchanges. Finally, the theory states that initial interactions are strategic endeavors wherein people turn conversations to topics that promote positive predicted outcomes. Predicted outcome value theory locates interpersonal communication as central to relationship development, because communication functions to gather information about future outcomes and communication constitutes further engagement with a partner.

Tests of the theory are consistent with the theory’s central claims. For example, Sunnafrank (1988) studied initial interactions between classmates and found that predicted outcome value was positively associated with the amount of verbal communication, the intimacy level of messages, and nonverbal affiliative expression. A similar study showed that people asked more questions and used nonverbal cues to encourage conversation when predicted outcome value was positive rather than negative (Sunnafrank 1990). Longitudinal research has further demonstrated that amount of communication, attraction to a partner, and degree of relationship development over nine weeks is associated with predicted outcome value at the end of an initial interaction (Sunnafrank and Ramirez 2004). These patterns have been documented in both face-to-face interactions and in computer-mediated interactions (Ramirez and Burgoon 2004).

2.2 Social penetration theory

Whereas predicted outcome value theory focuses primarily on communication in initial interactions, social penetration theory applies the principles of social exchange to the longer trajectory of relationship development. Initially put forth by Altman and Taylor (1973), the theory suggests that relationship development occurs when partners perceive that the rewards associated with their relationship exceed the costs they incur. Central to the theory is the idea that partners evaluate these rewards and costs through self-disclosure. When individuals first meet, they typically limit the number of topics they discuss and they exchange relatively impersonal information. Over time, as they share a greater number of topics (increasing the breadth of their disclosure) and share increasingly personal information about themselves with each other (increasing the depth of their disclosure), their relationship becomes more intimate. Altman and Taylor argue that relationship development continues only as long as partners perceive their association with each other is relatively rewarding.

In line with social penetration theory, research indicates that there is a positive association between disclosure and the degree to which partners are emotionally involved in their relationships (Rubin et al. 1980). In addition, partners who disclose more to each other report greater relational satisfaction (Hendrick 1981), and the amount of disclosure partners give and receive predicts relational stability over a four-year period (Sprecher 1987).

Although the basic claims of social penetration theory are widely accepted, researchers have qualified the notion that there is a linear association between disclosure and intimacy. For instance, Altman, Vinsel, and Brown (1981) noted that relational partners experience dialectical tensions between being open and closed about the issues they discuss. Others suggest that partners work together to establish a balance between what they disclose to each other and what they keep private (Baxter and Montgomery 1996; Petronio 1991). Researchers have found that couples often declare certain topics off-limits for discussion (Baxter and Wilmot 1984; Roloff and Ifert 1998) and that partners’ need to disclose personal information declines after they come to know each other well (Derlega et al. 1993). Those who study social media further argue that the incremental increases in disclosure described by social penetration theory rarely occur when partners meet on internet dating sites because dating profiles are structured to reveal more breadth and depth than initial face-to-face interactions (Whitty 2008).

2.3 Equity theory

Equity theory is another relationship development perspective that assumes people are motivated to maximize the rewards they receive and minimize their costs. In contrast to the two aforementioned perspectives, equity theory emphasizes relationship satisfaction, rather than relationship development per se, as the outcome of social exchange. In addition, equity theory suggests that the self-interest guiding many relational choices is influenced by certain norms and rules. Consequently, people tend to be most satisfied when they believe that the outcomes both partners receive from their relationship are proportional to what each puts into the relationship (Hatfield et al. 1985).

A number of studies support the theory, demonstrating that romantic partners who perceive their relationship is equitable tend to be more satisfied than those who believe their relationship is unfair (DeMaris 2010; Sprecher 1986, 1992; Walster, Walster, and Traupmann 1978). Much of this research has distinguished individuals who see themselves as underbenefited (i.e., who believe they are getting less out of their relationship than they should) from those who view themselves as overbenefited (i.e., who believe they are getting more from their relationship than they deserve). People who are underbenefited tend to feel angry and typically are less happy with their relationship than are those who believe they are treated equitably by their partner (Hatfield 1983). Those who are overbenefited may feel guilty and tend to be somewhat dissatisfied, but the effects of being overbenefited are not as strong as the effects of being underbenefited. In fact, Sprecher (2001) found that people who perceived they were overbenefited were relatively happy with their relationship and that, over time, being overbenefited did not have the same deleterious influence on satisfaction as did being underbenefited. There also is evidence that women are more emotionally sensitive to being overbenefitted than are men (Lively, Steelman, and Powell 2010).

While the central propositions of equity theory continue to receive support, scholars argue that they are limited. For instance, some researchers have found that variations in exchange processes (e.g., the extent to which reciprocity is voluntary and uncertain versus explicitly negotiated) can affect relational outcomes (Molm 2010). Others have demonstrated that the benefits received by partners have a greater impact on their satisfaction than perceived equity (Cate et al. 1982) Individual differences also appear to influence equity: Partners vary in the degree to which they are concerned with equity (Buunk and Van Yperen 1991; Pillemer, Hatfield, and Sprecher 2008) and they have different beliefs about the degree to which behavior should be guided by equity principles (see, e.g., Clark and Mills 1979). Researchers also have argued that equity theory may be more applicable to some domains of relationships – for example, the division of household labor – than others (Bodi, Mikula, and Riederer 2010; Lively et al. 2010).

2.4 The investment model

The investment model (Rusbult 1980) adds three parameters to the issues encompassed by the theories discussed thus far. First, the investment model emphasizes how rewards and costs influence commitment to a relationship, as well as relationship satisfaction. Second, this theory specifies that investments in a relationship, including the time devoted to building a bond or benefits that accrue from being part of the social unit (e.g., status), encourage commitment to maintaining the association. Third, the theory considers how commitment to an association motivates specific relationship maintenance activities (Rusbult and Buunk 1993; Rusbult, Drigotas, and Verette 1994). The logic of the theory highlights the fact that ending a relationship would not only close off access to particular rewards, but would also lead to the waste or loss of investments. Consequently, rewards, costs, and investments are all relevant to an individual’s commitment to a relationship, and in turn to the use of communication to develop or maintain a bond.

The body of work testing the investment model provides robust evidence that rewards, costs, and investments are related to people’s commitment to a relationship. A meta-analysis of more than 50 studies demonstrated that relationship satisfaction, investments, and the perceived quality of alternatives to the association predicted almost two-thirds of the variance in commitment, which in turn was associated with relationship continuity or dissolution (Le and Agnew 2003). A second meta-analysis, involving more than 130 studies, provided convincing evidence that commitment, satisfaction, investments, and quality of alternatives were associated with relationship stability (Le et al. 2010).

Likewise, empirical evidence is consistent with the theory’s claims that commitment motivates relationship maintenance. For example, people who are committed to a romantic partner tend to downgrade the attractiveness of relational alternatives (Johnson and Rusbult 1989); exaggerate the superiority of their own relationship (van Lange and Rusbult 1995); notice the positive behaviors a partner enacts, as well as the absence of negative behaviors (Finkenauer et al. 2010); accommodate, rather than reciprocate, a partner’s destructive behavior (Rusbult et al. 1991); and forego benefits to promote a partner’s well-being (van Lange et al. 1997). In these ways, the rewards, costs, and investments people experience are translated in cognitions and behaviors that shape the course of relationships.

2.5 Summary and synthesis

In the forty years since the emergence of social exchange theories as a framework for understanding involvement in relationships, communication and relationship scholars have amassed a compelling body of work documenting the impact of rewards, costs, and related phenomena on the course of relationship development. As our review illustrates, social exchange principles provide insight into communication during initial interactions, self-disclosure and relationship escalation, the causes and consequences of equity in relationships, and both feelings of commitment to a relationship and the performance of specific relationship maintenance activities. For these reasons, social exchange perspectives have secured a place within efforts to understand relationship development.

Perhaps because questions about the role of rewards and costs have been largely answered, social exchange theories have become less explicit within recent research on relationship development. Rather, the assumption that people communicate and develop relationships to maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes permeates the discourse of relationship development in more implicit ways. Consider, for example, a recent study by Fox and Warber (2013) that was focused on the meanings and motives behind relationship status indicators on social networking sites, such as Facebook. Neither the phrase social exchange nor the word cost appears in their paper; reward is used once. And yet the article’s rationale emphasizes the reasons people announce their relationship status as part of their profile, and the study includes a measure of motives for doing so. The assumption that people communicate in ways to increase positive outcomes and avoid negative ones has become embedded in scholarly thinking about relationship development.

The omnipresence of social exchange constructs is both a sign of the strength of this perspective and a marker of its key limitation. On the positive side, the claim that people assess rewards and costs in interpersonal relationships and communicate in ways to promote profitable experiences is as close to proven as social science can achieve. If we accept this position, however, the heuristic value of social exchange theories, per se, is diminished because we have overcome the need to test the claims that define the framework. Conceptual malleability concerning what people experience as a reward or a cost also raises persistent questions about the falsifiability of social exchange perspectives. Provided they are applied to specific questions about facets of communication and relationship development, we anticipate that social exchange perspectives will continue to be useful frameworks to guide research on interpersonal relationships.

3.1 Uncertainty reduction theory

One priority for people during interpersonal interactions is reducing their uncertainty about the situation. Initial interactions, in particular, are fraught with unknowns about a partner’s personal traits and attitudes, how a partner will behave and respond to messages, how a person should conduct him or herself, and what direction the interaction might go. Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger and Calabrese 1975) asserts that people are driven to increase the predictability of their communication partner’s behavior, while they also narrow the range of options for their own behavior during an interaction. Moreover, the theory suggests that relationship development is contingent on the reduction of uncertainty.

A primary tool for uncertainty reduction is interpersonal communication (Berger 1988). During an initial interaction, for example, people seek and provide descriptive, demographic information in an effort to identify the cultural and social norms that might help them predict attitudes and behaviors. As a relationship develops, people pursue conversations and ask questions that reveal a partner’s more personal attitudes and opinions. And within more intimate associations, doubts about one’s own interest in pursuing the relationship, questions about a partner’s involvement in the association, and the nature of the relationship itself become salient (Knobloch and Solomon 1999; see Chapter 13, Knobloch and McAninch) and reveal themselves in conversations between partners (Knobloch and Solomon 2003). Even within well-developed relationships, such as marriage, people encounter uncertainty about their partner’s attitudes, behaviors, and relational involvement, and these doubts are manifest in communication between spouses (Knobloch 2008; Knobloch et al. 2007).

In turn, uncertainty reduction motivates relationship development. Uncertainty reduction during initial interactions, reflected in a perceived ability to predict a partner’s attitudes and behaviors, is positively associated with attraction to that partner (Berger 1987). Conversely, communicating when uncertainty is high leads to more dissatisfying and ambiguous interactions (Knobloch 2006; Knobloch et al. 2007; Knobloch and Solomon 2005), which could lead to relational de-escalation. Berger (1995) argued that reducing uncertainty promotes relationship development because people gain knowledge that allows them to plan their communication strategies and interact more fluently. Knobloch and Solomon (2002) proposed that it is the sense of accomplishment that comes from reducing uncertainty, rather than the knowledge that results, that promotes relationship closeness (see also Theiss and Solomon 2008). While the specific mechanisms that link uncertainty reduction to relationship development invite further study, the twin claims that (a) people communicate in ways likely to produce useful and satisfying decreases in uncertainty, and (b) uncertainty reduction promotes relationship development are well-supported by empirical evidence.

3.2 Information management theories

Whereas uncertainty reduction theory emphasizes people’s drive to reduce uncertainty, the collection of works comprising information management theories focus on the degree to which partners disclose or withhold various sorts of information within a relationship. Prior to the 1980s, this line of research portrayed disclosure as beneficial for relationships and avoidance, secrecy, and deception as detrimental. Although this portrayal fit nicely with theory and research emphasizing the link between disclosure, uncertainty reduction, and relationship development, it failed to acknowledge the idea that complete openness does not always have positive outcomes (Bochner 1982; Parks 1982).

As evidenced by the literature on secrecy and topic avoidance, most scholars now agree that both disclosing and withholding information are associated with positive and negative consequences. For instance, studies have revealed a negative association between the number of secrets people believe they keep and their relational satisfaction (e.g., Caughlin et al. 2000; Vangelisti and Caughlin 1997). Perceptions of others’ secrecy also have been linked to rejection and avoidance (Caughlin and Golish 2002; Finkenauer et al. 2005). Yet, under certain circumstances, keeping information private or secret can have positive outcomes. Secrets kept by adolescents from their parents can help the adolescents establish a sense of autonomy (Finkenauer et al. 2009). Further, collaborating to keep a secret can serve to bond relational partners (Vangelisti 1994) and promote attraction between those sharing the secret (Wegner, Lane, and Dimitri 1994). Indeed, shared secrets have been linked to higher interpersonal functioning (Frijns, Finkenaur, and Keijsers 2013).

The factors that predict or motivate avoidance and secrecy often distinguish secrets that have positive and negative relational outcomes. Vangelisti (1994) identified a variety of reasons for concealing secrets including efforts to avoid negative evaluation, to maintain a relationship, to defend against social threats, to maintain privacy, and to encourage relational bonding. Vangelisti and Caughlin (1997) found that keeping secrets for bonding or privacy reasons was positively related to satisfaction, whereas keeping secrets to avoid negative evaluation or for defense was negatively associated with satisfaction. Caughlin et al. (2009) examined interactions among reasons for keeping secrets. Their findings revealed positive links between believing another person kept a secret to avoid negative evaluation and reports of relational distancing and hurt feelings, but these positive associations were mediated by individuals’ perceptions that the other person had dispositional reasons for keeping the secret.

As researchers continue to explore the associations between the various ways romantic partners manage information and relational outcomes, even more nuanced views of those associations are likely to emerge. For example, T. D. Afifi, Caughlin, and W. A. Afifi (2007) suggested that at least five factors moderate the effects of avoidance and secrecy on relationships. These include (a) the extent to which avoidance or secrecy is explicitly recognized in conversation, (b) varying perceptions of the extent of avoidance and secrecy, (c) individuals’ privacy rules and communication standards, (d) the perceived reasons for avoidance or secrecy, and (e) the larger relational and cultural context. Investigating these and other variables that may affect the influence of avoidance, secrecy, and disclosure on relationships, will better equip researchers to explain the process and outcomes of information management.

3.3 Relational dialectics theory

The tradeoffs between disclosure and withholding recognized by information management theories exemplify the tensions that are at the heart of relational dialectics theory. This perspective characterizes relationships as in a constant state of flux, as participants individually and jointly address a variety of conflicting needs and preferences (Baxter 2004b). Indeed, relational dialectics theory assumes that relating is inherently a process of contradiction, and the experience of contradiction underlies relationship change (Baxter and Braithwaite 2007). This theory positions communication as essential to relationship development, because communication between partners is where contradictions are revealed and where struggles over the meanings that characterize a relationship unfold (Baxter and Braithwaite 2008).

Baxter (2004a) describes relational dialectics theory as a sensitizing theory, because it identifies concepts and assumptions to guide research questions, and it does not advance specific hypotheses. The theory, as articulated by Baxter and Montgomery (1996), identifies three core tensions. Expression-privacy captures the tradeoffs between disclosing and not disclosing information, which are the focus of information management theories. Stability-change encompasses the dueling desires people have for comfortable, predictable associations and novel, stimulating experiences. Integration-separation refers to inherent needs to forge connections with others, while also maintaining a sense of individual identity. These tensions can emerge between partners, and also with respect to how the relational dyad interfaces with elements external to the social unit.

Early work on relational dialectics theory examined how the experience of dialectical tensions varied as a function of stage of relationship development (Baxter 1990; Bridge and Baxter 1992). In addition, studies examined the strategies people use to manage dialectical tensions (e.g., Baxter and Simon 1993). These works highlighted how the experience of conflicting needs and competing motivations, as well as reactions to those challenges, compelled relationship change. In more recent writing, Baxter (2011) has discouraged simplistic analysis of the core tensions in favor of more holistic and interpretive reading of the discourse that creates, embodies, and sometimes transcends dialectical struggles.

3.4 Affect exchange research

While uncertainty reduction theory and relational dialectics theory emphasize the cognitive and affective experiences of romantic partners, a number of scholars have focused their attention on the affective behaviors that characterize couples’ interactions. Studies of the behavioral expression of affect in romantic relationships generally suggest that partners who are unhappy with their relationship demonstrate more negative affect and less positive affect toward each other than do those who are happy (Margolin and Wampold 1981; Notarius and Johnson 1982). Distressed partners display more negative nonverbal behaviors than do nondistressed partners (Noller 1982) and those who are unhappy engage in fewer supportive behaviors than do those who are happy (Pasch and Bradbury 1998). Negative affective expressions also predict declines in relational satisfaction even when initial levels of satisfaction are controlled (Gottman and Krokoff 1989).

Although there is a link between both positive and negative behaviors and individuals’ relational satisfaction, researchers have found that negative behaviors are more strongly associated with how partners feel about their relationship (Broderick and O’Leary 1986; Jacobson, Waldron, and Moore 1980; Wills, Weiss, and Patterson 1974). By contrast, the association between positive behaviors and partners’ satisfaction appears to be relatively nuanced. Several studies suggest that the impact of positive behaviors on relational outcomes may be more apparent when examined in tandem with negative behaviors. For instance, Gottman and Levenson (1992) found that couples’ satisfaction was more strongly influenced by the ratio of positive to negative behaviors than by the absolute frequency of either positive or negative behaviors. Huston and Chorost (1994) similarly found that the association between negativity and relational quality was buffered by partners’ expression of positive affect. Researchers also have begun to examine the unique functions of positive behaviors. For example, Gable and her colleagues (2004) argue that sharing positive events with a partner, or capitalization, builds personal and social resources. Consistent with this argument, Reis et al. (2010) found that individuals who shared positive events with a responsive listener saw the events as more valuable and showed greater trust and prosocial concern for others.

Although the association between affective behavior and relational satisfaction is well-founded, it is complicated by at least two factors. The first is gender differences in the expression of negative affect and the influence of negative affect on relational outcomes. Women tend to express more negativity and more positivity in their relationships than do men (Notarius and Johnson 1982) and men’s negative behavior has more of an impact on their partner’s satisfaction than does women’s negative behavior (Gottman and Krokoff 1989; Huston and Vangelisti 1991). The second involves the context in which partners’ behaviors occur. Because most research on couples’ affective behavior has been done in the context of conflict or problem-solving interactions, the influence of positive behaviors may be muted (Cutrona 1996).

3.5 Summary and synthesis

The theories comprising this section of the chapter highlight the cognitions and emotions that relational partners must manage and coordinate as they develop their association with each other. At a basic level, a lack of knowledge about a partner undermines a person’s ability to encode sensible messages; reducing uncertainty yields benefits that, in turn, promote relationship development. But communication in relationships is more than acquiring information – partners navigate decisions about what to disclose and what to withhold and these decisions have consequences for relationship development and relational well-being. The tension between disclosure and privacy is a specific manifestation of the dialectical tensions that permeate relationships. The discourses that people draw upon inherently carve concrete and discrete spaces within domains that are complex, nuanced, and enmeshed. Within affective systems, the relative expression of positive and negative affect may be both a consequence and a cause of relationship well-being and development.

Understanding how partners address and coordinate cognitions and emotions within developing relationships represents an intriguing focus for research. Uncertainty, information management dilemmas, dialectical tensions, and expressions of negative affect exemplify the heart of what is difficult, frustrating, consuming, and ultimately transformative about personal relationships. To unpack these fraught experiences, to open them to the light of objective social scientific study, and to offer straightforward conclusions about their role in relationship development is an ongoing challenge for interpersonal communication scholars.

4.1 Stage models of relational development

Stage models of relational development describe the behaviors and interaction patterns that characterize partners’ communication as their relationship becomes increasingly intimate. These models typically begin with the partners’ initial interaction and trace changes in intimacy from that point to the time partners designate themselves as a “couple.” The perspective offered by stage models and the way they inform research on relationship escalation are exemplified by a model advanced by Knapp (1984; see also, Levinger 1983).

Knapp’s (1984) model consists of five stages that illustrate how partners communicate as they begin their relationship and then become more intimate. The first stage is called initiating. During this period, individuals employ messages designed to prompt interaction and portray themselves as likeable. Experimenting is the second stage. When they are experimenting, partners become acquainted by seeking information about each other and reducing their uncertainty about each other. The third stage, intensifying, occurs after people have met and become acquainted. This is the time when partners intensify their relationship by engaging in more personal disclosures, developing private symbols, and expressing commitment to their relationship. The fourth stage, integrating, is the period when individuals begin to conceive of themselves as a couple. Partners’ verbal behavior often becomes more similar and they may opt to share property. Bonding, the fifth and final stage, takes place when partners institutionalize their relationship. Knapp notes that in most cases, this takes the form of a public ritual.

Although stage models are criticized for oversimplifying relational development, a close reading of the models shows that they allow for substantial complexity. For example, Knapp (1984: 51) notes that movement through the interaction stages described in his model may be forward or backward and that it may occur within stages. He also states that people may “skip steps during growth processes” and that “any final-state form can be approached from differing initial conditions and through a variety of paths.” In other words, rather than offer a description of relational escalation as static and linear, stage models provide a general framework that researchers can use to explore the communication patterns that characterize relational escalation. Indeed, recent work on the role of social networking sites in romantic relationship development illustrates the potential utility of stage models in uncovering the processes involved in couples’ public proclamation of their relational status (Fox, Warber, and Makstaller 2013).

4.2 The turning points perspective

Rather than describe stages of relationship development, the turning points perspective identifies the critical events that characterize change in relationships. The concept of “turning points” was first introduced as a means to study interpersonal processes associated with mate selection and has since been employed to examine the development of both romantic and non-romantic relationships. Turning points are defined as “any event or occurrence that is associated with change in a relationship” (Baxter and Bullis 1986: 470). They offer researchers a way to describe the developmental course of relationships, access partners’ perceptions of particular events, and examine how partners conceptualize and evaluate their relationship (Graham 1990).

Most of the research on relational turning points has employed the Retrospective Interview Technique (RIT) to generate data (Huston et al. 1981). The RIT requires participants to identify the turning points that have occurred in their relationship and plot those points on a graph. The graph is designed to capture a particular time period, such as the couple’s courtship. In most investigations, the horizontal axis of the graph reflects units of time (e.g., monthly or weekly intervals) and the vertical axis represents changes in relational quality (e.g., commitment). As participants plot their turning points, they connect the points by drawing lines between them and often respond to questions relevant to the study.

RIT data have yielded findings about the nature of relational turning points, the trajectories that characterize relationship development, and the various ways that partners make sense of changes in their relationship. For instance, there is evidence that couples experience different types of turning points and that many of those turning points involve explicit communication about the relationship (Baxter and Bullis 1986). Studies examining the critical events associated with courtship suggest that relationships tend to follow one of four different developmental trajectories from the time partners first meet to marriage (Huston et al. 1981; Surra 1985). Research on the turning points experienced by romantic partners after their relationship has dissolved similarly indicates that the development of post-dissolution relationships can be characterized by several trajectories (Graham 1997; Kellas et al. 2008). In addition, the ways individuals describe and make sense of turning points has been linked to the developmental stage of their relationship (Lloyd and Cate 1985) and their commitment to marriage (Surra and Gray 2000; Surra and Hughes 1997).

Because the literature on relational turning points relies on self-reports, it provides a portrayal of how partners construct the history of their relationship. The data offer rich descriptions of romantic partners’ perceptions of the processes associated with relationship development, but those descriptions may differ substantially from the ones that might be provided by outside observers.

4.3 The relational turbulence model

Like stage models of relationship development and the turning points perspective, the relational turbulence model is focused on the transformations that surround movement from one relationship state to another. In its initial conception, the relational turbulence model focused on one particular relationship transition: the escalation of romantic relationships from casual dating to serious, mutually committed involvement (Solomon and Knobloch 2001, 2004). Subsequently, the scope of the theory was broadened to include transitions that might occur within more established relationships, such as marriage, when circumstances internal or external to the relational dyads render previous perceptions of the relationship and patterns of interaction obsolete (Solomon and Theiss 2011).

The theory highlights two relationship qualities that emerge during times of transition. The impact of transitions on individual perceptions of the relationship is captured by a focus on relational uncertainty, defined as the doubts and questions people have about the nature of their own involvement in the relationship, their partner’s involvement in the association, and the nature of the relationship itself (Knobloch and Solomon 1999; see Chapter 13, Knobloch and McAninch). Transitions are also assumed to affect dyadic coordination, as manifest in experiences of interference from a partner in everyday goals and activities (Knobloch and Solomon 2004). Within relationships with clear parameters and well-established behavioral routines, partners benefit from meshed cognitive and behavioral systems that enable smooth coordination of meanings and actions. For relationships undergoing change, however, relationship uncertainty and experiences of goal disruption create a state of relational turbulence, in which cognitive, emotional, and communicative experiences are accentuated and chaotic (Knobloch 2007; McLaren, Solomon, and Priem 2012).

Evidence that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner characterize relationships in transition comes primarily from qualitative work, which shows that these concepts permeate the discourse of women coping with a breast cancer diagnosis (Weber and Solomon 2008), couples confronted with an infertility diagnosis (Steuber and Solomon 2008), and military families navigating the homecoming of a servicemember (Knobloch and Theiss 2012). Quantitative empirical studies provide more mixed evidence that relational uncertainty and experiences of interference increase during the transition from casual to serious dating (Knobloch and Solomon 2004; Solomon and Knobloch 2001) and as a function of changes in intimacy (Solomon and Theiss 2008). Taken as set, these studies suggest that the concepts featured within the relational turbulence model are relevant to understanding relationships undergoing transitions, particularly difficult ones; however, the extent to which the onset of relationship change itself sparks relational uncertainty and interference from a partner is less clear.

With regard to the theory’s claim that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner complicate relationship engagement, the empirical evidence is robust. Across several studies, relational uncertainty and interference from a partner have been linked to more pronounced experiences of negative emotions, such as hurt (e.g., McLaren et al. 2012); more extreme appraisals of negative events, such as conflicts (e.g., Theiss and Solomon 2006); and polarized communication behavior, such as topic avoidance (e.g., Knobloch and Carpenter-Theune 2004). To the extent that these turbulent episodes prompt partners to address their doubts about their association and establish or re-establish facilitative patterns of interdependence, dyads can emerge from periods of transition with refined understandings that constitute the evolution of their relationship (Solomon and Theiss 2011). In this way, turbulence is both a marker and a driver of the development of personal relationships.

4.4 Summary and synthesis

The theories considered within this section of the chapter capture the broader movements that occur as relationships transition from one type, such as a friendship, to another, such as a romantic relationship. Those movements are not just reflected in new ways of communicating within the dyad; rather, the kinds of communication that occur between partners can request, signal, accept, or reject relationship change. Thus, interpersonal communication is inextricably woven into people’s experience and understanding of relationship development.

Theories and models of relationship change have phenomenological value, because they map onto the schema that people have for the development of personal relationships (Honeycutt, Cantrill, and Greene 1989). At the same time, it is important to recognize that these perspectives are largely descriptive, rather than predictive. For example, stage models of relationship development provide a rich description of the intrapersonal and communicative changes that occur as relationships move from one state of relating to another. Likewise, through the retrospective interview technique, turning points research identifies salient moments in relationships and opens them to further examination. Although the relational turbulence model offers specific hypotheses about how experiences of relational uncertainty and goal interference correspond with cognitions, emotions, and communication, the heuristic value of the theory to date is the attention it brings to the turmoil partners experience during times of transition. We see room for future research to draw upon the insights offered by these bodies of work and to pursue a deeper understanding of the changes partners navigate in the course of relationship development.

5 Relationship development as a site for ongoing inquiry

Beginning with early studies of attraction and relationship development (e.g., Kerckhoff and Davis 1962), we now count more than five decades of social scientific research on relationship development. In its infancy, the study of communication and relationship development was fueled by the assumption that every interaction conveys information about and enacts the relationship between partners (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson 1967). Communication scholars recognized that changes in relationships both prompt and reflect changes in communication (e.g., Miller 1978), and the notion that relationships exist at the interface of communication behavior and social cognition became widely accepted (Berger and Roloff 1982). By the 1980’s, the field had largely moved away from a focus on individuals’ traits as predictors of attraction and relationship escalation (e.g., Huston et al. 1981), to theory and research that addressed the role of communication in navigating intrapersonal and dyadic aspects of relationship engagement.

As illustrated by the work examined in this chapter, we now enjoy a rich and deep understanding of the motivations that drive relationship engagement, continuity, and dissolution. We have insight, as well, into the individual and relationship processes that partners must manage and coordinate. In addition, we have clear and detailed models of the changes that occur as relationships are transformed through communication. While the past fifty years of research have answered many questions about relationship development, they have perhaps only laid a foundation for the challenging issues that invite further study. In the remainder of this chapter, we consider two interconnected issues we see on the horizon.

A first direction for future research is seeking to understand how relationships exist and evolve at multiple levels of social reality. As noted, early relationship development research highlighted the traits and experiences of individuals, and a tendency to privilege an individual’s frame of reference continues to permeate theory and research. At the same time, relationships are manifested dyadically, in the intersubjective realities of partners and the behaviors that occur between them. Interpersonal relationships are also social entities, meaning that they exist within shared social spaces and are subject to social norms, expectations, facilitation, and disruption. More broadly, yet, relationships are a cultural phenomenon – they exist within frames of meaning imbued by the cultural context, and culture defines what constitutes meaningful, imperative, and unacceptable communication within relationships. Thus, we see a need for work that attends to these levels of social reality and considers how they are integrated within the experience of particular associations.

A second issue to grapple with involves the constraints that language, and communication more generally, places upon both people in relationships and researchers seeking to study relationships. The words we have to describe the essence of interpersonal relationships are, as with any symbol system, inadequate to capture the complexity, the nuance, and the multiplicity that characterizes personal relationships. Consider one partner asking another the seemingly simply question, “What do you want?” As the respondent answers this question, how does he or she translate goals for the relationship in the long term or within the broader cultural milieu, desires and constraints imposed by the relationship’s location within a social network and a sociological niche, wants that emerge or are tempered by dyadic concerns, and personal self-interests? When people reply to such questions, they necessarily carve a path through this multi-dimensional space and offer a pale, holographic, and ephemeral representation of their relationship. Likewise, scholarly efforts to describe and predict relationship development inevitably turn a blind eye to variegation that is inherent to this phenomenon.

The existence of relationships at multiple levels of experience and the constraints of language are but two of the challenges researchers face as they continue to study relationship development. While these challenges are formidable, scholars who confront them will do so on the foundation laid by decades of programmatic, theory-building work. We have come to understand the role of rewards and costs in relationship development, the individual and dyadic achievements essential to relational progression and continuity, and the ways in which communication and partners change as their relationships evolve. These insights serve as a launching pad for delving into how the experiences of individuals, dyads, social networks, and societies are woven together by interpersonal communication as people navigate developing relationships.