Tie signs

Last updated December 30, 2022

Tie signs are signs, signals, and symbols, that are revealed through people's actions as well as objects such as engagement rings, wedding bands, and photographs of a personal nature that suggest a relationship exists between two people. For romantic couples, public displays of affection (PDA) including things like holding hands, an arm around a partner's shoulders or waist, extended periods of physical contact, greater-than-normal levels of physical proximity, grooming one's partner, and “sweet talk” are all examples of common tie signs.^[1] Tie signs inform the participants, as well as outsiders, about the nature of a relationship, its condition, and even what stage a relationship is in.^[1]

Background

Origination of the term "tie sign" has been attributed to Desmond Morris, an English zoologist and author, by at least one source.^[2] However, Erving Goffman is also credited with employing the term in 1959, almost two decades earlier.^[3]

Usage

Nearly anything can be a tie sign, whether it is an action or an object, depending on the context in which it is observed. The majority of the time, the term tie sign is directed toward romantic couples, but it can also apply to groups like families and friends. Additionally, "name-dropping" is an example a type of non-romantic tie sign^[1] wherein someone attempts to communicate to others that a relationship exists between the speaker and the person he or she has named.

Dependence on context

Morris relates that one of the difficulties associated with understanding tie signs is that almost anything can qualify as one, depending on the circumstances.^[1] For example, even though holding hands is a common tie sign, there is an obvious difference between a man and a woman holding hands as they stand on the altar at a wedding when compared to a female physician holding a male patient's hand in a doctor's office. Goffman echoes this sentiment when he says, "a tie-sign is in fact dependent on the context for its meaning."^[4]

Use of tie signs in social media

The advent of social media has created a newer conduit for tie signs. In addition to broadcasting images of a couple exhibiting traditional tie signs like kissing, holding hands, hugging, pictures of weddings, and engagement rings, etc., social media provides the opportunity for other signals such as "liking" someone's page or tagging another person in a picture. Additionally, although observers may not witness the act of "liking" as it occurs, evidence of such actions persist on the recipient's page for others to see over time.

There is some evidence that ceasing to use social media for relational maintenance purposes could contribute to "alienation and relational de-escalation", while it would not have been a problem in the past simply because the opportunity to communicate via social media was not an option.^[5]

Applications

Afifi and Johnson

Walid A. Afifi and Michelle L. Johnson researched cross-sex friendships (those between a man and a woman) and how the use of tie signs in non-romantic relationships differ from the same tie signs when they are used in romantic cross-sex relationships. For example, hugging as a greeting is an accepted tie sign for both cross-sex friendship as well as cross-sex romantic relationships. Afifi and Johnson note some differences between sexes in the meanings behind tie signs in certain circumstances.^[6] For example, women, more often than men, stated their use of tie signs was intended to "express inclusion and intimacy."^[6] Afifi and Johnson also suggest that less-than-overt tie signs are often ambiguous even with knowledge of the context and the present state of the relationship. It is for this reason that Goffman argues that a tie sign is informative in nature and not a type of communication or language that can stand on its own.^[4]

Goffman

Like Morris, Goffman's work on tie signs, copyrighted in 1971,^[4] was more descriptive than it was research-based because he was defining a new concept. In so doing, Goffman focuses on relationships between two people (dyadic), and refers to the participants as both "pegs" and "ends" that are joined in "anchored relations,"^[4] as well as the way intentional and unintentional actions that are exhibited by the pair reflect the current state of their relationship. Goffman argues that tie signs are "ritual idioms"^[4] that contain information as opposed to a particular message, in large part because tie signs are often susceptible to incorrect interpretations.^[4] In turn, third-party observers tend to look for additional tie signs in order to confirm or deny their suspicions regarding the subjects they are observing. Goffman breaks tie-signs into three distinct categories:^[4]

Rituals: These are inward-facing tie signs between those in a relationship. For example, in a new relationship, where the parties exhibit increased attentiveness toward one another by holding hands, maintaining prolonged eye contact, etc.^[4] Ritual ties signs can be subtle or overt, but, although they may be perceptible to outsiders, they are directed inward between the participants.
Markers: As the name suggests, these types of tie signs are more overt and intended by at least one of the participants in a relationship to be interpreted by others that a relationship of some kind does exist.^[4]
Change signals: Things like weddings and births are examples of change signals. Change signals also generally involve a participant in the relationship taking a good bit for granted, or as Goffman puts it, "the taking of liberty."^[4] For example, handing a partner one's coat or purse without asking, and not giving the action a second thought, is an example of one relational "peg"^[4] demonstrating that a relationship exists with another.

Guerrero and Anderson

Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen researched how touch avoidance informs on the various stages of romantic relationships.^[7] Guerrero and Anderson's results quite clearly suggest a marked decrease in touching between couples once their relationship reaches a "stable" stage. The authors' research does not determine whether the decrease in touching after reaching a "stable" condition is because touching is not needed as much as when the relationship is still forming, or if the need, or desire, for public touching is replaced by an increase in physical contact while in private,^[7] or by less overt communications and gestures such as knowing looks between pairs.^[1]^[4]

Guerrero and Anderson's work supports Morris' contention that tie-signs decrease in frequency and intimacy as relationships mature.^[1] Goffman refers to this trend as “taking liberty.”^[1]

Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively on its face, a lack of touching between an “anchored pair”^[4] is also a tie sign that can signal a pair's relationship is in a mature and stable stage.^[1]^[4]^[7]

Morris

Like Goffman, Desmond Morris's work with tie signs, was more descriptive in nature as he was describing a new concept, in contrast with others' research that followed. Morris defines a tie sign as "any action which indicates the existence of a personal relationship".^[1] Additionally, he broadens and clarifies his definition by including objects such as engagement rings, family pictures, and tattoos, as well as "indirect tie signs"^[1] such as a couple sharing a dessert after dinner, and "direct ties signs"^[1] such as maintaining close proximity to one another, finishing each other's sentences, and prolonged and frequent body contact.^[1]

Sosick and Bazarova

Victoria Schwanda Sosik and Natalya Bazarova researched relational maintenance through social networking including an increasing sense of “staying in touch” and frequency of contact.^[5] Even while noting a reduction in effort, or "relational maintenance cost"^[5] required to maintain a relationship via a social media conduit, the authors argue that activity on an acquaintance's social media page still serves to signal a shared relationship. Sosik and Bazarova also argue there is a hierarchy of signals available including more personal, written comments posted either publicly or privately, “liking” something on the other person's social media page, tagging the other person when active on other pages, etc.^[5] Two differences between an in-person tie sign and a tie sign in a social media setting are first – the potentially greater size of the audience, and second – the lingering of tie signs that were generated in the past creating, in turn, a prolonged signal to any who see it that a relationship exists.

Tong and Walther

In Wright and Webb's book Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships,^[8] Stephanie Tom Tong and Joseph Walther explore whether social media activity is additive to relational maintenance between people that are not dispersed geographically and otherwise have social contact with one another. Even though people may have a relationship outside of social media, they still often choose to demonstrate to others that a relationship exists with tie signs that are delivered via social media platforms.^[8]

Critique

In "Relations in Public", Goffman concedes that his review of tie-signs is focused on Western society of the time, specifically to "middle-class American[s]."^[4]

Related Research Articles

Flirting or coquetry is a social and sexual behavior involving spoken or written communication, as well as body language. It is either to suggest interest in a deeper relationship with the other person or, if done playfully, for amusement.

Human sexual activity, human sexual practice or human sexual behaviour is the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality. People engage in a variety of sexual acts, ranging from activities done alone to acts with another person in varying patterns of frequency, for a wide variety of reasons. Sexual activity usually results in sexual arousal and physiological changes in the aroused person, some of which are pronounced while others are more subtle. Sexual activity may also include conduct and activities which are intended to arouse the sexual interest of another or enhance the sex life of another, such as strategies to find or attract partners, or personal interactions between individuals. Sexual activity may follow sexual arousal.

Deception or falsehood is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true. It is often done for personal gain or advantage. Deception can involve dissimulation, propaganda and sleight of hand as well as distraction, camouflage or concealment. There is also self-deception, as in bad faith. It can also be called, with varying subjective implications, beguilement, deceit, bluff, mystification, ruse, or subterfuge.

The concept of interpersonal relationship involves social associations, connections, or affiliations between two or more people. Interpersonal relationships vary in their degree of intimacy or self-disclosure, but also in their duration, in their reciprocity and in their power distribution, to name only a few dimensions. The context can vary from family or kinship relations, friendship, marriage, relations with associates, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and places of worship. Relationships may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and of society as a whole. Interpersonal relationships are created by people's interactions with one another in social situations.

An insult is an expression or statement which is disrespectful or scornful. Insults may be intentional or accidental. An insult may be factual, but at the same time pejorative, such as the word "inbred".

Physical intimacy is sensual proximity or touching. It is an act or reaction, such as an expression of feelings, between people. Examples of physical intimacy include being inside someone's personal space, holding hands, hugging, kissing, caressing and sexual activity. Physical intimacy can often convey the real meaning or intention of an interaction in a way that accompanying speech cannot do. Physical intimacy can be exchanged between any people but as it is often used to communicate positive and intimate feelings, it most often occurs in people who have a preexisting relationship, whether familial, platonic or romantic, with romantic relationships having increased physical intimacy. Several forms of romantic touch have been noted including holding hands, hugging, kissing, cuddling, as well as caressing and massaging. Physical affection is highly correlated with overall relationship and partner satisfaction.

Public displays of affection (PDA) are acts of physical intimacy in the view of others. What is an acceptable display of affection varies with respect to culture and context.

A long-distance relationship (LDR) or long-distance romantic relationship (LDRR) is an intimate relationship between partners who are geographically separated from one another. Partners in LDRs face geographic separation and lack of face-to-face contact. LDRs are particularly prevalent among college students, constituting 25% to 50% of all relationships. Even though scholars have reported a significant number of LDRs in undergraduate populations, long-distance relationships continue to be an understudied phenomenon.

Haptic communication is a branch of nonverbal communication that refers to the ways in which people and animals communicate and interact via the sense of touch. Touch is the most sophisticated and intimate of the five senses. Touch or haptics, from the ancient Greek word haptikos is extremely important for communication; it is vital for survival.

An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Although an intimate relationship is commonly a sexual relationship, it may also be a non-sexual relationship involving family, friends, or acquaintances.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

Obsessive relational intrusion (ORI) occurs when someone knowingly and repeatedly invades another person's privacy boundaries by using intrusive tactics to try to get closer to that person. It includes behaviors such as repeated calls and texts, malicious contact, spreading rumors, stalking, and violence.

A cross-sex friendship is a platonic relationship between two unrelated people of differing sexes or gender. There are multiple types of cross-sex friendships, all defined by whether or not each party has a romantic attraction to each other, or perceives that the other is interested. A few theories have been developed to explain the existence of such friendships. Research has been done on why men and women initiate these relationships, how they are perceived by others, implications for children with cross-sex friendships, among others. Cross-sex friendships can also create problems for those involved if either or both have or ever had any romantic feelings for the other.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to interpersonal relationships.

Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles and interplay between contrary tendencies. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions. Dialectics are described as the tensions an individual feels when experiencing paradoxical desires that we need and/ or want. The theory contains four assumptions, one of them being that relationships are not one dimensional, rather, they consist of highs and lows, without moving in only one direction. The second assumption claims that change is a key element in relational life, in other words, as our lives change, our relationships change with it. Third, is the assumption that, “contradictions or tensions between opposites never go away and never cease to provide tension,” which means, we will always experience the feelings of pressure that come with our contradictory desires. The fourth assumption is that communication is essential when it comes to working through these opposing feelings. Relationships are made in dialogue and they can be complicated and dialogue with similarities and differences are necessary. Relational communication theories allow for opposing views or forces to come together in a reasonable way. When making decisions, desires and viewpoints that often contradict one another are mentioned and lead to dialectical tensions. Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery exemplify these contradictory statements that arise from individuals experience dialectal tensions using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; as well as, "two's company; three's a crowd" but "the more the merrier". This does not mean these opposing tensions are fundamentally troublesome for the relationship; on the contrary, they simply bring forward a discussion of the connection between two parties.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

Cognitive valence theory (CVT) is a theoretical framework that describes and explains the process of intimacy exchange within a dyad relationship. Peter A. Andersen, PhD created the cognitive valence theory to answer questions regarding intimacy relationships among colleagues, close friends and intimate friends, married couples and family members. Intimacy or immediacy behavior is that behavior that provides closeness or distance within a dyad relationship. Closeness projects a positive feeling in a relationship, and distance projects a negative feeling within a relationship. Intimacy or immediacy behavior can be negatively valenced or positively valenced. Valence, associated with physics, is used here to describe the degree of negativity or positivity in expected information. If your partner perceives your actions as negative, then the interaction may repel your partner away from you. If your partner perceives your actions as positive, then the interaction may be accepted and may encourage closeness. Affection and intimacy promotes positive valence in a relationship. CVT uses non-verbal and verbal communications criteria to analyze behavioral situations.

Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish a number of personal and relational goals.

Relationship maintenance refers to a variety of behaviors exhibited by relational partners in an effort to maintain that relationship. Relational maintenance is defined by scholars in four different ways:

to keep a relationship in existence
to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition
to keep a relationship in a satisfactory condition and
to keep a relationship in repair.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Morris, Desmond (1977). Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior. New York, NY: H.N. Abrams. pp. 86–91. ISBN 978-0810913103.
↑ "Oxford Reference". oxfordreference.com. Retrieved 12 June 2018.
↑ Duck, Steve (2011). Rethinking Relationships. Sage. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-4129-5876-9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Erving, Goffman (1972). Relations in public; microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0060902766. OCLC 1433020.
1 2 3 4 Sosik, Victoria Schwanda; Bazarova, Natalya N. (2014). "Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation". Computers in Human Behavior. 35: 124–131. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044. ISSN 0747-5632.
1 2 Afifi, Walid A.; Johnson, Michelle L. (1999). "The Use and Interpretation of Tie Signs in a Public Setting: Relationship and Sex Differences". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 16 (1): 9–38. doi:10.1177/0265407599161002. ISSN 0265-4075. S2CID 145757367.
1 2 3 Guerrero, Laura K.; Andersen, Peter A. (1991). "The Waxing and Waning of Relational Intimacy: Touch as a Function of Relational Stage, Gender and Touch Avoidance". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 8 (2): 147–165. doi:10.1177/0265407591082001. ISSN 0265-4075. S2CID 144087996.
1 2 Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships. Wright, Kevin B., Webb, Lynne M. New York: Peter Lang. 2011. ISBN 978-1433110818. OCLC 667213140.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)