Knapp's relational development model

Last updated

Knapp's relational development model portrays relationship development as a ten step process, broken into two phases. Created by and named after communication scholar Mark L. Knapp, the model suggests that all of the steps should be done one at a time, in sequence, to make sure they are effective. However, not every relationship will go through these stages of development in the same way. [1] Compared to DeVito's six-stage model of relational development, [2] Knapp's model is far more prescriptive and detailed, but also presupposes that the relationship will ultimately dissolve, as evident in the five "coming apart" stages that make up the second half of the model. However, Knapp himself has said that his model is also descriptive; the model describes what seems to happen, not necessarily what should happen. The model proposes that coming apart need not be seen as inherently bad, just as coming together need not be seen as inherently good. [3] :33

Contents

Couple showing signs of affection African print couple love.jpg
Couple showing signs of affection

The following stages are identified by the type of communication behavior that occurs in a given stage as well as the proportion of that type of communication behavior to another. In this case, proportion may constitute the frequency with which the acts occur or to the relative weight given to certain acts by those involved. [3] :34

Phase of coming together

Initiation

Initiation is the first stage where individuals make their first impressions on each other. While a lot of important impressions are being processed, the actual initiation stage likely lasts less than 15 seconds. In this stage, individuals are trying to display their best selves. Also, we are observing the other person to learn about them and, therefore, reduce our own uncertainty. Physical appearance often plays a big role in this stage when it comes to forming first impressions.

The methods and messages used to initiate communication vary based on: [4] :18

Experimentation

Experimentation is the stage where individuals begin to engage in self-disclosure to learn information about each other. The individuals use this stage to explore and get a feel for the relationship as well as one another. [5] Small talk is a common form of communication in this stage, as both parties use it to search for an area of common interest or experience. At this stage, relationships are generally pleasant, casual, and uncritical. Knapp has long emphasized that most relationships will not progress past this stage. [4] :19 [3] :40

Intensifying

During the intensifying stage of Knapp's model, the two individuals will continue experimentation to determine whether there is mutual emotional affection and attachment. Whereas in the previous experimentation phase, conversation focused more on superficial topics such as discovering shared areas of interest and commonalities, in the intensifying stage the level of self-disclosure deepens. The breadth of topics discussed broadens and the depth in which each individual feels comfortable discussing those topics with the other becomes intimate and personal.

In this stage, certain behaviors, such as increasing one-on-one contact through more frequent communication (through face to face encounters, text, or phone calls), doing favors for a partner or offering gifts as tokens of affection, requesting commitment from a partner through direct definitional bid, personalized verbal expressions of affection such as "I love you" or assigning pet names such as "babe," and suggestive actions such as flirtation, gazing, or touching, may all emerge as methods of intensifying the connection between the two people.

Essential to the intensifying stage are "secret tests" [6] performed by each individual to ascertain whether his or her overtures are actually helpful in their intensification efforts. These tests most often manifest themselves through:

While all five of these methods are common methods of testing intensification efforts, it's important to note that endurance, separation, and triangle tests are generally the least constructive, and can even be destructive when it comes to building the relationship. [7] :227–228

Phase of coming together and Relational Maintenance

Integration

Once each individual feels confident, through their various intensification efforts, that mutual affection has been confirmed, the couple may begin to transition into the integration stage of their relationship. In addition to bonding, the integration stage makes up the maintenance stage of a relationship. During this stage, the couple is fused and elements of their respective social identities, such as friends, belongings, and living spaces, are now shared. Other verbal and nonverbal manifestations of the integration include the couple seeing their relationship as special or unique in some way, the exchange of "trophies" for the other to wear or display, and potentially similarities in manner, dress, and verbal behavior can be seen. [4] :20 Today, another indicator of integration can be seen on social media sites where partners can be seen in each other's profile picture. [8] Additionally, the exclusive commitment each partner has for the other is generally solidified in this stage through even deeper self-disclosure and revealing of secrets, sex, and discussion of future plans. [7] :228

Bonding

The final stage of the coming together half of the relational model is bonding. This stage puts the relationship on public display and suggests that the relationship is exclusive. This stage often involves marriage or another type of public contract, though marriage is not necessary to successfully bond. There is usually a turning point that happens in this stage that signals a change in the relationship, making the relationship intimate. Reaching this stage does not guarantee that the relationship will remain bonded, though many intimate relationships will remain in this stage until divorce, death, or another type of separation. [7] :228–229

Phase of coming apart and Relational Maintenance

Along with the coming together stages, all relationships will go through the coming apart stages of the relational development model, though some may skip steps (e.g. a sudden death terminating the relationship).

Differentiating

Differentiating is a process of disengaging or uncoupling. During this stage, differences between the relationship partners are emphasized and what was thought to be similarities begins to disintegrate. Instead of working together, partners quickly begin to become more individualistic in their attitudes. Conflict is a common form of communication during this stage; oftentimes, it acts as a way to test how much the other can tolerate something that may threaten the relationship. Knapp believes that differentiating can be the result of bonding too quickly; meaning, sufficient breadth and depth (see: Social penetration theory) was not established during the previous stages. [4] :23 However, differentiating is expected to happen in romantic relationships. A common solution to differentiating is for each partner to give the other some space, though extreme differentiating can lead to a damaged relationship. [7] :228–229

Circumscribing

Circumscribing sees a qualitative and quantitative decrease in information exchange. Communication is limited to safe topics. This stage is marked by less total communication in terms of number of interactions, depth and breadth of topics discussed, and communication occurs in shorter durations. Expressions of love and commitment also decrease. [4] :24

Phase of coming apart

Stagnation

In the stagnation stage, what were once patterns in the relationship become ruts and people feel stuck or trapped in the relationship. Communication in this stage sees partners saying very little because they "know" how the other person will respond. Individuals will engage in imagined interactions to predict a conversation with their partner. [9] These imaginary dialogues can be either narratives ("I'll say this, and then she'll say this...") or perceived actual dialogues ("I'll do it." "You don't have to.").

At this stage, there is still some hope that the relationship can be revived. However, in many cases there are too many costs accumulating and, therefore, most do not stay at this stage for long. A key reason why individuals stay in this stage is to avoid the pain associated with terminating the relationship. [3] :45

Avoidance

While the stagnation stage sees partners continue to inhabit the same environment, the avoidance stage sees partners exist in separate physical environments. When actual avoidance cannot take place, however, partners will simply avoid each other while they're together, treating the other as if they didn't exist. Essentially, the individuals in the relationship become separate from one another physically, emotionally, and mentally. When there is communication, it is often marked by antagonism or unfriendliness ("I just don't want to see or talk to you"). [4] :26 In addition to not spending time with one another, they both begin to avoid the other person's needs and start to focus solely on themselves.

Different forms of distancing are also common at this stage: [10]

Termination

During the termination stage, both people that were in the relationship decide to end their connection with one another. No longer are they both receiving a mutually satisfying outcome from being with one another. Neither one of them is happy and the relationship must come to an end. In this model, this step is unavoidable and relationships can terminate at any time. Termination can occur due to physical separation, growing socially or psychologically apart, or the death of one of the partners. Communication in this stage is marked by distance (an attempt to put psychological and physical barriers between partners) and disassociation (messages that prepare one or both parties for their life without the other). [4] :26–27

Summary of movement through the stages

According to Knapp, movement through the stages has the following characteristics: [4] :32–35.

  1. Movement is generally systematic and sequential. This does not suggest that the process is linear or unchangeable; the phenomenon is never at rest and is continually in flux. People do generally follow the same pattern, however. Each stage contains important presuppositions for the next. Sequencing makes forecasting adjacent stages easier. Skipping steps is risky due to potentially losing information that would have been provided in the skipped step.
  2. Movement may be forward. Any movement toward greater levels of intimacy is considered "forward." When in the coming apart stages, any movement back toward a coming together stage would be a forward movement.
  3. Movement may be backward. "Backward" movement constitutes any movement away from the bonding stage. Backward movement can be the result of moving too quickly, thus preventing any sort of stabilization.
  4. Movement occurs within stages.
  5. Movement is always to a new state. Partners can go through the same stages more than once, but they can never truly go back to "the way things were." However, their previous experience in a given stage will color their next trip through said stage.

In an effort to determine which stage partners are in, Welch and Rubin (2002) gave partners a list of behaviors and asked them to indicate the extent to which each behavior was characteristic of their relationship. [11] Welch and Rubin also found that the relational development model was useful for describing the development of task or business relationships. [11]

Rate of movement

According to Knapp, rate of movement is: [4] :35–36

  1. Usually rapid through stages that have already been achieved (e.g. there's no need for small talk if you've already passed through the experimenting stage before)
  2. Usually rapid through areas where positive rewards have been achieved (e.g. avoiding conflict until later on in the relationship as it may be too costly early on)
  3. Potentially rapid when time is short (e.g. a summer fling)
  4. Potentially facilitated when proximity is high
  5. Generally faster during the early stages
  6. Based on individual needs (e.g. lonely or isolated people may move faster than popular people with large friend groups)
  7. Slower if only one person wants to move to a different stage
  8. Rapid in deterioration if one party commits a violation

Knapp's relational development model in the modern world

Knapp’s relational stage model was created in 1978. This was well before the way we communicate became so heavily based on technology. The stages that have been established can still be seen, but they look a lot different than they did over forty years ago. Social Media Networks allows us to broadcast and share information about out relationships much more quickly and to a much broader audience.

In the first phase, the initiating phase, people tend to try to "size each other up" to decide whether to initiate a relationship and how to start communicating. This can be made more difficult in a virtual world where people communicate through text without ever seeing each other. In the virtual world you can be whoever you want to be and withhold information such as real name and where you are from. Even if or when photos are exchanged it is easy to send photos of someone other than yourself. This type of anonymity makes it difficult to know with whom you are really initiating a relationship.

In the second stage, experimenting, the two individuals try to learn more about each other. They try to determine if they have anything in common and decide if they want to pursue a relationship.  If both parties decide to go to the intensifying step, they will start to exhibit more self-disclosure and start to have verbal shortcuts and more expressions of commitment. According to Fox and Weber’s 2013 study there are six stages in the escalation of relationships involving Social Media Networks:

1)    Meet the target face to face

2)    They went to Facebook to look at the profile of the target and send a friend request

3)    Request and exchange phone numbers

4)    They begin texting and will invite the target to a group activity

5)    They will begin to post on the target's Facebook wall and comment on posts

6)    They would call the person and ask them on a date

In the next stage, integrating, social circles start to merge, and they may exchange symbols of their relationship or own property together. If the relationship makes through the integrating stage, then it will enter the bonding stage.  This stage is where their commitment will become formally announced to the world.  This is usually in the form of engagement or marriage.

Social networking has changed the way the steps in Knapp’s model are processed.  Facebook, for example, allows one to find out details about someone you are interested in without even having to have a conversation.  Romantic relationship status can easily be found through a quick search of social media.  The initiation phase no longer requires taking a chance by asking directly what the relationship status is.  Facebook also functions as a convenient way to pursue someone while not having to put yourself in too far out on a limb   The pursuer can interact with the target by liking or commenting on posts or by tagging them on posts.    Because of the lack of intimacy involved when using SNS this method is often preferred over phone calls.  Using computer mediated communication also allows the pursuer the time to think about what they want to say and how they want to say it.

Facebook profiles provide information about an individual, such as education level, religion, interests, as well as photos.  This immediate information can influence how quickly a relationship is formed.  While most relationships are initiated off-line, the participants often turn to Facebook to communicate.  In Knapp’s second theme, experimenting, Facebook provides a lot of information on interests, activities, and information.  This serves as a way to talk about interests that are shared as well as ways to learn about interests the other has.  The final theme is making the relationship “Facebook Official” by sharing photos to each other’s pages as well as changing the relationship status on the profile page. This is part of the integrating phase.

Social networking sites are used by over 900 million users worldwide, and the average college student uses Facebook an average of 1-2 hours per day.  Men and women see romantic relationships differently and have different goals when pursuing relationships.  Women are more likely to advertise their relationship through the use of social media sites than their male counterparts and tend to see displays of affection more acceptable on social media than men do.  Men and women also have different views on what it means to be “Facebook” official.     Being Facebook official can mean different things to different people.  Men don’t seem to feel that Facebook Official necessarily means they are in a committed relationship or at the very least as seriously as their partner does.

Related Research Articles

In social psychology, an interpersonal relation describes a social association, connection, or affiliation between two or more persons. It overlaps significantly with the concept of social relations, which are the fundamental unit of analysis within the social sciences. Relations vary in degrees of intimacy, self-disclosure, duration, reciprocity, and power distribution. The main themes or trends of the interpersonal relations are: family, kinship, friendship, love, marriage, business, employment, clubs, neighborhoods, ethical values, support and solidarity. Interpersonal relations may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and societies. They appear when people communicate or act with each other within specific social contexts, and they thrive on equitable and reciprocal compromises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jealousy</span> Emotion

Jealousy generally refers to the thoughts or feelings of insecurity, fear, and concern over a relative lack of possessions or safety.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breakup</span> Termination of an intimate relationship

A relationship breakup, breakup, or break-up is the termination of a relationship. The act is commonly termed "dumping [someone]" in slang when it is initiated by one partner. The term is less likely to be applied to a married couple, where a breakup is typically called a separation or divorce. When a couple engaged to be married breaks up, it is typically called a "broken engagement". People commonly think of breakups in a romantic aspect, however, there are also non-romantic and platonic breakups, and this type of relationship dissolution is usually caused by failure to maintain a friendship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public display of affection</span> Acts of physical intimacy in the view of others

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social exchange theory</span> Generalization theory explaining social behaviour regarding society and economics

Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value. Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register. Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned.

Couples therapy attempts to improve romantic relationships and resolve interpersonal conflicts.

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.

In psychology, the theory of attachment can be applied to adult relationships including friendships, emotional affairs, adult romantic and carnal relationships and, in some cases, relationships with inanimate objects. Attachment theory, initially studied in the 1960s and 1970s primarily in the context of children and parents, was extended to adult relationships in the late 1980s. The working models of children found in Bowlby's attachment theory form a pattern of interaction that is likely to continue influencing adult relationships.

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

The social penetration theory (SPT) proposes that as relationships develop, interpersonal communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more intimate ones. The theory was formulated by psychologists Irwin Altman of the University of Utah and Dalmas Taylor of the University of Delaware in 1973 to understand relationship development between individuals. Altman and Taylor noted that relationships "involve different levels of intimacy of exchange or degree of social penetration". SPT is known as an objective theory as opposed to an interpretive theory, meaning it is based on data drawn from actual experiments and not simply from conclusions based on individuals' specific experiences.

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.

Affection exchange theory (AET) was introduced in 2001 by Kory Floyd, who is currently a professor of communication at the University of Arizona. The theory was first presented in two of Floyd’s research projects. The first was in a paper presented to the Western States Communication Association in Coeur d’Alene, ID in February 2001. The paper was titled "Elements of an affection exchange theory: Socioevolutionary paradigm for understanding affectionate communication". The second was in an article titled “Human Affection Exchange I: Reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons,” published in The Journal of Men’s Studies in Fall 2001. When this theory was constructed, Floyd was working as a professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication. Many studies had been done up to this point regarding affection and its involvement in interpersonal relationships, particularly between romantic partners and between parents and their children. In 2001, Floyd introduced AET, which was the first theory to address some of the short and long-term effects of the exchange of affection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

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 several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

How to set boundaries in a relationship

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships. The model is the work of psychological researcher John Gottman, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of The Gottman Institute, and his research partner, Robert W. Levenson. This theory focuses on the negative influence of verbal and nonverbal communication habits on marriages and other relationships. Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to a relationship's breakdown to the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous one, leading to total breakdown of communication.

Supportive communication is the support given, both verbal and nonverbal, in times of stress, heartbreak, physical and emotional distress, and other life stages that cause distress. The intention of this support is to assist those seen as being in need of such support. For example, individuals could be struggling with anger, frustration, hurt, and also physical distress, and Supportive Communication becomes a strategy utilized to help individuals cope with those feelings and experiences. At times, individuals do not like facing things alone, so they will seek Supportive Communication from family, friends, and other trusted sources. At other times, individuals such as family and friends will offer Supportive Communication to someone they feel is in need of such support. The impact of Supportive Communication has varied in research studies partially due to the reception of the communication. An individual may not receive the support in the intended way, or it may dredge up previous stress emotions and intensify them. The field of social support is still relatively new with the typologies below being discussed as recent as the mid to late 1970s.

References

  1. Floyd, K. (2016). Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. p. 302.
  2. DeVito, J. A. (1993). Messages: Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. New York, HarperCollins
  3. 1 2 3 4 Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships (7th ed.). Pearson.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Allyn and Bacon.
  5. "Knapp's Relationship Model". communicationtheory.org. Communication Theory. 2013-01-02. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  6. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1984). Secret tests. Human Communication Research, 11, 171–201.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Rothwell, J. Dan (2013). In The Company of Others (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  8. Papp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., & Cayemberg, C. (2012). "Are we Facebook official?" Implications of dating partners' Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(2), 85–90.
  9. Honeycutt, J. M., & Cantrill, J. G. (2001). Cognition, Communication, and Romantic Relationships. Routledge. pp. 62–81.
  10. Hess, J. A. (2002). Distance regulation in personal relationships: The development of a conceptual model and a test of representational validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 663–683.
  11. 1 2 Welch, S. A., & Rubin, R. B. (2002). Development of relationship stage measures. Communication Quarterly, 50, 24–40.