Several theories offer insight into why and how we develop and dissolve our relation- ships (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008b). Here we’ll examine seven such theories: attraction, relationship rules, relationship dialectics, social penetration, social exchange, equity, and politeness.
Ethics in Interpersonal Communication
Your oblIgatIon to reveal Yourself
If you’re in a close relationship, your influence on your part- ner is considerable, so you may have an obligation to reveal certain things about yourself. Conversely, you may feel that the other person—because he or she is so close to you—has an ethical obligation to reveal certain information to you. At what point in a relationship—if any—do you feel you would have an ethical obligation to reveal each of the 10 items of
information listed here? Visualize a relationship as existing on a continuum, from initial contact at 1 to extreme intimacy at 10, and use the numbers from 1 to 10 to indicate at what point you would feel your romantic partner or friend would have a right to know each type of information about you. If you feel you would never have the obligation to reveal this information, use 0.
ethiCal ChoiCe point
You’re in a romantic relationship and your partner presses you to reveal your past sexual experiences. You really don’t want to (you’re not very proud of your past); furthermore, you don’t think it’s relevant to your current relationship. Today, your partner asks you directly to reveal this part of your past. What are your ethical obligations here? Are there certain aspects that you are ethically bound to reveal and other aspects that you are not ethically bound to reveal?
At what point do you have an ethical obligation to reveal the following information to a romantic partner (say, of a year or two) and a close friend?
Romantic Partner Friend
__________________ __________________ Age
__________________ __________________ History of family genetic disorders __________________ __________________ HIV status
__________________ __________________ Past sexual experiences __________________ __________________ Marital history
__________________ __________________ Annual salary and net financial worth __________________ __________________ Affectional orientation
__________________ __________________ Attitudes toward other races and nationalities __________________ __________________ Religious beliefs
__________________ __________________ Past criminal activity or incarceration
Attraction Theory
attraction theory holds that people form relationships with those they consider attractive. Before reading about the factors that make for attractiveness, examine your attractiveness preferences by rating the following qualities on a 5-point scale in terms of how important each is to you:
5 = very important 4 = important
3 = neither important nor unimportant 2 = unimportant
1 = very unimportant ____ 1. Facial appearance
____ 2. General body structure (weight, height, shape) ____ 3. Grooming and general cleanliness
____ 4. Appropriate financial resources ____ 5. Intelligence
____ 6. Similarity in religious beliefs ____ 7. Sense of humor
____ 8. Positive toward me
____ 9. Optimistic toward life in general ____ 10. Honest/ethical
____ 11. Ambitious ____ 12. Communicative
____ 13. Similarity in cultural backgrounds, including race and nationality ____ 14. Available
____ 15. Sexual compatibility
There are no correct or incorrect answers, and people are likely to respond to such characteristics very differently. This brief exercise was designed to stimulate you to think in specific terms about the characteristics of another person that are important to you. Those given here are often mentioned in research and theory as being significant in evaluating a potential life partner.
If you’re like most people, then you’re attracted to others on the basis of these major factors: similarity, proximity, reinforcement, physical attractiveness and personality, socioeconomic and educational status, and reciprocity of liking. As a preface to the discussion of these factors, it’s important to recognize the difference between online and face-to-face relationships. Attraction to a person in an online relationship (especially one that is going to stay online) depends on the commu- nicated messages, photos, videos, the responsiveness to your posts, the sense of humor—all of which may have nothing to do with the person’s physical appear- ance. With face-to-face relationships or online relationships that will morph into face-to-face relationships, there is considerable emphasis on the physical qualities of the individual.
SiMilarity If you could construct your mate, according to the similarity principle, it’s likely that your mate would look, act, and think very much like you (Burleson, Samter, & Luccetti, 1992; Burleson, Kunkel, & Birch, 1994). Generally, people like those who are similar to them in nationality, race, abilities, physical characteristics, intelli- gence, and attitudes (Pornpitakpan, 2003). A study of 65,000 online daters showed that similarity guided their choices in selecting potential dating partners (Fiore & Donath, 2005; Dean, 2010b). No doubt this counts in great part for the proliferation of dating sites focusing on specific religious or racial groups.
Research also finds that you’re more likely to help someone who is similar in race, attitude, general appearance, and even first name. Even the same first name or coming VIEWPOINTS online
relationshiPs Among the advantages of online relationships is that they reduce the importance of physical characteristics and instead emphasize factors such as rapport, similarity, and self-disclosure, and in the process promote relationships that are based on emotional intimacy rather than physical attraction (Cooper
& Sportolari, 1997). What do you see as the main advantages of online relationships?
from the same state or city is significant (Wyer, 2012). Sometimes people are attracted to their opposites, in a pattern called complementarity; for example, a dominant person might be attracted to someone who is more submissive. Generally, however, people prefer those who are similar.
ProxiMity If you look around at people you find attractive, you will probably find that they are the people who live or work close to you. People who become friends are the people who have the greatest opportunity to interact with each other. Proximity, or physical closeness, is most important in the early stages of interaction—for example, during the first days of school (in class or in dormitories).
The importance of proximity as a factor in attraction decreases, though always remaining significant, as the opportunity to interact with more distant others increases.
reinforceMent If you’re like most people, you’re attracted to people who give rewards or reinforcements, which can range from a simple compliment to an expensive cruise. You’re also attracted to people you reward (Jecker & Landy, 1969;
Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). That is, you come to like people for whom you do favors; for example, you’ve probably increased your liking for persons after buying them an expensive present or going out of your way to do them a special favor. In these situations, you justify your behavior by believing that the person was worth your efforts; otherwise, you’d have to admit to spending effort on people who don’t deserve it.
PhySical attractiveneSS anD PerSonality It’s easily appreciated that people like physically attractive people more than they like physically unattractive people. What isn’t so obvious is that we also feel a greater sense of familiarity with more attractive people than with less attractive people; that is, we’re more likely to think we’ve met a person before if that person is attractive (Monin, 2003). Another not so obvious connection is that attractive students get higher grades than less at- tractive students and the more attractive also earn higher salaries than their less attractive counterparts (Gordon, Crosnoe, & Wang, 2014). Even the more attractive candidate gets elected more often than the less attractive candidate (White, Kentrick,
& Neuberg, 2013).
The perception of physical attractiveness is also influenced by a person’s friends. A person with attractive friends (as shown by the photos they post on Facebook) is judged more attractive than that same person with unattractive friends’
photos posted (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008). And, per- haps in light of this, there are websites that will write flattering, interesting, and clever status updates for your Facebook wall. After all, if people write flattering, in- teresting, and clever posts on your wall, then surely you too must be interesting and clever—and deserving of flattery. Even your association with positively reviewed films and television shows has been found to increase your perceived attractiveness rating on OK Cupid (Roper, 2014).
Also, although culture influences what people think is physical attractiveness and what isn’t, some research indicates that there are certain facial features that seem to be thought attractive in all cultures—a kind of universal attractiveness (Brody, 1994).
Additionally, you probably tend to like people who have a pleasant rather than an un- pleasant personality (although people will differ on what is and what is not a pleasant personality).
SocioeconoMic anD eDucational StatuS Popular belief holds that, among heterosexual men and women, men are more interested in a woman’s physical attributes than in her socioeconomic status. And, indeed, research shows that women flirt on the Internet by stressing their physical attributes, whereas men stress their socioeconomic status (Whitty, 2003b). There is interesting evidence that men, too, con- sider a woman’s socioeconomic status in making romantic relationship decisions—but whereas women find higher socioeconomic status more attractive, men find just the opposite. Men report greater likelihood of a romantic relationship with a woman lower in socioeconomic status than they are. Further, men find women with a higher
educational level (which is often responsible for the higher socioeconomic status) less likeable and less faithful, and as a result see less likelihood of a romantic relationship with such women (Greitemeyer, 2007).
reciProcity of liking It will come as no surprise that research supports what you already know from your own experience: You tend to be attracted to people you think are attracted to you; you come to like those who you think like you. reciprocity of liking, also known as reciprocity of attraction or reciprocal liking, is seen in a variety of situations.
We initiate potential friendships and romantic relationships with people who we think like us, certainly not with those we think dislike us. Group members who are told that certain other mem- bers like them will later express greater liking for these members than for others. Public speakers are advised to compliment the audience and express liking for them largely on the theory that this liking will be reciprocated. There is even evidence to show that people like “likers”— people who like others gener- ally—more than they like people who don’t express such liking (Eastwick & Finkel, 2009).
Relationship Rules Theory
You can gain an interesting perspective on interpersonal relationships by looking at them in terms of the rules that govern them (Shimanoff, 1980). The general assump- tion of rules theory is that relationships—friendship and love in particular—are held together by adherence to certain rules. When those rules are broken, the relationship may deteriorate and even dissolve.
Relationship rules theory helps us clarify several aspects of relationships. First, these rules help identify successful versus destructive relationship behavior. In addition, these rules help pinpoint more specifically why relationships break up and how they may be repaired. Further, if we know what the rules are, we are better able to master the social skills involved in relationship development and maintenance. And because these rules vary from one culture to another, it is important to identify those unique to each culture so that intercultural relationships may be developed and maintained more effectively.
frienDShiP ruleS One approach to friendship argues that friendships are main- tained by rules (Argyle, 1986; Argyle & Henderson, 1984). When these rules are fol- lowed, the friendship is strong and mutually satisfying. When these rules are broken, the friendship suffers and may die. For example, the rules for keeping a friendship call for behaviors such as standing up for your friend in his or her absence, sharing infor- mation and feelings about successes, demonstrating emotional support for a friend, trusting and offering to help a friend in need, and trying to make a friend happy when you’re together. On the other hand, a friendship is likely to be in trouble when one or both friends are intolerant of the other’s friends, discuss confidences with third par- ties, fail to demonstrate positive support, nag, and/or fail to trust or confide in the other. The strategy for maintaining a friendship, then, depends on your knowing the rules and having the ability to apply the appropriate interpersonal skills (Blieszner &
Adams, 1992; Trower, 1981).
roMantic ruleS Other research has identified the rules that romantic relation- ships establish and follow. These rules, of course, vary considerably from one culture to another. For example, the different attitudes toward permissiveness and sexual relations with which Chinese and American college students view dating influence the romantic rules each group will establish and live by (Tang & Zuo, 2000). One researcher identified eight major romantic rules that keep the relationship together—
or, when broken, lead to deterioration and eventually dissolution (Baxter, 1986). The general form for each rule is that, if you are in a close relationship, then you should:
1. recognize that each has a life beyond the relationship.
2. have and express similar attitudes and interests.
InTerpersonal ChoICe poInT projecting an Image
You’re entering a new job and want to be perceived as likeable and friendly, but also as serious and conscientious. What types of messages might help you achieve your dual goal? Which might you try first?
a. Smile a lot.
b. Emphasize your similarities with others.
c. Offer to help others.
d. Compliment others; be positive.
3. reinforce each other’s self-esteem.
4. be real: open and genuine.
5. be faithful to each other.
6. spend substantial time together.
7. obtain rewards commensurate with your investment com- pared to the other party.
8. experience an inexplicable magic when together.
faMily ruleS Family communication research points to the importance of rules in defining and maintaining the family (Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2008). Family rules concern three main inter- personal communication issues (Satir, 1983):
• What you can talk about. Can you talk about the family finances? Grandpa’s drinking? Your sister’s lifestyle?
• How you can talk about something. Can you joke about your brother’s disability? Can you address directly questions of family history or family skeletons?
• To whom you can talk. Can you talk openly to extended family members such as cousins and aunts and uncles? Can you talk to close neighbors about family health issues?
All families teach rules for communication. Some of these are explicit, such as
“Never contradict the family in front of outsiders” or “Never talk finances with out- siders.” Other rules are unspoken; you deduce them as you learn the communication style of your family. For example, if financial issues are always discussed in secret and in hushed tones, then you rather logically infer that you shouldn’t tell other, more distant family members or neighbors about family finances.
Like the rules of friends and lovers, family rules tell you which behaviors will be rewarded (and therefore what you should do) and which will be punished (and therefore what you should not do). Rules also provide a kind of structure that defines the family as a cohesive unit and that distinguishes it from other, similar families.
The rules a family develops are greatly influenced by the culture. Although there are many similarities among families throughout the world, there are also differences (Georgas et al., 2001). For example, members of collectivist cultures are more likely to restrict family information from outsiders as a way of protecting the family than are members of individualist cultures. But this tendency to protect the family can create serious problems in cases of wife abuse. Many women will not report spousal abuse because of this desire to protect the family image and not let others know that things aren’t perfect at home (Dresser, 2005).
Family communication theorists argue that rules should be flexible so that special circumstances can be accommodated; for example, there are situations that neces- sitate changing the family dinnertime, vacation plans, or savings goals (Noller &
Fitzpatrick, 1993). Rules should also be negotiable so that all members can participate in their modification and feel part of family government.
WorkPlace ruleS Rules also govern your workplace relationships. These rules are usually part of the corporate culture that an employee would learn from observing other employees (especially those who move up the hierarchy) as well as from official memos on dress, sexual harassment, and the like. Of course, each organization has different rules, so it’s important to see what rules are operating in any given situation.
Among the rules that you might find are:
• Work very hard.
• Be cooperative in teams; the good of the company comes first.
• Don’t reveal company policies and plans to workers at competing firms.
• Don’t form romantic relationships with other workers.
• Avoid even the hint of sexual harassment.
• Be polite to other workers and especially to customers.
InTerpersonal ChoICe poInT Virtual Infidelity
You discover that your partner of the last 15 years is being unfaithful with someone online (and in another country), breaking an important but unstated rule of your relationship. You understand that generally such infidelity is seen as a con- sequence of a failure in communication (Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, O’Mara, & Buchanan, 2000).
You want to discover the extent of this online relationship and your partner’s intentions in regard to this affair. What would be an effective way for you to deal with this situation?
a. Ask to discuss it.
b. Tell your partner to stop.
c. Express your knowledge of this affair and your disappointment.
d. Say nothing.
Relationship Dialectics Theory
relationship dialectics theory argues that someone who is engaged in a relationship experiences in- ternal tensions between pairs of motives or desires that pull him or her in opposite directions. These tensions are much like those you experience in your daily lives. For example, you want to work this sum- mer to earn money to get a new car, but you also want to go to Hawaii and surf for two months. You want both, but you can have only one. In a similar way, you experience tensions between opposites in your relationship desires. Research generally finds three such pairs of opposites (Baxter, 2004; Baxter
& Braithwaite, 2007, 2008a; Baxter & Simon, 1993;
Rawlins, 1989, 1992).
The tension between closedness and openness has to do with the conflict between the desire to be in a closed, exclusive relationship and the wish to be in a relationship that is open to different people. This tension manifests itself most during the early stages of relationship development. You like the exclusiveness of your pairing and yet you want also to relate to a larger group. Young hetero- sexual men, in interacting with women, use a pattern of messages that encour- age closeness followed by messages that indicate a desire for distance, followed by closeness messages, followed by distancing messages—a clear example of the tension between the desire for closedness and the desire for autonomy (Korobov &
Thorne, 2006)
The tension between autonomy and connection, which seems to occur more often as the relationship progresses, involves the desire to remain an autonomous, inde- pendent individual but also to connect intimately to another person and to a relation- ship. You want to be close and connected with another person, but you also want to be independent (Sahlstein, 2004). This tension, by the way, is a popular theme in women’s magazines, which teach readers to want both autonomy and connection (Prusank, Duran, & DeLillo, 1993).
The tension between novelty and predictability centers on the competing de- sires for newness, different experiences, and adventure on the one hand, and for sameness, stability, and predictability on the other. You’re comfortable with being able to predict what will happen, and yet you also want newness, difference, and novelty.
Each individual in a relationship may experience a somewhat different set of desires. For example, one person may want exclusivity above all, whereas that per- son’s partner may want greater openness. There are three main ways that you can use to deal with these tensions.
First, you can simply accept the imbalance as part of dating or as part of a commit- ted relationship. You may even redefine it as a benefit and tell yourself something like: “I had been spending too much time at work. It’s probably better that I come home earlier and don’t work weekends”—accepting the closeness and giving up the autonomy.
Second, you can simply exit the relationship. For example, if the loss of autonomy is so great that you can’t live with it, then you may choose simply to end the relationship and achieve your desired autonomy.
A third alternative is to rebalance your life. For example, if you find the primary relationship excessively predictable, you may seek to satisfy the need for novelty else- where, perhaps with a vacation to exotic places, perhaps with a different partner. If you find the relationship too connected (even suffocating), you may seek physical and psychological space to meet your autonomy needs. You can also establish the balance you feel you need by negotiating with your partner, for example, agreeing that you will take separate vacations or that each of you will go out separately with old friends once or twice a week.
VIEWPOINTS emotional relationshiPs In face-to-face relationships, emotional closeness compromises privacy; the closer you become, the less privacy you have.
Research on online relationships, however, indicates that because you’re more in control of what you reveal, you can develop close emotional relationships but also maintain your privacy (Ben-Ze’ev, 2003). Do you find this to be true? If not, how would you express the relationship between emotional closeness and privacy in online and in face-to-face relationships?