RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Imagine you walk into class on the first day of the semester. You sit down and start talking to one of your new classmates. What are the first three pieces of information you would share with each other? That initial conversation might involve each of you sharing 1) your name, 2) where you are from, and 3) maybe something like your college majors, which is all pretty basic information.
Now imagine you and this classmate become friends. At the end of the semester (e.g., 16 weeks later), you meet for coffee and talk about your class. What would be three pieces of information you might discuss then? Your conversation might include information like how you felt about the class, what your opinion was of the professor, and maybe what you learned.
In these situations, notice that the main change was in 1) the relationship and 2) the communication over time. For example, if these were real situations, you and your classmate would begin as acquaintances and perhaps later become friends. Your conversations would also likely start off with basic information (e.g., name, hometown, etc.), but progress in detail (e.g., talk more about feelings, opinions, ideas) as your friendship developed.
What we experience in these types of situations is what is often called relationship development. And as we mentioned, relationship development includes changes in the intimacy of the relationship (e.g., moving from classmates to friends), but also in the communication within the relationship (e.g., moving from sharing basic to more detailed information about each other).
To better understand the “How?” and “Why?” behind these common changes we experience in our relationships and communication, let’s look at three interpersonal communication theories that help answer these questions.
Knapps relational stage model
Knapp’s Relational Stage Model (RSM; Knapp, 1978) is a type of theory (i.e., a model) that helps explain how our communication changes as our relationships change. In most cases, we recognize when individuals come together (i.e., start a relationship) or come apart (i.e., end a relationship). But Knapp’s (1978) RSM identifies 5 specific stages that usually occur during those two periods in a relationship.
| Period |
Stage |
Description |
Example |
| Coming Together |
Initiating |
First “contact” with another individual involving observation and initial assessment of mood, interest, attraction, personality, and interaction opportunity. |
-“Hi! I’m Buddy. Your name is…?”
-“I’m Jovie. Nice to meet you, Buddy!” |
| Experimenting |
Exchanges of surface-level information such as name, hometown, and other “small talk” topics in an effort to reduce uncertainty about each other |
-“I gather you have an affinity for rhinos?”
-“Yes! Do you too?” |
| Intensifying |
Increases in intimacy through greater depth of communication (i.e., sharing more intimate, personal information) and progressions of physical touch |
-“I struggle with addiction.”
-“I had no idea. How can I help?” |
| Integrating |
A merging of “identities” marked by increasingly shared interests, opinions, social circles, possessions, routines, and understanding of one another |
-“I just feel like we’re soulmates.”
-“Same here. We are so much alike!” |
| Bonding |
Public “rituals” or markers acknowledging the relationship (e.g., posting a Facebook relationship status, going “Instagram official”, engagements, or weddings). |
-“Did you know we got engaged?!”
-“Yes! I saw your Instagram post!” |
| Coming Apart |
Differentiating |
Progressive separation of interests, activities, hobbies, and “identities”. Shifts toward a more predominant concept of “I/You” versus “We” in the relationship |
-“I want to see Lizzo on Saturday.”
-“I don’t know why you like her music.” |
| Circumscribing |
Shifts toward less depth/breadth of shared information. Potential introduction of more topic avoidance and less intimacy in communication. |
-“Why did you text your ex again?”
-“Not your business. Anything else you want to discuss?” |
| Stagnating |
Perceptions that individuals have very little worth saying to each other. Expectations that communication often will be unpleasant, predictable, and pointless. |
-“We’ve talked about this before.”
-“Exactly! So what’s the point now?” |
| Avoiding |
More significant decreases in communication frequency (if any exists). Physical distancing and more explicit avoidance of one another occurs. |
-“I’d rather go on the trip by myself.”
-“I wasn’t planning on going with you.” |
| Terminating |
Decisive moves to psychologically and physically leave the relationship. Actions and communication targeted at achieving a final ending. |
-“I’m not doing this anymore. It’s over.”
-“Good. It was over years ago for me!” |
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Knapp's Relational Stage Model
Knapp’s RSM proposes that our relationships can move through these various stages fast or slow, but we will generally experience these stages in this sequence. Additionally, our relationships may also move both forward and backward through these stages over time. But what about the communication? As you’ll notice in Figure 1, each stage includes a description of what our communication might look like at that time.
For example, if we return to the example of meeting a classmate for the first time, you would enter the “Initiating” stage as you sit down next to them and develop an initial first impression while probably introducing yourself. Your transition into the “Experimenting” stage would be marked by your choice to begin sharing information like your name, hometown, and college major.
To build on this example, think about another one of your current relationships, whether that is with a friend, co-worker, romantic partner, etc. Can you identify which stage your relationship is in? To do this, you would likely need to think about what your communication patterns looks like. How do they match up to the relationship stages outlined in Table 1?
You might be able to clearly identify your current “relationship stage” based on the KRSM, but it may also be difficult, especially if your current relationship communication patterns fit into a few different stages. And that is okay! The main idea is that the KRSM provides a general “model” that helps us understand 1) the common stages that our relationships move through and most importantly, 2) how our communication patterns will likely change as our relationships develop.
But do changes in our relationships create changes in our communication? Or do changes in our communication create changes in our relationships? These are difficult questions to definitively answer, but great to think about. So to help us think about these questions further (and potentially find some answers), let’s turn to our second theory: social penetration theory.
Social penetration theory
Social Penetration Theory (SPT) explains that communication is an important factor in interpersonal relationship development (Altman & Taylor, 1973). But more specifically, SPT focuses on self-disclosure as a primary mode through which relationship development occurs.
What exactly is self-disclosure though? Although definitions will vary, self-disclosure can be understood as “the intentional revelation of information about the self to another person through verbal communication” (Finkenauer, Kerkhof, & Pronk, 2018; p. 272). Notice the idea that self-disclosure involves 1) intention, 2) sharing information about one’s self, and 3) primarily verbal communication.
So how does self-disclosure relate to relationship development? SPT says that self-disclosure and relationship development go hand-in-hand. Specifically, as individuals share more about themselves with each other, their relationship develops further.
Think back to our earlier example about you and your classmate. In that example, we said that the information you would likely disclose on the first day of class would be pretty basic: name, hometown, college major. However, as you learn more about each other, your relationship would likely develop to a point where you would be comfortable disclosing more private information like feelings, opinions, and ideas.
A common metaphor used to explain this process is an onion. When we initially meet someone, those first interactions usually involve “surface-level” information (i.e., the “outer layer” of the onion). But as you learn more about each other and share more private information (i.e., the “inner layers” of the onion), your relationship will develop further.
As we saw in the KRSM, SPT also explains relationship development is often marked by increases in both the breadth (i.e., variety or quantity) and depth (i.e., intimacy or privacy) of information shared.
As you can imagine, the more personal information you disclose to others (and the more they disclose to you), the closer you will feel with that person (Finkenauer & Buyukcan-Tetik, 2015). A great example of this is any of your current friendships. What did you know about your friends the first time you met them (before you were friends)?
You probably knew very little about them. They were likely just acquaintances, co-workers, or classmates when you first met. However, you learned more about each other as you disclosed more personal information to each other. And through this process, you grew closer in your relationship (i.e., moved from just being classmates to being good friends).
In this way, we see how self-disclosure and relationship development go hand-in-hand: the more that is disclosed, the more that is learned, the more a relationship is developed. And this process is central to how SPT answers the question of how communication and relationship development are connected.
However, has someone ever told you something about themselves that you made you think, “Oh, wow…okay, I’m not interested in developing this relationship any further.” If you’re like most people, this probably has happened at some point. So how does this example (i.e., more disclosure = less relationship development) fit with SPT?
Although this example seems to contradict SPT, it still demonstrates the tie between communication and relationship development, but in a different way. For example, instead of penetrating deeper into the “inner layers of the onion”, disclosures can have the opposite effect where we move “outward” and away (i.e., gradually less communication and less intimacy in the relationship over time). SPT uses the term social depenetration for this effect.
In summary, SPT provides helpful explanations for how communication and relationship development are linked. Specifically, we have learned that as individuals share more about themselves with each other (i.e., engage in self-disclosure), their relationship develops further.
But what about the question of “Why?” For example, why do we see communication and relationship development work in this way? Why does learning more information about other people (via self-disclosure) make us more comfortable with developing the relationship (or terminating the relationship)?
To answer this question, we turn to our third theory: uncertainty reduction theory.
Uncertainty reduction theory
Have you ever used online dating apps? If so, after you find someone who might be a good match, what would you do next? Do you try to find out more about this person? If, let’s say, you go out for a date with this person, what would you say and do?
Uncertainty reduction theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese, 1975) explains that individuals’ initial interactions with strangers. According to URT, individuals reduce uncertainty in order to make explanations and predictions about their conversational partners in the initial stage of relationship development. There are seven predictions about how people reduce uncertainty displayed in Figure 3 below.
URT highlights two types of uncertainty. Cognitive uncertainty reflects the ambiguity about conversational partners’ beliefs and attitudes (e.g., whether the person likes you). Behavioral uncertainty entails questions about the appropriateness and desirability of conversational partners’ behaviors (e.g., why the person drives you home after the date).
One of the most important contributions of URT is the detailed explanations of how the processes of uncertainty reduction play our in everyday relationships.
| Process |
Description |
| 1 |
As uncertainty decreases, the amount of verbal communication between strangers increases |
| 2 |
As uncertainty decreases, nonverbal expressiveness increases |
| 3 |
As uncertainty increases, information-seeking behaviors increase |
| 4 |
As uncertainty increases, intimacy decreases |
| 5 |
As uncertainty increases, similarity in communication styles between conversational partners increases |
| 6 |
Similarities between individuals can reduce uncertainty |
| 7 |
As uncertainty increases, liking decreases |
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Processes of Uncertainty Reduction
For example, Berger and Bradac (1982) specified three conditions that activate uncertainty reduction in initial encounters. Specifically, individuals are motivated to reduce uncertainty when 1) their conversational partner is rewarding, 2) the person’s behaviors deviate from social norms, and 3) the possibility of future interactions increases.
So think about the last time you “Facebook stalked” someone you just met on Tinder. What motivated you to do that? Maybe it’s because the person is attractive and has a high-paying job (i.e., the person is rewarding); maybe it’s because the person strikes you as sincere and genuine (which deviates from what you would expect from people on Tinder), or maybe it’s because the person is in the same town as you are and he/she has asked you out for dinner (i.e., the possibility of future interactions increase).
Current research has used URT to help explain how people use uncertainty reduction specifically in on-again/off-again relationships (i.e., relationships were partners break up and get back together multiple times). For example, Blight et al. (2019) found that people tend to use more passive strategies (e.g., Facebook surveillance) than active strategies (e.g., viewing their partner’s Facebook page from a friend’s account).
URT has also been helpful to researchers in understanding how people use uncertainty reduction strategies when seeking health information online. For example, Lin et al. (2016) found that people disclose more personal information when they use more uncertainty reduction behaviors online. In other words, people might be more willing to disclosure their own personal information if that coincides with them getting information they want (e.g., when they are seeking information about a prescription).
In summary, uncertainty reduction theory provides a useful explanation for why we use many information-seeking behaviors within interpersonal relationships. And together with the previous two theories (Social Penetration Theory, Knapp’s Relational Stage Model), this first module has provided some helpful explanations for how and why our communication patterns and strategies affect, and are affected by, the processes of relationship development.
REFERENCES
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. Edward Arnold.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
Blight, M. G., Ruppel, E. K., & Jagiello, K. (2019). “Using Facebook lets me know what he is doing”: Relational uncertainty, breakups, and renewals in on-again/off-again relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 84, 328-339. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2019.1641836
Finkenauer, C., & Buyukcan-Tetik, A. (2015). To know you is to feel intimate with you: Felt knowledge is rooted in disclosure, solicitation, and intimacy. Family Science, 6(1), 109–118. doi: 10.1080/19424620.2015.1082012
Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., & Pronk, T. (2018). Self-Disclosure in Relationships. The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 271–281. doi: 10.1017/9781316417867.022
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.
Lin, W. Y., Zhang, X., Song, H., & Omori, K. (2016). Health information seeking in the Web 2.0 age: Trust in social media, uncertainty reduction, and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 289-294. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.055
