Relationship maintenance

Relationship maintenance (or relational 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:[1]

1. to keep a relationship in existence

2. to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition
3. to keep a relationship in a satisfactory condition and
4. to keep a relationships in repair.

First, in order to keep a relationship in existence (for example, adult friends that contact each other
infrequently, but adequately to maintain the friendship), means the relationship continues without termination.
Second, in order to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition, human communication professors
Kathryn Dindia and Daniel Canary "refers to sustaining the present level of certain dimensions or qualities
thought to be important in relationship development."[1] There are three elements of a stable relationship:

1. the participants reach minimal agreement about the relationship

2. relationships can stabilize at different levels of intimacy and
3. relationship still has considerable change occurring in it.[2]

Dindia and Canary's third definition of relational maintenance refers to keeping a relationship in a satisfactory
condition or to maintain satisfaction within the relationship. "For example, this third definition implies that no
one can be in a stable, but dissatisfying relationship." Fourthly, to keep a relationship in repair means to keep
the relationship in good, sound, or working condition and to repair a relationship that has come apart. Repair
of the relationship means "changing a relationship from its present condition and restoring it to a previous
(more advanced) state after decline or decay."[1] Relationship maintenance can provide wanted outcomes such
as safety, friendship, and/or sexual fulfilment.

Contents
Social maintenance behaviors
Types of Relationships to Maintain
Mentor/Student Relationships
Friend Relationships
Modality
Strategic & routine maintenance behaviors
Romantic relationships
Stages of romantic relationships
Romantic intent
Long distance relationships
Knapp's relational development model
Escalation stages
Termination stages
 See also
References

Social maintenance behaviors

When maintaining a relationship, any behavior that is positive and promotes deepening trust and closeness
between people is a prosocial maintenance behavior. The more prosocial behavior is evident in a relationship,
the more likely for strong bonds to be formed, and the relationship to prosper and continue. Low levels of
Prosocial maintenance behavior gives less reinforcement in the relationship, and thus more a weak foundation
often leads to the relationships deterioration, or at least non-progression.[3]

Canary and Stafford created measures of five communication strategies: 1. Positivity, 2. Openness, 3.
Assurances, 4. Social Networks, and 5. Sharing Tasks.[4] Each of these qualities equates to spending time
together, and interacting either physically or emotionally.[3] Positivity refers to having a jolly attitude, even
when not necessarily feeling like doing so. This often means not participating in condemnation and negativity.
Canary and Stafford mentions openness in a way that encourages discussion in a relationship that is filled with
direction and goals. Social networks include having friends and family in your inner circle to help balance out
the relationship. Subsequent research has found that maintenance strategies strongly predict important
relational characteristics, such as commitment, relational satisfaction, stability, liking, and loving others.[4]

Prosocial maintenance behavior does not value one source of positivity more than the other, although the
individual might. Verbalizing fondness for a partner through positive speech might be what they crave in a
relationship, while another partner might find more affection in a willingness to help with household chores
together. This type of task sharing is also a part of what is known as routine maintenance, and a relatively
equal effort by each party is a prosocial function that greatly adds to relationship satisfaction.[3]

As a contrast to prosocial behavior that is used to strengthen bonds and reinforce a relationship, anti-social
maintenance behavior is another strategic behavior pattern that can be used to maintain a current relationship.
Its use of continuing a relationship at its current level, would be to decline invitations to opportunities to create
new levels of a relationship. By declining these opportunities, this exemplifies an Antisocial behavior, which is
generally deliberate in its implementation.[3]

Types of Relationships to Maintain

Mentor/Student Relationships

Daniel J. A. Rhind and Sophia Jowett of Brunel University conducted a study on relationship maintenance
strategies in coach-athlete relationships. They discovered the COMPASS Model which exposed seven main
groupings: conflict management, openness, motivation, positivity, advice, support, and social networks. The
COMPASS model was developed based on this analysis and was offered as a theoretical framework for
understanding how coaches and athletes might maintain the quality of their relationships.[5]

Friend Relationships

A recent study on Italians living as couples has shown that friendship relationships, beyond those within an
individual's family, are an important source of support. Here, we used data from Aspects of Daily Life, the
Italian National Statistical Institute's 2012 multipurpose survey, to analyze the relation between friendship ties
and life satisfaction. Our results show that friendship, in terms of intensity (measured by the frequency with
which individuals see their friends) and quality (measured by the satisfaction with friendship relationships), is
positively associated to life satisfaction.[6]In the first study of its kind, a University of Kansas professor has
defined the amount of time necessary to make a friend as well as how long it typically takes to move through
the deepening stages of friendship.[7] In a new report published in the Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, Associate Professor of Communication Studies Jeffrey Hall found that it takes roughly 50 hours
of time together to move from mere acquaintance to casual friend, 90 hours to go from that stage to simple
"friend" status and more than 200 hours before you can consider someone your close friend.[8] Just as time
and energy is put into creating a friendship, so is nurturing and maintaining that friendship. Maintaining a
friendship can take several forms, such as access to useful information, company (e.g., personal and intimate
relationships, time spent talking together, and shared amusement time or meals), and emotional (e.g., advice
about a serious personal or family matter) and instrumental (e.g., economic aid, administrative procedures,
house-keeping) support.[9]

Modality
Modes of communication vary from spoken to written, verbal to nonverbal, and face-to-face to computer-
mediated. Depending on the mode of communication, the same message can be interpreted in a different
way.[3] Therefore, different types of relationships can be maintained through different types of communication.

Face-to-face communication affords the greatest opportunity for precise communication because immediate
feedback from the receiver can tell whether the message has been understood accurately. Technology today
provides limited face-to-face communication to everyone, even those separated by long distance. Businesses
have used video conferencing for many years but programs like Skype now allow a personal face-to-face
conversation with anyone in the world. With the technological advancements that have taken place over the
past decade, communication has also evolved from handwritten letters to emails and text messaging and
significantly shortened response times.[3]

Romantic and close personal relationships use more openness and assurance maintenance behaviors and these
are easier to communicate in person. But even these close connections are relying on more computer mediated
communication today. Texting can have many uses, from coordinating task sharing to simply letting someone
know you are thinking about them. People may use Facebook to plan activities with others, announce new
relationships, and provide support and encouragement to those in need. Even the birthday card has migrated
online. Although technology cannot replace face-to-face communication in these cases, it can supplement and
reinforce the importance of the relationship.[3]

Casual connections do not need the same amount of attention as close friendships and romantic relationships.
Although there may be some face-to-face communication or telephone calls, social media such as Facebook is
enough to maintain an acquaintanceship. Here they can post photos and comments to maintain contact and
keep up on each other's lives. If someone is having a bad day, they can provide the necessary support and
positivity needed to maintain the relationship.[3]

Some relationships start and stay online. Individuals may meet through a message board or on Facebook while
living hundreds of miles away. These virtual relationships require the least amount of maintenance. People in a
virtual-only relationship may be highly committed to each other and display just as much maintenance
behavior as those in close proximity.[10]

A drawback to using only computer mediated communication is idealization which occurs when a person in a
relationship describes the relationship and partner in an unrealistically positive manner. Idealization often will
reflect unreal expectations.[3] Mediated communication allows people to control every aspect of the message
and they can present an image of themselves that is not real. Facebook relationship maintenance follows
implicit rules for interaction.[11] People expect others to present themselves on Facebook in a positive manner
and even to limit a post of anything that could hurt their own image or that of a friend. Even if those in a
virtual or long-distance relationship do arrange to meet in person, it is usually set up well in advance and
allows time to prepare for control of the encounter to reinforce the online image rather than the reality of their
life.[3]

Despite its drawbacks, computer-mediated communication has changed the way people maintain relationships.
Through the technological advancements that have taken place over the past twenty years, communication has
evolved from handwritten letters to emails to text messaging to Facebook to Skype, significantly shortening
response times with every step. The increased use and familiarity with technology, even as it evolves, will
result in user's adaptation to computer mediated communication and reduce some of the advantages of face-to-
face communication. However, the amount of time spent together improves the satisfaction in any relationship
and face-to-face communication is still recommended whenever possible.[3]

Strategic & routine maintenance behaviors

Behavior patterns in a relationship can be classified as being strategic or routine. Both are common behaviors,
though they are embodied in different ways and perhaps with different ulterior motives.[3]

A strategic maintenance behavior is an action that is strategically carried out to help maintain a relationship.
When you phone somebody to congratulate them on a birthday or anniversary, it is a deliberate action that
clearly shows you taking the time to show your affection for someone you have a relationship with. These are
clear strategic behaviors designed to give positive reinforcement.[3]

A routine maintenance behavior is less strategic and has more to do with the everyday tasks in life. For
example, if a wife is cleaning up from dinner, and her husband decides to take out the trash. This would be
considered a Routine Maintenance Behavior. They are used without the express purposes of maintaining a
relationship, yet they still help people preserve their bonds with one another.[3]

Statistically, couples have shown that routine maintenance means more to their relationship than strategic
maintenance does. Part of this has to do with the difference in routine maintenance and an exchange
relationship. The key difference being that benefits are given without one expected in return, as in an exchange
relationship. From this perspective the maintenance and enhancement of close relationships depends on the
extent that both people are concerned for each other's needs, and are willing and able to meet those needs.[12]

The 1980s witnessed increased scholarly interest in maintenance communication. For example,
communication strategies such as openness, avoidance, affinity-seeking, among a variety of other behaviors,
were presented as maintenance communicative strategies. Stafford and Canary performed factor analyses on
over 80 behaviors that the literature and married couples identified as maintenance behaviors. The results of
the factor analysis yielded five maintenance strategies: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and
sharing tasks.[4] Education on relationship maintenance can help people to best understand how to take care of
their interpersonal relationships. The real test of a relationship usually occurs when a conflict arises. Learning
the tactics researchers have found to be successful regarding how to maintain a healthy, happy relationship can
ensure a strong bond in personal relationships, despite hardships.

A lot of research on relationship maintenance has been conducted to better understand how people think,
respond, and act in their personal relationships. Ayers (1983) defined relational maintenance as keeping a
relationship in a stable state, thus preventing it from de-escalating or escalating.[13] Ayers conducted a study
that involved college students, both female and males. He gave these students a relationship scenario and
asked them the probability of using 28 strategies that were created by the author and accompanied by
undergraduate students' ideas to maintain the relationship in the given theoretical situation. The 28 strategies
suggested three different issues. The first being, avoidance strategies, which included simply ignoring the
things (big or small) that may occur in a relationship in order to not modify the relationship. The second issue
being, balance strategies, which involved keeping balance present in the relationship such as keeping favors
and emotional support steady and/or persistent. The final issue was directness strategies, which was where one
of the two people in the relationship communicates that the relationship should remain unchanged. The most
reported strategy was balance strategies followed by avoidance strategies then directness strategies regardless
of the relationship condition (trying to maintain when partner wants to escalate, de-escalate, or maintain). This,
regardless of perceived partner intent, individuals primarily maintain their relationship through balance and
avoidance strategies rather than directness strategies.[13]

Romantic relationships

Stages of romantic relationships

Romantic relationships have an extra element that is not found in friendship relationships. In romantic
relationships, there is the intimacy element that is added. This is physical intimacy and a deeper emotional
intimacy than a friendship would have. There are four relationship stages when it comes to romantic
relationships:[14]

1. Casually dating
2. Seriously dating
3. Engaged
4. Married.

It was reported that married and engaged couples used more assurances and task sharing than did dating
couples. However, engaged and seriously dating couples reported that they used openness and positivity more
than did married couples. Married couples reported the most social networking. Daters tended to be more
social with one another. For example, they called and sent each other notes and cards more than the married
couples did.[3]

Partners tend to disclose more information early on in their relationship stages. Then they get to know one
another better.[15]

In the marriage stage of relationships, couples tend to have a curvilinear pattern. They use maintenance
behavior early on in the relationship and then also in the later years of their marriage.[16] Partners tend to be
very excited about the new marriage and work at the relationship maintenance. As the years progress they may
shift focus to family or careers, but then later on when their children have grown and they are settled in their
careers the focus may come back to the relationship maintenance since the couple have fewer distractions.[3]

Romantic intent

There are four types of cross-sex friendships that are different in terms of romantic intent. Strictly platonic
groups have both sides saying they do not want anything romantic out of the relationship. Those in mutual
romance groups both want the friendship to become romantic. Individuals in a desires-romance group indicate
that they wanted the friendship to become romantic, but the partner indicate they want to stay friends. Last, the
rejects-romance group said that they would like the friendship to stay platonic, but the other person wanted it
to become romantic.[17]

Friends who have romantic intentions are more likely to use prosocial maintenance behavior. Friends that want
to move to romantic relationships use more maintenance behaviors, as increases in maintenance behavior mark
a change from friendship to romance.[17]
Groups that wished to keep the relationship platonic or with only one person interested in romance utilize less
relationship maintenance. These groups tend to talk about outside relationships and there is activity done
together and less flirtations used.[17]

Long distance relationships

This type of relationship can be one of the most challenging relationships to maintain. One of the main
challenges in maintaining a long-distance relationship is the lack of face-to-face contact and
communication.[18] Face-to-face communication is thought to be the adhesive that holds a romantic
relationship together. When couples are able to have face-to-face communication, they are able to do things
together, and interact with each other in a physical manner.

People in long-distance relationships typically use less maintenance behaviors, such as openness, assurances,
and joint activities, than people who are in a geographically close relationship.[19][20]

Individuals in long-distance relationships are usually on their best behavior when they are able to be together
in person. Compared to those in geographically close relationships, people in long-distance relationships tend
to engage in fewer joint activities and less task sharing and social networking.[19][21]

When compared to those in proximal relationships, partners in long-distance relationship often perceive that
their communication with one another was more restricted but of higher quality.[22] It may be the quality of the
communication rather than the quantity that is most important in keeping a lasting long-distance relationship
working.[19]

Knapp's relational development model

Knapp's relational development model outlines a form by which relationships are formed and dissolved. The
building up and breaking down of relationships is given in ten stages. Maintenance in Knapp's model accounts
for the struggle that exist between the fifth stage, bonding, and the sixth stage, differentiation.

Bonding allows a dyad to demonstrate to society that they are connected, such as through a marriage
ceremony. Differentiation allows for individuals in the couple to maintain their personal space, such as through
having their own friends, hobbies, or careers. Relationship maintenance exists in the delicate balance between
bonding and differentiation. Should a couple begin to differentiate to a great degree, they will likely begin to
fall into relationship dissolution.[23]

Relationships in both romantic and business manners can be identified through ten steps, which Mark Knapp
identified and named Knapp's relationship model.[24] The first five steps involved are coming together stages
known as escalation, and the latter five steps involved are termination or de-escalation model. The stages of a
relationship can be compared to an elevator ride and how it goes either up to higher levels of intimacy, or goes
down to termination.[25] Time spent on each level may differ depending on speed of the relationship or
intimacy shared. Different levels can remain at the highest stage. On the other hand, levels can be entirely
skipped or surpassed. Researchers agree that relationships are always moving either forward or back, and
communication indicators can determine the stage of the relationship.

Escalation stages
1. Initiating – This stage is the shortest and is composed of noticing and forming first impressions
based on verbal and non-verbal communication. This stage usually involves small talk. Also
often heavily based on physical appearance such as characteristics, clothing, and general
presentation.
 2. Experimenting – Finding a common ground by sharing interests and hobbies or other activities.
Commonly asking questions such as "What do you do for fun" or "What do you study in school"
are used to establish common grounds.[26] This stage is usually a determining stage in
deciding to move forward with the relationship or not.
3. Intensifying – Intensifying involves increased physical touch, especially in public. Much more
time in private life is spent with the significant other. Individuals begin to look for more
commitment. Feelings are beginning to be disclosed as intimate relationship forms.
4. Integrating – At this stage, the bond becomes closer into possible labels of boyfriend and
girlfriend. People begin to see the dyad as a single unit. Relationship becomes very close and
intimate. Words like "I" or "me" become "ours."
5. Bonding – Last is the bonding stage, which involves the declaration of your status in a formal
manner. You legally become bonded as one. Commitments are made and you are there for
each other through difficult times. The relationship can only be broken through death or formal
agreements.

Contrary to the escalation stages are the termination stages. Termination can be sensed even before it happens
through non-verbal cues such as a decrease in physical touch, eye contact, etc.

Termination stages
1. Differentiation – The stage is the beginning of the termination process beginning with a
decrease in physical contact or the closeness that you had when in the escalation stages. A
shift from shared identity changes over to individual identities. Distance grows between
partners and pressure begins to build.
2. Circumscribing – Communication begins to become less frequent and transparent as
boundaries are created. The decrease in communication is caused because of unwanted
arguments. Rather than sharing problems, talk revolves around mundane topics. Lack of
interest in this stage is still hard to pick up from outsider views. Space begins to grow and the
relationship declines.
3. Stagnating – Relationship becomes shallow and boring with routines. Even as you go through
the routines, you do not care much for the outcome of the relationship. Your lack of interest
begins to show to friends and family through lack of communication both verbal and non-verbal.
Much work needs to be done to recover to a healthy point if the relationship is to continue.
4. Avoiding – You begin to avoid each other completely instead of bearing through the routines.
Partners restrict themselves from contact not just in person, but also via electronic
communication.
5. Termination – This is the final point in de-escalation known as terminating. Partners end their
relationship formally and an agreement is reached, usually divorce for marriage situations.
Conversations following the terminating stage are of practical matters such as how to divide
property or legal matters. The terminating stage can be positive or negative. New beginnings
can result after this stage.

After the termination stages runs its course, relationships often return to the friendship status or complete
avoidance. If relationships started in the friendship stage and comes to an end in a positive note, friendship
status is more likely to be achieved.

See also
Interpersonal communication relationship dissolution
Relationship forming
Socionics
References
1. Dindia, K., & Canary, D.J. (1993). (Eds.), Relational Maintenance. Special issue, Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 10.
2. Wilmot 1987 W.W. Dyadic Communication New York Random House
3. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2007). Close encounters: communication in
relationships (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
4. Canary, Daniel J. (2016). "Relationship Maintenance Strategies" (http://wggc.yale.edu/sites/def
ault/files/files/Relationship%20Maintenance%20Strategies.pdf) (PDF).
5. Wachsmuth, Svenja; Jowett, Sophia; Harwood, Chris G. (2020-01-30). "Third party
interventions in coach-athlete conflict: Can sport psychology practitioners offer the necessary
support?" (https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1723737). Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology. 0 (0): 1–26. doi:10.1080/10413200.2020.1723737 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F104
13200.2020.1723737). ISSN 1041-3200 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1041-3200).
6. Amati, Viviana; Meggiolaro, Silvia; Rivellini, Giulia; Zaccarin, Susanna (2018). "Social relations
and life satisfaction: the role of friends" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC593787
4/). Genus. 74 (1). doi:10.1186/s41118-018-0032-z (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs41118-018-00
32-z). ISSN 0016-6987 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0016-6987). PMC 5937874 (https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937874). PMID 29755134 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/29755134).
7. "It takes time to make friends" (https://news.ku.edu/2018/03/06/study-reveals-number-hours-it-ta
kes-make-friend). The University of Kansas. 2018-03-06. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
8. "It takes time to make friends" (https://news.ku.edu/2018/03/06/study-reveals-number-hours-it-ta
kes-make-friend). The University of Kansas. 2018-03-06. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
9. Amati, Viviana; Meggiolaro, Silvia; Rivellini, Giulia; Zaccarin, Susanna (2018). "Social relations
and life satisfaction: the role of friends" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC593787
4/). Genus. 74 (1). doi:10.1186/s41118-018-0032-z (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs41118-018-00
32-z). ISSN 0016-6987 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0016-6987). PMC 5937874 (https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937874). PMID 29755134 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/29755134).
10. Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and
offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58, 315-337.
11. Marmo, J., and Bryant, E. M. (2010, November). The rules of Facebook friendship: A two-stage
examination of interaction rules in close, casual, and acquaintance friendship. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Francisco.
12. Harvey, J. H., & Wenzel, A. (2001). Close romantic relationships maintenance and
enhancement. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Canary, Daniel (2003). Maintaining Relationships through Communication.
14. Stafford, L., & Canary, D. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 217-242.
15. Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns,
variations associated with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics.
Communication Monographs, 52-66.
16. Weigel, D., & Ballard-Reisch, D. (1999). The influence of marital duration on the use of
relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 59-70.
17. Guerrero, L., & Chavez, A. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships
characterized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of
Communication, 341-360.
18. Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37-54.
19. Johnson, A. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between
geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication Quarterly, 424-435.
20. Van Horn, K., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., & Giffin, M. (1997). Physical
distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students' romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 15-24.
21. Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and
maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication
Quarterly, 172-188.
22. Stafford, L., & Reske, J. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital
relationships. Family Relations, 274-279.
23. Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye (pp. 5-7). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
24. "Knapp's Relationship Model" (http://communicationtheory.org/knapps-relationship-model/).
Communication Theory. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
25. "Riding the relationship escalator (or not)" (http://solopoly.net/2012/11/29/riding-the-relationship
-escalator-or-not/). SoloPoly. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
26. "Questions to Ask" (https://www.sociotelligence.com/questions-to-ask/). sociotelligence.
Retrieved 2019-02-03.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relationship_maintenance&oldid=986159500"

This page was last edited on 30 October 2020, at 04:20 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.