Synthesis

Overall, the studies on couple talks and romantic relationships were conducted in many
countries like United States (Karan et al., 2018; Manusoy et al., 2018; Vickery, 2018; Lefebvre
et al., 2019; Knopp et al., 2020; Denes et al., 2020; Hogan et al., 2021), Malaysia (Rozaina et al.,
2018; Rozaina, 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2020; De Netto et al., 2021), South Africa
(Mohlatlole et al., 2018), Switzerland (Horn et al., 2018), Brazil (Delatorre & Wagner, 2019),
and meta-analysis from Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scielo (Gomez-Lopez et al.,
2019). Based on my time limitations, it shows that United States and Malaysia surpassed other
countries in conducting studies of couple talks and romantic relationships. Nevertheless, I found
that Malaysian is aware of the importance of this study to improve their interpersonal
communication in romantic relationships.

There were two approaches conducted by researchers in understanding couple talks and romantic
relationships from 2018 to 2021. First, qualitative approach by interviewing the informants
(Mohlatlole et al., 2018; Lefebvre et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2020),
and meta-analysis (Karan et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019). Second, quantitative approach
by using questionnaire instruments (Manusoy et al., 2018; Vickery, 2018; Horn et al., 2018;
Rozaina et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019; Denes et al., 2020;
De Netto et al., 2021; Hogan et al., 2021). Also, there is researchers that used both approaches to
explore deeper about couple talks and romantic relationships (Knopp et al., 2020). This reveals
that both approaches being used widely to understand more about the couple talks and romantic
relationships.

There were various elements of couple talks and romantic relationships found in the studies. The
findings can be classified into five stages of Knapp’s relational development stages model
(Knapp, 1978) which were bonding, differentiating, circumscribing, avoiding, and terminating.
The findings were categorized into these stages to give a better understanding of the couple talks
and romantic relationships context. For bonding stage, the findings revealed that shared couple
talks (Vickery, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019;
Knopp et al., 2020; Hogen et al., 2021), interpersonal conflicts resolved (Vickery, 2018; Gomez-
Lopez et al., 2019; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019; Knopp et al., 2020; De Netto et al., 2021), shared
laughter (Vickery, 2018; Horn et. al, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019),
committed to relationship status (Rozaina et. al, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019;
Knopp et al., 2020), physical intimacy (Horn et al., 2018; Rozaina et al., 2018; Rozaina, 2019;
Hogen et al., 2021), dyadic empathy (Manusoy et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Rozaina,
2019), receiving positive feedbacks (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019, De Netto et al., 2021), respect
and tolerance (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019), making plans (Vickery, 2018; Knopp
et al., 2020), romantic exclusivity (Rozaina et al., 2018; Knopp et al., 2020), financial wellness
(Rozaina et al., 2018; Rozaina, 2019), and showing affection (Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2019;
Rozaina, 2019) are the most important elements in building and getting connected in the
romantic relationships. In this bonding stage, there are other significant elements such as talk
about the future of the relationship (Knopp et al., 2020), sexual safety (Knopp et al., 2020),
expressing gratitude (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019), self-forgiveness (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019),
active listening (Manusoy et al., 2018), verbal expressivity (Manusoy et al., 2018), remembering
what partners said (Manusoy et al., 2018), and getting to know partner (Vickery, 2018).

Next stage, which was differentiating, the findings revealed that arguments (Gomez-Lopez et al.,
2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2019; De Netto et al., 2021; Hogen et al., 2021), judgment like
romantic expectations and reality (Karan et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019), criticism like
complaining about partner (Karan et al., 2018; Vickery, 2018), third-party interference (Rozaina
et al., 2018; Rozaina, 2019), negative verbal sensitivity (Manusoy et al., 2018), financial problem
(Mohlatlole et al., 2018), and lack of attractiveness (LeFebvre et al., 2019) would lead to a
worser situation or stage.

In circumscribing stage, the findings stated that lack of couple talks (Mohlatlole et al., 2018;
LeFebvre et al., 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al., 2019), lack of initiaties for improvement
(LeFebvre et. al, 2019; De Netto et al., 2021), sudden character change like from good character
to bad character (Mohlatlole et al., 2018; LeFebvre et al., 2019), emotional suppression (Gomez-
Lopez et al., 2019), and bad relationship condition (LeFebvre et al., 2019) were the elements that
contributed for partners to stay awkward in the romantic relationships.

As for avoiding stage, emotional and physical abuse (Mohlatlole et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et
al., 2019; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019), withdrawal from conversations (Delatorre & Wagner,
2019; Hogen et al., 2021), lack of attention to partner (De Netto et al., 2021), and infidelity
(Mohlatlole et al., 2018) were the findings at one point in the couples’ romantic relationships.
Hence, the findings show that the elements will lead to catastrophic situation.

The last stage, which was terminating, the worst stage in romantic relationships where it was
found that ghosting (Delatorre et al., 2019), and divorce (Mohlatlole et al., 2018) could happen.
Most couples would experience permanent abstinence of couple talks, and love feelings that lead
to hatred between them.

Based on the previous discussion in this chapter, there were two outcomes which were positive
and negative effects regarding to each element mentioned by the researchers in the context of
couple talks and romantic relationships. The first one positive effects, relationship satisfaction
(Karan et al., 2018; Rozaina et al., 2018; Manusoy et al., 2018; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Mohd
Nur Ruzainy et al., 2019; Rozaina, 2019; Denes et al., 2020; De Netto et al., 2021), better
conflict resolution (Karan et al., 2018; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019), closeness (Karan et al., 2018;
Knopp et al., 2020; Hogen et al., 2021), positive mental health of couples (Karan et al., 2018;
Denes et al., 2020), better well-being (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et al.,
2019), higher commitment (Karan et al., 2018), positive health behaviors (Karan et al., 2018),
healthy conversation (Horn et al., 2018), and positive qualities in relationship (Hogen et al.,
2021). Next, the negative effects found in the studies were dissatisfaction in relationship
(Manusoy et al., 2018; Mohlatlole et al., 2018; Knopp et al., 2020; De Netto et al., 2021; Hogen
et al., 2021), negative well-being (Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019), and negative qualities in
relationship (Hogen et al., 2021). These findings showed that negative outcomes would happen
too when

Based on my understanding, ……(stand point).

Relate dengan theory. Therefore, I see that Knapps Model.

Can discuss main theory and supportive theory.

Couple talks and romantic relationships: (stages)

Themes: bonding, differentiating, circumscribing, avoiding, terminating

1. Bonding

Findings: committed to relationship status (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; Knopp et. al, 2020;
Rozaina et. al, 2018; Rozaina, 2019), respect and tolerance (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; Rozaina,
2019), positive experiences- shared couple talks (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; Vickery, 2018;
Knopp et. al, 2020; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019; Rozaina, 2019; Hogen et. al, 2021) and
laughter (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019 Vickery, 2018; Horn et. al, 2018; Rozaina, 2019), expressing
gratitude (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019), dyadic empathy (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019, Manusoy et.
al, 2018; Rozaina, 2019), interpersonal conflicts resolved (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; De Netto
et. al, 2021; Vickery, 2018; Knopp et. al, 2020; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019), receiving positive
feedbacks (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019, De Netto et. al, 2021), self-forgiveness approach (Gomez-
Lopez et. al, 2019), active listening (Manusoy et. al, 2018), verbal expressivity (Manusoy et. al,
2018), remembering what partners said (Manusoy et. al, 2018), getting to know their partner
(Vickery, 2018), making plans (Vickery, 2018; Knopp et. al, 2020), the future of the relationship
(Knopp et. al, 2020), sexual safety (Knopp et. al, 2020), romantic exclusivity (Knopp et. al,
2020; Rozaina et. al, 2018), physical intimacy (Horn et. al, 2018; Rozaina et. al, 2018; Rozaina,
2019; Hogen et. al, 2021), financial wellness (Rozaina et. al, 2018; Rozaina, 2019), affection
(Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019; Rozaina, 2019)

2. Differentiating

Findings: criticism-complaining (Karan et. al, 2018; Vickery, 2018), judgment- romantic
expectations and reality (Karan et. al, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019), negative experiences-
arguments (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; De Netto et. al, 2021; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019;
Hogen et. al, 2021), negative verbal sensitivity (Manusoy et. al, 2018), financial problem
(Mohlatlole et. al, 2018), lack of attractiveness (LeFebvre et. al, 2019), third-party interference
(Rozaina et. al, 2018; Rozaina, 2019)
3. Circumscribing

Findings: emotional suppression (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019), patiently wait for improvement
(De Netto et. al, 2021; LeFebvre et. al, 2019), sudden character change- from good to bad
(Mohlatlole et. al, 2018; LeFebvre et. al, 2019), lack of couple talks (Mohlatlole et. al, 2018;
LeFebvre et. al, 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019), bad relationship condition (LeFebvre et.
al, 2019)

4. Avoiding

Findings: does not pay attention (De Netto et. al, 2021), emotional and physical abuse
(Mohlatlole et. al, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019), infidelity
(Mohlatlole et. al, 2018), withdrawal from conversations (Delatorre & Wagner, 2019; Hogen et.
al, 2021)

5. Terminating

Findings: ghosting (Delatorre et. al, 2019), and divorce (Mohlatlole et. al, 2018)

Effects (positive and negative)

Positive outcomes: relationship satisfaction (Karan et. al, 2018; Rozaina et. al, 2018; Manusoy
et. al, 2018; Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019; Rozaina, 2019; Denes et.
al, 2020; De Netto et. al, 2021), higher commitment (Karan et. al, 2018), better conflict
resolution (Karan et. al, 2018; Delatorre & Wagner, 2019), closeness (Karan et. al, 2018; Knopp
et. al, 2020; Hogen et. al, 2021), positive mental health outcomes (Karan et. al, 2018; Denes et.
al, 2020), positive health behaviors (Karan et. al, 2018), better well-being (Gomez-Lopez et. al,
2019; Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019), healthy conversation (Horn et. al, 2018), positive
qualities in relationship (Hogen et. al, 2021)

Negative outcomes: Negative well-being (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019), dissatisfaction in

relationship (Manusoy et. al, 2018; De Netto et. al, 2021; Mohlatlole et. al, 2018; Knopp et. al,
2020; Hogen et. al, 2021), negative qualities in relationship (Hogen et. al, 2021)
Karan et. al, 2018

 Relationship outcomes: marital satisfaction, commitment, conflict resolution, and

attachment.
 Relationship behaviors: criticism and judgment
 Positive mental health outcomes, positive health behaviors

Denes et. al, 2020

 Relationship satisfaction: men’s satisfaction

 Psychological outcomes: dampened cortisol level

Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019

 Relational variables: committed to relationship status, positive relationship quality,

positive experiences- shared couple talks and laughter, and expressing gratitude, negative
experiences- arguments, and violence, conflict resolution- dyadic empathy, interpersonal
conflicts resolved, and receiving positive feedbacks, dating violence- either form.
 Personal variables: belief system- romantic expectations and reality, behaviors- effective
coping methods in stressful couple talks, self-forgiveness approach, emotional
suppression
 Well-being: positive and negative
 Relationship satisfaction

Manusoy et. al, 2018

 Active listening, verbal expressivity, mindfulness- awareness, non-judgmental, negative

verbal sensitivity, processing- remembering what partners said
 Relationship satisfaction: positive and negative

De Netto et. al, 2021

  Communication process: Active-constructive accommodation- resolve, Passive-
constructive accommodation- Patiently wait for improvement, Active-destructive
accommodation- threatening, Passive-destructive accommodation- avoiding
 Active-constructive capitalization- happily react, Passive-constructive capitalization-
happy but not making it as a big deal, Active-destructive capitalization- finds it a
problem, Passive-destructive capitalization- does not pay attention
 Relationship satisfaction: positive and negative

Vickery (2018)

 relational talk- reminiscing, making up, love talk, and relationship talk, superficial talk-
current events talk, informal talk- catching up and getting to know their partner, deep
involving talk- serious talk, complaining, informal task types of talk- making plans

Mohlatlole et. al, 2018

 sudden character change, lack of couple talks, financial problems, emotional and physical
abuse, and infidelity
 divorce

Knopp et. al, 2020

 “defining us as a couple”, the future of the relationship (disagreement), sexual safety, and
romantic exclusivity
 planning ahead, resolving ambiguity, and relationship commitment
 Relationship changes: clarity, closeness- trust, and dissatisfied

LeFebvre et. al, 2019

 Lack of couple talks, permanent disappearance, convenience to ghost, lack of

attractiveness, sudden change in feeling, relationship condition, lack of safety
 Ghosting

Horn et. al, 2018

 Positive humor, physical intimacy

 Effect: healthy conversation
Delatorre & Wagner, 2019

 Attack- Physical and verbal abuse, compromise- negotiation and agreement and
avoidance- withdrawal

Rozaina et. al, 2018

 love and loyalty, shared values, physical intimacy, financial wellness and third-party
interference

Mohd Nur Ruzainy et. al, 2019

 Need of relationship: social support and affection

 factors determined strength of ties and social participation: Communication frequencies
and relationship conflict
 effect: well-being

Rozaina, 2019

 attitudes and actions of spouse- complementary roles, respect and tolerance, physical
intimacy, bonding and fulfilment, understanding and trust, couple talks, and humor,
relationship with others- in-law and children, finance and career, and religion

Hogen et. al, 2021

 activity together, couple talks, withdraw from conversations, arguing

 less and more closeness, less and more satisfied, and positive and negative qualities in
relationship
Knopp, Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2020)

 Topics discussed: “defining us as a couple”, the future of the relationship, sexual safety,
and romantic exclusivity
 Reason of couple talks: planning ahead, resolving ambiguity, and commitment

Horn, Samson, Debrot, and Perrez (2018)

 Daily positive humor in couple talks, momentary affect, and physical intimacy

Manusov, Stofleth, Harvey, and Crowley (2018)

 Active listening: sensing, processing, and responding

 Verbal communication aspect: social expressivity (SE), social sensitivity (SS), and social
control (SC)
 Nonverbal communication aspect: nonverbal emotional expressivity (EE), nonverbal
emotional sensitivity (ES), and nonverbal emotional control (EC)
 Mindfulness: nonreactivity, observing, acting with awareness, mindful describing, and
nonjudgment

Mohlatlole, Sithole, and Shirindi (2018)

 Divorce: sudden character change, lack of couple talks, financial problems, abuse, and
infidelity

LeFebvre, Allen, Rasner, Gastard, Wilms, and Parrish (2019)

 Ghosting: convenience, attractiveness, negative couple talks, relationship condition, and

safety

Karan, Rosenthal, and Robbins (2018)

 Relationship behaviors: criticism, and judgment

Vickery (2018)
  superficial talk, informal talk, relational talk, deep involving talk, complaining, and
informal task

Effects of couple talks in romantic relationships:

Theme: Relationship outcomes, psychological outcomes

1. Relationship outcome

Findings: Positive and negative outcomes

Positive outcome: relationship satisfaction (Karan et. al, 2018, Denes et.al, 2020, Gomez-Lopez
et. al, 2019, Horn et. al, 2018), higher commitment (Karan et. al, 2018), conflict resolution
(Karan et. al, 2018, Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019, De Netto et. al, 2021, Horn et. al, 2018) and
(what) attachment (Karan et. al, 2018, Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019, Knopp et. al, 2020, Horn et. al,
2018)

2. Psychological outcomes

Findings:

Positive outcome: positive mental health outcomes – what term (Karan et. al, 2018, Denes et. al,
2020), self-forgiveness (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019)

Negative outcome: dating violence- (what) (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019, Horn et. al, 2018),
emotional suppression (Gomez-Lopez et. al, 2019), dissatisfaction- (Knopp et. al, 2020)

3. Emotional
Karan, Rosenthal, and Robbins (2018)

 marital satisfaction, commitment, conflict resolution, and attachment

 Mental health outcomes

Denes, Crowley, Winkler, Dhillon, Ponivas, and Bennett (2020)

 Relationship satisfaction: men’s post-intervention satisfaction.

 Physiological stress: dampened cortisol responses

Gomez-Lopez, Viejo, and Ortega-Ruiz (2019)

 Relationship outcomes: relationship status, relationship quality, level of intimacy and

commitment, relationship history and experiences, couple talks resolution, and dating
violence
 Personal functioning: belief system, behaviors, self-forgiveness approach, and emotional
suppression

De Netto, Quek, and Golden (2021)

 Communication processes: active-constructive accommodation, passive-constructive

accommodation, active-destructive accommodation, passive-destructive accommodation,
active-constructive capitalization, passive-constructive capitalization, active-destructive
capitalization, and passive-destructive capitalization
 Relationship outcome: positive outcome according to communication process

Knopp, Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2020)

 Relationship changes because of couple talks: clarity, closeness, and dissatisfied with the
couple talks outcomes

Horn, Samson, Debrot, and Perrez (2018)

 Relationship satisfaction: daily positive humor in couple talks, momentary affect, and
physical intimacy

Delatorre and Wagner (2019)

 Conflict resolution method: attack, compromise, and avoidance

 Relationship quality: satisfaction, couple talks, shared interests, trust, and respect
Rozaina, Khamsiah, Sharifah Sariah, and Salmi (2018)

 Marital quality and satisfaction: love and loyalty, share values, sex and intimacy,
financial wellness and third- party interference

Mohd Nur Ruzainy, Siti Sarah, and Shahrul Nizam (2019)

 Need of relationship: Social support and affection

 Factors determined social support and affection: strength of ties and social participation
 Factors determined strength of ties and social participation: frequency of communication,
and interpersonal conflict

Rozaina (2019)

 Marital satisfaction: attitudes and actions of spouse, relationship with others, finance and
career, and religion
 Attitudes and actions: complementary roles, respect and tolerance, physical intimacy,
bonding, and fulfilment, and understanding and trust, couple talks, and humor