See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314633011

Models of Relationship Development

Chapter · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic028

CITATIONS READS
2 5,241

1 author:

Jesse Fox
The Ohio State University
73 PUBLICATIONS 9,084 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jesse Fox on 10 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Models of Relationship Development

Jesse Fox
The Ohio State University
fox.775@osu.edu

Word count (not including abstract, including all refs & cross-refs): 3,672

Abstract

Several factors predict relationship development, including physical attractiveness, similarity,

proximity, and complementarity. Given this variety of factors, several theories and models have
been proposed to predict how relationships evolve, including filter theory, social exchange
theories, resource theory, equity theory, interdependence theory, social penetration theory,
uncertainty reduction theory, predicted outcome value theory, uncertainty management theory,
anxiety and uncertainty management theory, Knapp’s relational stage model, relational
dialectics, turning points, stimulus-value-role theory, the premarital dyadic formation model, and
the hyperpersonal model. Despite extensive theorizing, there are many venues for future research
in this area, including empirical testing of understudied models; testing competing hypotheses
presented by contrasting models; and expanding research to consider understudied relationship
types such as cross-generational friendships or gay and lesbian romantic relationships. With the
growing use of mediated communication in relationships, another necessary pursuit is re-
examining the viability of models and theories considering features and affordances of
communication technologies.

Several models have been proposed to explain how human relationships develop over time. The
foundational theories of relational development emerged in the mid-twentieth century from
psychology and sociology. Many of these theories are construed broadly to apply to all
relationships; others are specific to a type of relationship (e.g., romantic relationships or
friendships) or context (e.g., computer-mediated communication).

Factors predicting relational development

To understand how relational development occurs, it is necessary to consider why individuals

pursue relationships after an initial encounter. Perhaps the most basic reason is physical
attractiveness. According to evolutionary psychological or biosocial explanations, attractiveness
indicates that a person is a healthy and thus a desirable potential mate. Culturally, attractive
individuals are often considered higher status and thus perceived as rewarding. Explanations
such as the halo effect suggest individuals may also seek relationships with attractive people
because they believe they have other desirable traits, such as intelligence or kindness.
The similarity hypothesis suggests that people are attracted to others who are like them.
As the number of perceived commonalities increase (e.g., similar attitudes, values, or personality
traits), liking increases. Similar interests and goals also suggest longer-term compatibility.
Proximity is another predictor, in part because it increases the likelihood of interaction, but also
because proximity is often associated with similarity (e.g., choosing to live in the same
neighborhood or work at the same company may indicate similar values or social status).
Several other factors have also been identified as predecessors to relational development,
such as reciprocal liking, complementary needs, and competence. Given this variety of
explanatory mechanisms for relationship escalation, it is unsurprising that there are several
approaches to understanding relational development.

Filter theory

Duck (1977) proposed a series of filters that individuals use to determine attraction to another
party. First, individuals apply a filter of sociological or incidental cues to determine the
likelihood of future interactions with the person. Next, individuals evaluate pre-interaction cues
such as physical appearance to infer status, personality, or potential similarities. Once direct
communication is initiated, interaction cues are examined. Individuals judge the fluidity of
interactions, responsiveness of the other party, nonverbal cues, and conversational content.
Finally, cognitive cues come into play as individuals process the information gained through
interaction. Duck claims that higher levels of attraction occur once a party has passed through all
four filters, and that this process determines the likelihood of pursuing a relationship.

Uncertainty reduction and management

Uncertainty reduction theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese, 1975) posits that uncertainty is
unpleasant and humans are driven to reduce it in interpersonal interactions. When individuals are
considering a relationship, they wish to reduce the amount of uncertainty regarding the partner
and the status of the relationship. Thus, interactions are driven by the goal of reducing
uncertainty about the target and learning enough to predict his or her future behavior. As
communication between partners increases, uncertainty is reduced and greater intimacy is
experienced.
According to URT, there are three stages of interaction: the entry phase, the personal
phase, and the exit phase. The entry phase is guided by implicit and explicit rules for socially
normative interaction. Communication is structured and typically symmetrical. Based on
experience in the entry phase, the individual decides whether to continue to the next level. The
personal phase typically takes place over the course of several encounters. During this time,
individuals discuss attitudes, personal information, and begin to explore socially undesirable
topics. Communication is more spontaneous and less structured. The exit phase is when
individuals decide whether they will continue future interactions with this partner.
Uncertainty reduction may be accomplished via three strategies. Passive strategies
include the unobtrusive gathering of data (e.g., from observing the target) or any technique that
does not involve interaction with the partner. Active strategies include asking a third party to
provide information about the target or manipulating the environment to elicit information.
Interactive strategies involve direct communication with the partner and soliciting self-
disclosure.
Although many of URT’s original theorems and axioms were not supported by
subsequent research, it has served great heuristic value. One reformulation of URT suggests that
it is not uncertainty that drives interactions. According to predicted outcome value theory, the
primary goal is to maximize the potential for desirable outcomes, and uncertainty reduction is a
possible secondary goal. Anxiety and uncertainty management theory, on the other hand,
suggests that anxiety was the underlying force driving uncertainty reduction and may interfere
with communicative efforts. Another development is uncertainty management theory, which
suggested that individuals may appraise uncertainty in many ways (not just negatively or
anxiously) and then use various communicative acts to address that uncertainty.

Social exchange theories

Social exchange theories propose that individuals take a practical approach to personal
relationships. Guided by self-interest, individuals regularly ascertain the value of staying in the
relationship compared to leaving it (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Specifically, they contrast the
rewards they receive from the relationship (e.g., companionship, affection, shared financial
burden) with the costs they incur (e.g., time, shared goods, conflict).
In the process of interaction and relational development, relational currencies are
exchanged. These may be economic or tangible (such as money) or social or intangible (such as
love). Foa and Foa (1974) elaborated resource theory, which suggested that people are attracted
to those who can provide desired resources. They identified six types of resources (love, status,
information, money, goods, and services) that vary on two dimensions: particularism (i.e., the
degree to which a resource’s value is tied to the person who is providing it) and concreteness
(i.e., the degree to which the resource can be clearly identified and tracked in the process of
exchange). For example, love is high on particularism because it matters who is providing it and
low on concreteness because it is difficult to determine the boundaries or definition of its
exchange between partners.
Social exchange theories state that individuals use the rule of distributive justice in
evaluating their resources to determine whether they will further escalate or maintain a
developing relationship. This analysis is not limited to an as-is assessment of costs and benefits
at that point in time; rather, it considers relational history as well as future likelihood. If the
rewards are not proportional to the costs, an individual may feel underbenefited and leave the
relationship. When partners strike a balance of perceived rewards and costs, they experience
relational equity, which often leads to greater satisfaction and intentions to continue the
relationship. Equity theory suggests that those in relationships try to keep their cost-benefit ratio
the same as their partner’s cost-benefit ratio. Resources exchanged within the relationship may
be very dissimilar to each other, yet equity may still be established.
Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed interdependence theory, suggesting that the
individual uses social cues to make two types of comparisons when evaluating the rewards and
costs of being in a relationship. The comparison level is an assessment of one’s satisfaction
compared to one’s expectations, often shaped by previous experience or observations of similar
dyads. For example, Zachary may compare his relationship to his previous relationship or his
friends’ relationships to provide context for his level of satisfaction. The comparison level for
alternatives is an assessment of the desirability of one’s alternatives compared to staying in the
current relationship. For example, if Kara is having trouble with her roommate, she may weigh
alternatives such as finding a new roommate or living alone. If the alternatives meet a threshold,
the individual will leave the original relationship to pursue an alternative.
Thibaut and Kelley also described the process of relationship development from an
exchange perspective. Initially, individuals engage in low-cost exchanges to assess the viability
of the relationship. Although these interactions are often problematic because communication is
guided by stereotypes and inaccurate expectations, they give individuals a chance to develop
attraction and a sense of future exchanges. After these initial exchanges, there are four steps of
relationship development. First, the individual must determine that the relationship will be
rewarding and that the partner will provide mutual benefits. Second, the individual must assure
the partner that he or she has similar goals and is willing to provide mutual benefits. Third,
partners commit themselves to the relationship, perhaps publicly, and mutually agree to broaden
their exchanges. Finally, partners achieve a level of certainty that future exchanges will continue.
Levinger (1974) built upon the assumptions of social exchange and elaborated another
model based on partners’ level of relatedness. At level zero, partners are unaware of each other’s
existence. At level one, partners become aware of each other, although they do not interact. At
level two, surface contact occurs. Like many other models, interaction at this stage is relatively
shallow and guided by social norms. If the partners are satisfied with this level of communication
and have grown to like or feel similar to each other, they may ascend to the next level. Level
three is characterized by mutual self-disclosure and increasing relational depth.

Social penetration theory

Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory (SPT) is a social exchange theory,
suggesting that individuals attempt to maximize the rewards and minimize the costs of their
relationships. SPT suggests that as relationships develop over time, individuals proceed through
stages in which they self-disclose to attain increasing levels of intimacy.
An onion metaphor is often employed to explain how individuals maintain many layers
of self, wherein the outside layer is the publicly observable self and private information is stored
at deeper layers that must be uncovered. Over time, individuals share more breadth (i.e., a wider
variety of topics) and depth (i.e., more private) of information about themselves to develop
closeness. The norm of reciprocity governs the exchange of personal information between
interactants. Individuals use self-disclosure to peel back layers and intensify the relationship,
constantly evaluating the costs and benefits of this self-revelation and growing intimacy.
Social penetration theory posits four stages of relational development. The orientation
stage takes place when individuals meet and are getting to know each other. At this stage,
individuals engage in superficial small talk and share public information without much depth.
Communication at this stage is bound by social norms of appropriateness, and individuals often
focus on conveying positive image. In the exploratory affective stage, slightly deeper self-
disclosure occurs across a broader range of topics. Individuals reveal more about their personal
opinions and attitudes. At this stage, they may consider themselves casual acquaintances or
friends; many relationships do not surpass this stage. In the affective exchange stage, feelings of
intimacy escalate as more private information is exchanged. Individuals are comfortable with
each other and may reveal deeper facets of the self, including values, goals, or fears. Negative
information such as criticism may also be exchanged. In the stable exchange stage, partners are
comfortable disclosing deep, private matters as they have achieved a level of mutual
understanding. Communication is efficient and may be predictable at times as partners are
familiar with each other’s patterns. Only a few of an individual’s relationships reach this stage.

Knapp’s relational stage model

Knapp’s (1978) dual staircase model elaborates how relationships escalate, stabilize, and decline
over time through communicative processes. The model assumes relationships escalate in five
distinct stages: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding. Each stage in the
development process is characterized by unique phenomena that allow researchers to
differentiate between stages. Initiating is defined as the first interaction between two individuals.
It occurs immediately upon meeting someone and involves making a first impression. Initiating
is often dictated by social norms and standards for greeting another person; introductions and
superficial topics dominate initial conversation. Experimenting is the next stage, wherein couples
seek more in-depth information as a means of determining whether or not a potential romantic
partner would be a good fit. Typically, this stage immediately follows the initiating stage,
particularly if romantic sparks fly. Experimenting may involve posing direct or indirect questions
to the target or asking a common acquaintance about the potential partner to reduce uncertainty.
Experimenting might also involve the use of tests within the relationship to evaluate the interest
or commitment level of the target. Information is gathered and weighed, as the initial stages of
relationships require that individuals filter information about a potential romantic partner.
The next stage in escalation, intensifying, occurs when the relationship becomes less
scripted. Relational partners’ self-disclosure increases and relational commitment begins to
manifest. During the integrating stage, couples form a sense of shared, public relational identity.
Couples are less likely to rely on social norms to dictate their relationship and instead focus on
connectedness within the dyad. In this stage, couples typically refer to themselves as “we” and
“us” as a way to assume an interdependent relational identity. Finally, couples publicly announce
their relationship which is often solidified in the formal, sometimes legal (e.g., marriage or civil
union) bonding stage of Knapp’s model. Knapp also proposes five stages of decline that can
occur.

Dialectics in relational development

According to this perspective, reality is a dynamic process of motion and change driven by the
interplay of opposing forces of unity (centripetal) and forces of difference (centrifugal; Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996). Relationships involve two partners attempting to balance the effects of
forces acting to simultaneously bring them together and pull them apart. These forces manifest
themselves in specific areas of tension known as dialectics, which are uniquely experienced in
every relationship. Furthermore, dialectical tensions are interrelated and continuously in flux. It
is worth noting that in 2011, Baxter made significant reformulations to the theory such that she
referred to it as “relational dialectics theory 2.0.”
Three primary dialectics have been identified consistently in research: integration-
separation, stability-change, and expression-privacy. Dialectics occur both internally (within the
social unit) and externally (between the couple and the larger social system). The poles of the
different dialectics represent seemingly contradictory, yet equally important needs that
individuals and couples possess.
Integration-separation (i.e., autonomy-connection) captures the basic tension between
interdependence and individuation. According to relational dialectics theory, individuals must
retain some of their autonomy within the couple while also maintaining connection to their
partner. Thus, in the process of relationship development, partners seek unity as a couple but also
need to maintain a sense of self. The couple must integrate itself with the greater social network,
but also maintain the couple as a separate unit.
 Stability-change (i.e., predictability-novelty) refers to the fundamental opposition
between continuity and discontinuity. In scholarship on dialectics, stability and change are often
discussed in terms of uncertainty. In relational development, partners may want to achieve
stability through disclosure and reducing any unwanted uncertainty about each other. On the
other hand, developing relationships require change as partners’ emotional closeness develops.
Some novelty is also required to keep the relationship from seeming stagnant.
Finally, expression-privacy (i.e., openness-closedness) captures the tension between what
is shared and what is not. In the process of relational development, partners must disclose
enough to foster intimacy and trust, but also be cautious not to reveal too much too quickly.
Also, partners may have topics that they wish to remain private. Thus, acceptable levels of
expression must be negotiated as the relationship progresses.
Couples manage tensions through communication known as praxis patterns. Praxis
patterns vary widely in functionality and the degree to which they facilitate positive
communication in a relationship. Some praxis patterns include denial (i.e., ignoring one pole of
the dialectical tension) and balance (i.e., partially addressing each pole without completely
fulfilling either).

Turning points

According to Baxter and Bullis (1986), relationships are not as neat and linear as many models
seem to suggest. Rather, relationships can follow any number of trajectories in which
development may go faster or slower, skip stages, or even go backwards in the midst of moving
forward.
The concept of turning points suggests that there are often specific events that transpire
and change the course of the relationship. Thus, turning point analysis can be useful in studying
relational development to identify periods of rapid escalation, de-escalation, or re-escalation.
For example, in a romantic relationship, partners can identify a specific time when physical
intimacy escalated. In a friendship, friends might recognize a time of crisis that solidified the
relationship. It is important to note, however, that what may be perceived as a turning point for
one partner may not be perceived as such by the other partner.

Stimulus-value-role theory

Murstein (1970) developed stimulus-value-role theory to describe how equity needs evolve over
the course of the relationship. At the stimulus stage, very little information is available about the
partner. The individual perceives and interprets the partner’s external cues (such as physical
attractiveness) as well as making a self-assessment of these same areas. If an individual is
attracted to the partner and feels that attraction will be reciprocated and exchange will be
rewarding, the relationship progresses to the next stage. In the value stage, compatibility is
assessed more deeply, particularly in regards to values. Resources are assessed and costs and
benefits are weighed. If both partners perceive that equity can be achieved among resources, the
relationship progresses to the third stage. In the role stage, partners assess the compatibility
between their respective relational roles. These roles may be similar or complementary, but the
focus is whether or not partners feel these roles permit the maintenance of equity in the
relationship. According to Murstein, few relationships ever reach the role stage.
Premarital dyadic formation model

Lewis (1972) developed a model specific to romantic relationships. In the premarital dyadic
formation (PDF) model, romantic partners go through six sequential phases. First, partners
engage in similarity perception to determine potential compatibility. Once similarities are
identified, pair rapport grows, yielding feelings of satisfaction with the relationship. In the third
phase, partners engage in self-disclosure and reveal more private information about the self to
promote deeper bonding. This additional information enables partners to engage in the fourth
phase of role-taking, adopting the perspective of the other and developing greater identification
with and sympathy for the partner. In the fifth phase, role fit, partners reflect on their similarity
and complementarity to determine the most compatible and satisfying interactions. Finally, in the
sixth phase, partners reach the stage of dyadic crystallization. At this point partners are
intimately involved in each other’s lives and have developed a joint identity as a couple.

Hyperpersonal model

Increasingly, relationship development occurs via technologically-mediated communication.

Walther’s (1996) hyperpersonal model was developed to explain how computer-mediated
communication (CMC) may yield different outcomes than face-to-face communication in
impression formation and relationship development.
The hyperpersonal model has four components: senders who selectively self-present;
receivers who overattribute similarity to the sender; an asynchronous channel; and a feedback
loop that may result in behavioral confirmation. In technologically-mediated communication,
senders have the ability to control or selectively present themselves and are more conscious of
how information is being presented. Given the sender’s crafted self-presentation, the receiver
then perceives the sender in an idealized manner. The asynchronous channel centers on the
medium used by the sender and receiver; given the time lag in asynchronous exchanges, users
can manipulate the flow of disclosure. Finally, when the receiver provides feedback, he or she
may reinforce the sender’s modified self-presentation. The hyperpersonal model would suggest
that due to these processes, CMC yields different perceptions and expectations for the relational
partner than what would have developed had they interacted face-to-face.

Future directions

Going forward, research on models and theories of relationship development has many different
areas in which to expand. First, several proposed models (e.g., Knapp’s model) lack substantial
empirical testing. More studies need to test the propositions of these models and also need to test
competing predictions from these models. Second, much of the supporting research is focused on
specific populations (e.g., heterosexual romantic relationships or same-sex, same-culture, same-
aged friendships). The applicability of these models need to be evaluated across a variety of
relationships (e.g., gay and lesbian romantic relationships; cross-sex, cross-cultural, or cross-
generational friendships). Third, these models and theories need to be tested in light of the
growing pervasiveness of mediated interpersonal communication. The availability of vast
amounts of personal information via social networking sites and other online sources may
confound tenets that are common to many of these models (e.g., gradual self-disclosure or
 reciprocity in self-disclosure). Models and theories should be re-examined within the ever-
evolving contexts of human relationships.

SEE ALSO: Dialectical Tensions in Relationships; Models of Relationship Disengagement;

Relational Turning Points; Relational Uncertainty; Self-Disclosure; Social Exchange Theories;
Social Penetration Theory; Uncertainty and Relationship Development; Uncertainty
Management Theory; Uncertainty Reduction Theory

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12, 469-493. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00088.x
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:
Guilford.
Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2),
99-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Duck, S. W. (1977). Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic
Press.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Oxford, England: Charles C.
Thomas.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Levinger, G. (1974). A three-level approach to attraction: Toward an understanding of pair
relatedness. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 99-120). New
York: Academic Press.
Lewis, R. A. (1972). A developmental framework for the analysis of premarital dyadic
formation. Family Process, 11, 17-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1972.00017.x
Murstein, B. I. (1970). Stimulus-value-role: A theory of marital choice. Journal of Marriage
& the Family, 32, 465-481.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001

Further reading

Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of relationship initiation.
NewYork: Psychology Press.
Wright, K. B., & Webb, L. M. (Eds.). (2011). Computer-mediated communication in personal
relationships. New York: Peter Lang.

View publication stats